Theos-Talk Archives (August 1995 Message tl00380)

At 1:51 PM 8/30/95, Richtay@aol.com wrote:
>Daniel: "Objectively either YHWH's declarations are true or they are not.
>They are well founded or they are not.
>They are historically reliable or they are not.
>
>DO NOT call YHWH a master. He is either Master or not.
>His Masterful teachings declared Him Masters of all Masters
>and the Creator of all. There is no room to call Him good
>without also calling Him KING."
>
>Now here's a test for all those who think the teachings of Theosophy can be
>"expanded" upon or altered in any way one sees fit.
>
>Is the above quotation from our Yahwist friend "Theosophy" or is it not? If
>you say it is not, what are your grounds for saying so?
>
>Rich

I am not in the position to judge the Theosophical orthodoxy of the
Yahwist's proclamations. I am, however, well aware that tone of his post
has much more in common with varieties of evangelical fundamentalism than
it does with what I freely associate with "Theosophy".

This is nothing particularly new on this list. Our Yahwist is not alone.
What we say is not half as significant, in my noviate estimation, than how
it said and held. What is believed speaks of a person's intellectual
beliefs but a person's very character is revealed in their mode of
expression. Dogmatism, logic chopping, incendiary language, are very
common when strong beliefs, even theosophical beliefs, are present. I find
it refreshing in a time when people are extremely lazy intellectually to
find a list like this with strong convictions but I feel that unless we get
a grip on our rhetoric, and focus on some of the theosophical fundaments
-things that make up the core teaching or even the core tonality of
Theosophy, we will be wasting each others time. What I am saying may sound
naive and I would like to hear from others to see how we could contruct a
meaningful dialogue with a minimum of flaming.

Arthur Paul Patterson