Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tl01084)

At 10:33 PM 6/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Martin writes:
>
>>To summarize, I see a lot of groaning on this list, but I am downright
>>>*amazed* that none of the  conclusions such as I did are drawn by
>>>'process' theosophists. This is no flame of course, but a serious
>>>attempt to evoke some sensible response from those who consider themselves
>>>as 'too smart to believe in any of this core theosophy nonsense'
>>>Arguments and alternatives, please !
>
>Daniel comments:
>
>Martin, I agree with you.  I really don't know what the reasoning and thinking
>is behind the mere statements made by these "process theosophists."  I would
>really love to understand their point of view;  I might learn something!  But
>with the possible exception of Jerry S, I have heard very little in
>explanation from
>any other process theosophist.
>
>
>Daniel:

I have very carefully spent hours of my time responding fully, and in
detail, to Martin, and he has carefully kept those threads private so no one
but him has read my answers. I also provided great detail to a person named
Christopher Allen but they too may have been private. In any case you know,
of course, that it's impossible to give citations from Chairman de Peruker
on a subject about which he was silent. "Process theosophy" is certainly
nothing I "invented", but it is something I have espoused, if my thoughts
and rationales on the subject are unacceptable, then the subject is
unacceptable to you as it cannot be "backed up" by quotations from the dead.

alexis