Theos-Talk Archives (February 1995 Message tl00114)

In message <199502140006.AA15291@vnet.net> theos-l@vnet.net writes:
>
> Comments -- Eldon Tucker
>
> Notes to Ann Bermingham & Kent Livingston, Dr. Bain, Murray
> Stentiford, Nancy Coker, and Keith Price.
>
> Dr. Bain:
>
> Regarding our becoming a lodge, my suggestion is still good:
> let's self-confer the honorary title of lodge upon
> ourselves. There's no rules, no moderator, no membership in
> any theosophical organization. Are we a lodge? There's the
> saying: "If it looks like a duck, it walks like a duck,
> etc., then it must be one."  It would be easy for John Mead
> at any time to make our lists into moderated lists, where he
> has the power to approve/reject any submissions before they
> go out. I'm glad that he has had the foresight to keep
> things complete open.

In that case Eldon I have nothing else to say but "QUACK!" <G>

> As to teaching reincarnation and karma to children, I think
> it depends on the interest and responsiveness of the
> particular child. If the parent is uncertain about the truth
> of the ideas, it would be best to keep silent until the
> child is old enough to sort out religion and philosophy on
> its own. If the parent is convinced and comfortable with the
> ideas, it's proper, I'd say, to teach the child when
> interest is shown. I would teach geography, mathematics, and
> psychology to my children when they are ready to learn,
> because I consider them "true" subjects and valuable to
> know. I'd put the doctrines of Theosophy in the same class.

I would not; there's the difference.  Theosophy is too broad a
heading to sit alongside geography and mathematics.  I see
Theosophy as a working hypothesis.  Suppose the parent is certain
about the truth of the ideas, and the parent is wrong?