[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Art's Response to Daniel

Sep 10, 1995 05:22 PM
by Eldon B. Tucker


>Is it a compassionate response to allow someone to continue in something
>that destroys themself if there declaration is "I have a right to choose":

The choice to intervene in someone else's free will and how they live their
life is not one lightly taken. In the past, false but sincerely-held beliefs
have led men to undertake such horrors as the Inquisition. The strong-arm
tactics are also sometimes used in politics, like the political indoctrination
that Chinese were subject to in their cultural revolution. Generally
speaking, I would suggest that any attempt to intervene in the lives of
others is wrong, harmful to the people involved, and arises out of
arrogance on the part of the person who would intervene.

>as an example...
>A young not so spiritual lady is dumped by her boyfriend. She sinks into
>despair and chooses to commit suicide. "Does she have a RIGHT to die?"

Suicide is selfish and not only hurts oneself, but also hurts the people
left behind. The problem, though, is not in preventing people from making
stupid decisions, but from not teaching them to think for themselves, so
that they can understand things. The problem arises from any rigid,
dogmatic belief system that tells people what to believe in, rather than
training people in their own ability to think.

>Yet in an act of grace(or law) happen to bump into her on the way home,
>and you discern the broken heart...and in time the young lady falls
>into love with your brother? Or the police arrest her and later that year
>she creates a widget that saves lives.

>What does kharma have to say about that?

Sometimes fortunate "chance" events bring people together, and helpful
words are spoken and someone is affected for the better. The decision,
though, is still that of the other person to make. And in a universe
ruled by spiritual law rather than randomness and luck, there was a
purpose for that apparently "chance" encounter. The working of that law
of justice, I'd say, is best described under the idea of karma, and
not by grace or the passing whim of some supreme being.

>If you rescue someone from a tragedy...have you not just condemned them to
>have to repeat or undergo another tragedy?

You haven't condemned them to repeat anything. They make their own
choices. You can have a positive influence on the other people, but
they still are responsible for their own decisions. It's wrong to
expect to tell people what to do.

>Was it compassionate for Jesus to agressively condemn those in the Temple.

The idea that money should not be involved with spiritual teachings is
a fairly common one, and not unique to the *story* of Jesus condeming
those in the temple.

>Was it compassionate for John to condemn the secular leaders openly?

If you want to speak out against something, you have to explain why it
is not good, and explain what you would suggest is a better approach.
Simply attaching something you don't like serves no useful purpose other
than polarizing people and arousing anger.

>You shall know them the know me because they Love one another.

Love of others is a universal ideal that is promoted throughout the
various religions of the world. The opposite of it is to hate those
that are different, belong to a different religion or political party, etc.

>God is Love.

Love is one of many universal virtues, virtues that stand as universal
truths throughout life, everywhere and at all times. It is not the
personal or exclusive attribute of any particular being, however
supreme you would consider that being, for all beings are subject to
law and the rules of existence.

>It is clear that you have missed Jeremiah 1:5a-b.

When you are talking to Art, if you find a biblical passage that seems
to say something that disagrees with him, it really has nothing to do
with a discussion of the beliefs that you and he hold. It doesn't really
matter what the Bible says, since it's only one of countless religious
texts, and it is a partial description of some spiritual truths. The
Bible is not truth itself, nor is it complete and entirely accurate.
For purposes of a discussion, you need to speak your own ideas, and
present them clearly enought for them to seem defensible. A biblical
adds nothing to a discussion.

>Art if YHWH did have a hand in your creation (and he did) and you look
>up into the Potters eyes and say "Why did you make me this way?" Or
>make even a more foolish determination that the Pot determines what
>will be contained within then that is your own personal choice which
>you certainly have made of which only the Potter can by grace and mercy
>wait for you to ask to be filled with His will.

Theosophists would generally disagree with the idea that we are but
clay fashioned out of some potter's hand. That is a story for
children's sunday school, not for people who want to think and understand
how life really works. We *made ourselves*, we are our own potters.

>In Romans it says that they perverted the truth by worshipping the Creation
>instead of the Creator.

We are *collectively* the Creator, all of us participate in the work
of creation of the world and what is in it. Our responsibility is to
do great, noble works of intellectual and spiritual value in the world.

>By now you are all saying...the Evangelical is too much, look at him attacking
>and condemning....

You are picturing yourself as carrying out a certain role. This role is
based upon a certain cosmology or creation myth which you believe in.
As an actor, playing out an role, scripted by the minds of others, are
you free to think for yourself? Can you personalize the script in your
own life?

>I did not write the book of Romans or any other part. And as an Evangelical

You didn't, but other men did.

>I hold the Word of the Word of God. It is a perverted excuse that
>declares that the inspired Word of God is less than what it delcares to be.

The "word of God" is not letters on a printed page. It is a living voice
within one, a voice that directly speaks spiritual truth. This voice is
really the ability of one to directly preceive and live the spiritual.
And there is no single, highest, personal being that personifies the
spiritual. The highest that we know is our essential natures, deeply
rooted in the divine, and inseparable from the Root of all.

>This may make
>you mad...but spiritual growth must be within the bounds of truth, or else
>you grow wild.

The fear of letting go from fixed dogma and thinking for yourself may
make it seem so. But a fixed external anchor, attaching to a body of
dogmatic teaching, does not protect from "going wild". It rather stifles
and smothers the spiritual, which is a living tradition, a living sense
of connectedness with life itself.

>I respect your desire to trust Him...but I am honestly led to ask "who is Him"?

