Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl00576)

At 03:03 PM 6/17/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>Alexis is misqouting me, probably on purpose. I never used the words
>>"religious conversion". Here is what I wrote
>
>My filter program has obviously malfunctioned, but that allows me to
>respond. As I see it, I did NOT misquote you,

Alexis, this is a matter of FACTS, not of "as I see it". You quoted me as
writing "religious conversion" which I did NOT write, which the record
clearly proves. Intentional or not, when you quote somebody and change
his/her words you are misquoting him/her. This is not a question of opinion.

>I see no real difference between a "Religious Conversion" and a "Spiritual
>Conversion".

I think you see from my previous post what I meant with "conversion" in this
case. BEFORE this conversion I could only perceive life as consisting of
Matter, AFTER I perceived it as consciousness or "spirit".

> It is the word "conversion" that makes the difference.

So, what is wrong with having ones eyes opened to go from denying dimensions
of reality to accepting them? Is not theosophy about growing spiritually and
expanding ones consciousness?

> It seems to
>me that you have simply gone from one form of authoritarianism to another.

Because I now acknowledge a spiritual reality? Come on.

>It seems to me that your approach to "spirituality" is the same as your
>approach to political systems, you are one of those who wants to impose your
>beliefs on others.

This is another strange interpretation. I am one of the most tolerant people
you will ever find, when it comes to religious and political beliefs. I do
not feel a need to change other people's beliefs. I respect people and what
they believe in (which I did NOT do before my conversion) be they Mormons,
Seventh-day Adventists, Moslems or whatever. I have found so many wise and
spiritually advanced people from all kinds of belief systems that I have
come to think that TRUE religion is more a matter of  quality of heart than
mental belief system. You are simply reading me wrong.


I see no real difference in one who says "I want to do
>the Masters work" and a born-again Christian, or a fervent follower of the
>gospel according to Karl Marx.

I can assure you that I DO want to work for the masters. The spiritual
hierarchy has a plan for bringing the evolutions of this planet to a higher
plan of consciousness. Theosophy was ONE building block in this project, one
among many. The missions of Jesus, Buddha and many others were also building
blocks. And they are still building, and, yes, I desire to help with this
project. And I think many on this list share this desire.

>"Core Theosophy" is as authoritarian, and
>therefore, is every bit as oppressive as is Roman Catholicism or Marxism.

I don't even know what "Core Theosophy" is. I enjoy theosophical writings,
as I do many other spiritual writings. I believe that Blavatsky was doing a
job for the masters, but I am not a literalist and can never become one.

>What I have seen in my short experience of Bjorn Roxendal is that he is a
>"true Believer" and "true believers" always oppress or attack those who
>disagree with them.

Interesting. I would really like to know if the consensus on this list is
that I "oppress or attack those who disagree with them". It seems to me like
those words are much more descriptive of some other list members.

>You complain that I tend to base my arguments on "here
>and now" factuality.

I have never complained about that. Again, you simply don't care about what
I really say, but instead reply to and attack things I never said. I do
"complain" about you believing that you base your arguments "only on facts",
when I usually see little more than strong opinions accompanied by strong
emotions.

Bjorn
roxendal@alpinet.net