Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00139)

In a message dated 95-12-06 114134 EST you write:

>The knee-jerk orthodox Theosophical response to the
>phrase "God loves you" would be a00 Initiates do not use the
>word God as the truth about the cosmos is far too complex to
>be adequately rendered by a term fraught with anthropomorphic
>connotations; b love is a univeral law of attraction and
>repulsion and not some current directed at an individual from
>some other level of being; c the "you" which wants to be loved
>by God is the lower personality the desire nature which is
>mortal and should be transcended not mollycoddled with
>pietistic religion. To which after immersing myself in the
>Cayce material I can only respond with "God loves you anyway.

What a riot! Thank you for the comic relief sorely needed. There is no
humor so great as that which points out the obvious the humor in the
everyday events as in the style of the classic George Carlin and soon to be
famous Richard Ihle.

The problem I find with this type of approach a la Cayce Bailey is that
the anthropomorphic terminology and references to an Absolute Principle with
all too human characteristics kills self-reliance and removes responsibility
from the individual. This would occur in those who have not or could not
study a system such as Theosophy to be able to detect and interpret the
symbolism of these writers. The thinking goes: If there is a God who loves
me s/he therefore forgives me. This concept is ultimately belittling to the
individual because they are not forced to recognize the true divinity within
and its possible "development" and powers and then accept responsibility for
their actions and their ability to create and bring about change. People
tend to either rail against the injustice of life or passively chalk
difficulties and "the unknown" up to the will of God. It's God's way.

So you may find a little personal and emotional solace from these writings
but remember that you have the benefit of an understanding of Theosophy to
provide light on the import of the more emotional words of Cayce. For me I
much prefer a little more of the intellectual approach but only to provide
the why. Rather than say "intellectual" I think "rational" would be better
because we truly have the reasons and the ability to reason through these
ideas. "Intellectual" is cold "rational" is productive creative and leads
to conclusion action and a reasoned faith as opposed to a blind faith..

Thank you for the wonderful observation on Theosophists and thank god its
true.