Theos-Talk Archives (May 1994 Message tl00038)

hi --

I'm forwarding this from the alt.religion.eckankar discussions....
this puts Paul's post in an appropriate context...

Peace -- john mead

(i probably should have asked paul fist before posting...  oh well)

> To: jem
> Subject: (fwd) Spiritual Truth and Historical Truth
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.eckankar
> From: pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu (K. Paul Johnson)
> Subject: Spiritual Truth and Historical Truth
>
>   There seems to be a serious confusion over the relationship
> between spiritual truth and historical truth.  Historical truth
> is not a substitute for or superior to spiritual truth; no one
> can be presumed to be spiritually aware or wise just because he
> or she is historically accurate and has done good research.
> ON THE OTHER HAND it is completely unfair to refuse to consider
> historical research on its own merits because you feel the
> author to be spiritually unqualified to investigate the subject.
>
>   I just got my worst review of all time from a true believing
> Theosophist, and it sounds so much like some things said here
> about David Lane that I will repost it later to show how the
> sectarian mind works regardless of the sect in question.  But
> please try to understand that-- although spiritual truth does
> not DEPEND on historical truth for its value, it cannot
> CONFLICT with historical truth.  Therefore, no amount of
> "spiritual" abuse of the messengers has any relevance to the
> validity of the historical facts conveyed by them.