Re: Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter w That statement could have been contradictory, but I'm assuming here that the notion of "subjective reality" is in force. lol. That's the idea that there is no objective reality, that all reality is subjective, that what is "real" to you depends on your point of view or frame of reference. I first got the idea from a Jew. It was a surprise coming from an adherent of one of the Abrahamic faiths. It changed not only my view of Judaism (that they must analyse things at a deeper level) but my own views concerning religion and spirituality in general. Up until then it was all legalism, morals and ethics. I suppose I was slowly coming to the same conclusion anyway even before I heard the term, but hearing someone actually mention it made me more aware of such a principle which got me thinking about it more, leading me more quickly to that understanding. So what's the Universal Mind? I had a look at the Wikipedia article (not sure how reliable that is) on Theosophy, and the closest thing I could find on all these Universal Concepts was the "Universal Paradigm." Proper and improper sexual activity? So what would you classify as proper and what as improper? Marriage, sex, sexuality, the emotional/spiritual bond . . . how do you see those things? I see that there's a lesson for each of the stories in ancient religions. Could I infer that Theosophy, therefore, applies a different interpretation (or has a different response) to Bible stories, for instance? Sometimes when I, personally, use the term "natural law" I mean either the natural physical laws (of the universe) or the Natural (Moral/Ethical) Law, which I often shorten to simply Natural Law. I usually mean the moral/ethical one. I'm assuming by usage that by "natural law" you're referring to natural physical laws and by Universal Law it's what I, up until now, call Natural Law (moral/ethical). Or . . . have I misunderstood things here . . . you were referring to natural physical laws in both cases, even Universal Law? I was assuming Universal Law referred to a moral/ethical principle. Or else . . . it was by "Law" that you were referring to moral/ethical law. It sometimes gets confusing with all these different "Law" terms. You don't know if it's about physical phenomena or morals and ethics. I suppose I could use marriage and divorce as an example. When married we are bound to one person for life, forbidden to have sexual relations with anyone else. If we file a divorce, we sever that bond and are then free to bond with someone else. With a tradition I suppose it's the same thing. Sever the bond and you are no longer bound to the rules of that tradition. It's like getting a divorce from that tradition. You can then bind with something else. Sorry I wasn't referring to Theosophy there. I was just explaining how a person who devoted himself to a particular path might see a particular task as part of their sacred duty. If we took all traditions that have been brought down through the generations, we'd have hundreds of paths with their walkers performing their respective tasks in relation to their sacred duty. Ideally we wouldn't ask these questions at all, even in religions that traditionally, do ask for these things. Reciting of dogma (ie. conformity) is done more for political reasons (ie. impressing and pleasing people, or letting them know you are on their side) then for actual spiritual reasons. It's much like putting a mark on people's heads. If we express things the same way, it's more likely that we pursue the same goals than if we did not. The reason why I don't agree with such "practices" is that it's not really spiritual. In religions where you have a relationship with God what matters is that you have a proper relationship with God, not whether you can chant the same slogans as another. I see, however, that conformity is different in Theosophy as it does, actually have a spiritual rather than a political purpose.