One can personify the universe or spiritual side of things. One can even
give his car a name, if that makes him feel more comfortable in driving
it. But that act of personalizing the spiritual and divine, puts a mask
over its living reality, a mask that distorts and degrades its essential

>You know that scripture interprets scripture? And that inspiration, or
>personal prophecy will not conflict with that which has already been
>decalred by God?

There is no individual person that can be called "God" that is individually
responsible for scripture. Scripture is the remnants of spiritual writings
of the past, misunderstood, with much of the teachings lost. People willing
to think for themselves wrote scripture, not the "believers" of some bygone
age, for those "believers" would also not let themselves deviate from the
then existing dogmas of their age.

>I am very aware of the different INTERPRETATIONS. However the gospel
>message is simple regardless of our setting.

I would disagree with the term "message" as misleading.

>We are sinners.

We are "sinners" when we turn the back on the spiritual, when we fail to
take responsibility for our lives.

>We cannot save ourselves.

We cannot be saved, except for our own self-initiated efforts. We cannot
control the spiritual, but we make it a part of our lives.

>We need a Savior.

In the final analysis, we are our own saviors. There are, though, periodic
attempts from the Buddhas and Avataras to counteract spiritual darkness
and turn the world back from darkness. That darkness can come both from
a materialism that denies the spiritual as well as from religious dogmatism
that is so rigid as to block out the light of the spirit.

>Jesus is that Savior.

As an Avatara, he was one such savior, one of many, and not the last.

>And as to Historical Veracity...if you actually studied the foundation for
>interpretation etc...then it is impossible to come to anyother conclusion
>other than
>the Bible is inspired or it is a joke. There is no room for luke here.

It is neither. It is inspired by spiritual writers in the same sense as
dozens of other texts of major religions. It contains many errors, errors
in what is said or because of what is left out. It is one of many inperfect
sources of religous materials that we can draw upon in our contemplation
of the divine.

>What do you do with Messianic Prophecies?

Something is true or not based upon if it is rooted in the living
reality of life. It does not matter whether someone, perhaps hundreds
of years ago, had a lucky guess and seemed to predict something or not.

>Who do say Jesus is?

He is a man, inspired by *a* divinity, living out the role of a
spiritual renewer for the people of his culture and age.

>What will you say when He returns?

"Hi." I don't expect that he will recognize much of the spiritual truths
that he knew in any modern-day Christian sect. Things degrade over time,
including religious organizations. They need continual revision and
regneration to stay fresh and keep the living tradition alive. Without
this, they become fossils.

>[to Art:}
>I will admit I come on strong. If you were a follower of Jesus Christ
>then I certainly erred. I was wrong to not confront you first one on one.

Those leading a spiritual life are not "followers" of any particular
deity myth, nor are they followers of a single guru of the past. They
are rather pioneers, explorers, and sometimes teachers of spiritual
truth. They connect with the *living source* of truth, rather than
some word-image of deity.

>I also spank my children. Does it hurt? You bet. Does it help? Absolutely.
>And I would certainly prevent by force any attack on my family or friends.

But you would not want a Moslem to kill you as an infidel? Protecting
children and defending family from harm are different situations than
trying to win converts to one's favorite religious sect.

>[to Art:]
>It is unfortunate that your growth has separated you from the Word.

The "word" is a living voice or way of directly knowing truth, apart
from anything in writing or told one by this or any church. It has
nothing to do with a dogmatic religious text.

>Are you a reprobate or a follower that desires restoration? Have you
>transgressed? Do not use the Word to defend your position if you do not
>condsider it right.

Art is someone having freed himself from preprogrammed beliefs, and
learned to take responsibility for his own spiritual life. You
could learn much from him.

>Exegete? What does that mean? Does that not mean to reveal the truth that
>IS found in the scripture? You and A. Bain are about 12inches off.

Nothing at all is found in printed words. What is found is in one's
own mind and heart. The words of the Bible are one of many sources of
spiritual study, although I'd find them poor in inspiration and prefer
other, less censored writings about the spiritual.

>You have answered well in declaring the prince of the power of the air has
>deceived you.

This is something *you* believe in. It's not true, but is used as a
technique to keep "believers" in the fold. The carrot is the promice
of a special place in heaven, the stick is the the false construct of
some devil out to get you. Both beliefs are off the mark.

>There is a time and a place. And I too am learning to grow and reveal
>the compassion of the Lord to the lost,

We would respectfully disagree about whom is "lost." There is much that
you exclude from your spiritual life by the narrow adherance to a
rigid belief system. Your experience of the spiritual is stifled and
limited by the mask that you continue to put over it.

> but you my friend have declared
>yourself to be not a diciple of Jesus Christ...and the reverence towards
>the Lord compels me to Proclaim judgement. If you know or read the Word,
>you can know that the saints are to judge...according to the Word.

The judgement passed on any of us is that of karma. Whatever we do
has its consequences. This is quite apart from any belief in Christian

>I can choose to listen to your last paragraph or I can choose to follow the
>Great Commission by the Great Master.

You're still picturing yourself as someone following a certain role.
This role is scripted for you by your belief system. Can you step outside
that role and belief system and gaze directly on truth itself?

>Where is the Love and Compassion in degrading the Word and
>denegrating the Lord Jesus Christ?

The "word" is degraded when we put up "masks" over it, masks or graven
idols of words, idols of our own beliefs, which keep us from gazing upon
the divine side of things.

-- Eldon

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application