Re: CWL (fwded by jem)
Dec 22, 1994 11:31 AM
by K. Paul Johnson
> (from Liesel D.)
> In the middle of your post you say "I'd rather see healthy
> dialogue on this than avoidance." You for sure aren't avoiding
> anything in what you wrote, but I for one wouldn't call it a
> "healthy" dialogue. That's only my opinion ...others may differ.
Healthy by my definition means open, honest, and respectful of
one another's integrity.
> right, or whatever mixture of the 2 each person decides on. It
> is the individual's belief system, that is to be respected.
> There is no collective belief of the Theosophical Society. One
> member does not impose his/her beliefs on another member, nor one
> group on another group. I bet ULT, Pasadena, & Adyar could do
> that, if we all tried a little harder.
Much progress has been made in recent years.
> upbringing. Matter of fact, I once asked a competent present-day
> psychologist about masturbation & was told it was completely
Of course it is. But an adult male in a role of spiritual
advisor teaching it by "indicative action" involving physical
contact is not.
> had no access to that part, how do you figure that he was able to
> tell the whole story ?
Never figured that; but he studied more evidence than anyone
else ever has on the subject.
> Now we come to your belief that Adyar is dominated by the dark
Where in the world do you get such an idea? I believe no such
thing, and have inveighed against the very idea of the DB. I
said some people have taken this position! I deplore it! It's
totally reprehensible, and symptomatic of twisted thinking in the
anti-CWL camp, which is exactly the context in which I
> Mamma mi! You're free to believe in any boogey man your
> imagination desires. That's your problem. I hope you don't mind
> if I don't take it for real from my side.
And now you are getting abusive on the basis of a bizarre and
totally baseless misreading. Shame!
> points of agreement." Tell me, K Paul Johnson, what is it you're
> trying to accomplish? Universal Brotherhood?
I was trying to accomplish an open and mutually respectful exchange
with the person I thought you were. I'm deeply disappointed and
offended by what you are revealing yourself to be in this message.
> I think I've wasted enough time on this useless back & forth with
> you, so I probably won't answer any future communications from
> you on this subject.
OK. If you wanted to hurt someone, congratulations. Hope you're
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application