Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00197)

At 04:45 PM 6/3/96 -0400, Alexis wrote:
>
>As to your "meeting the Master Jesus"..that which cannot be empirically
>proven shouldn't be "testified to".

Dear Alexis,
can you tell me who made the rule that only that which can be empirically
proven should be shared with other people? Do you follow that rule yourself?
Do you know *anyone* that follows that rule? If you do, what kind of person
is that?


The most important thing that cannot be
>empirically proven is the concept that Jesus was ever a real and living
>person. If that is so, it would then be hard to encounter "his" spirit,
>would it not?

Have you or anybody else proven that he was NOT a real and living person? If
that has not been proven, either, then it follows that it could be entirely
possible that he WAS a real and living person, right? I mean, so far nothing
is proven, right?

Another fact to consider is that there are many beings in our universe who
have never lived on this planet. Any number of them may be encountered, for
better or for worse, as the case may be.

What about your "spirits". Can they be empirically proven? I know that you
have talked about them, even on this list. Or are you testifying about
matters that are unseen (physically) and can not be empirically proven yourself?

>My strong disapproval of Elisabeth Clair Prophet arises from my estimation
>that the woman is entirely fraudulent. The same disapproval also arises from
>a lot of reading of her printed words and they are totally unoriginal and un
>valid. My disapproval of her "disciples" arises from the fact that I find it
>inconceivable that anyone could fall for her words.

These are almost the exact same words that were thrown at Blavatsky,
thousands of times. What you do is expressing a strong personal opinion,
which I certainly respect, but certainly no "proof".

I have also studied her printed and spoken word, as those of her
predecessor, Mark Prophet. I have meditated on the energies and
consciousness content of the material, studied their auras and so forth, and
have come to an ENTIRELY different conclusion.

>In other words Bjorn, I don't "buy" your arguments.

That's fine, I don't expect that.

 the utter superficiality and banality of her
>writing leaves me totally aghast and appalled that anyone could "fall for it".

Well, just like people fell for HPB they fall for ECP. And usually those who
fall for her are intelligent people and independent thinkers.

The only source where much of the teachings of this movement is to be found
in a concentrated form is in the book "Climb the Highest Mountain". To me it
seems hard to believe that this book (and others) can be perceived as
"banal" or "superficial". IMO it is very much in the theosophic tradition
and similar in vibration. I hope nobody on this list is even considering
judging this matter based on either my or Alexis views, though. It is easy
enough to check out for anyone who like to do so. Here are some web pages
for a starter, including  a short book list:

http://www.tsl.org/

>You have been entirely "up front" and honest about your point of view, I
>could do no other than be equally frank and honest in my response. I have no
>animosity toward you are any of the people in the "I Am Movement" or the
>"Church Universal and Triumphant" but i do have a good deal of pity.

How do you show this "pity"? I mean how are you going to show me pity, now,
seeing that I believe in these things?

Bjorn
roxendal@alpinet.net