Theos-Talk Archives (March 1995 Message tl00305)

Bazzar,

As a seasoned Fundy I thought I would try to explain what Jerry
might have had in mind when he spoke about the parallels between
your arguement and that of the religious fundamentalist.

Jerry :

> The argument that it stands or falls on Masters sounds to me like
> the Christian fundamentalist attitude that the Bible must be
> believed because it is the very word of God.  Sorry Bazzer, I
> can't buy into either your idea of that of the fundamentalists.

>Don't feel the above para is in context with the point in
>question:-)

When I was in the hot bed of fundamentalism there was a
controversy called "biblical inerrency'.  It is a long drawn out,
and to me now ridiculous argument concerning the total
truthfulness of all statements in the Scripture including
scientific truth ie.  creation.  Well the arguement had its
meta-communications which suggested that if you stray from
inerrancy a series of departures from true faith would develop
such as a low Christology etc.  I call this approach the domino
theory that if you tip one thing the rest go.

Your argument on the veracity of both the Mahatma's and or
Blavatsky suggests that once certain theosophical truths are
departed from there is a domino effect that leads one to deny all
of theosophy.  Perhaps there should really be no, or little,
value in being a Theosophist but in using theosophy as a guide
and aid to spiritual development.  I think that Thesophy is self
authenticating and if the Mahatmas stand as mythic or historical
guides in your mind and in your spiritual life great but the need
to decide for others what constitutes a theosophist in the final
end is unnecessary.

Am I a theosophist? I have no idea but I do know that what I read
in theosophical literature and hear on the group has aided my
pilgrimage.  I am grateful to it but I will never allow myself
again to be defined by an external label or authority.

Art