Jesus was a Buddhist

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I could equally respond that if Theosophists actually understood the teachings of Christ, or were at least familiar with the basics of Christian doctrine, then they might understand why such was unnecessary in the first place.

So there is nothing beyond the strawman and ad hominem argument ... just an opinion. Strike one.

Not quite. You could say this, and clearly are saying it. And it's a free world, or a free country, as we tend to say a lot. So - believe as ye so wish.

But I do think, and I do claim, to "actually understand the teachings of Christ," well enough, at least, to speak on this subject. And, if that comes down to "better than you," since that is what our argument often amounts to, then sure, I'll say it. Neither you, nor anyone else, shall browbeat me out of my understanding. Nor my faith. Got it?

The best challenge you can offer me, EVER, and AT ALL, would be to MATCH - and suspersede - my demonstration of my grasp of the HEART Doctrine, as opposed to the Eye. If you follow, then by all means, LEAD. Meanwhile, I shall endeavor to do my very best ... along the same lines - as I always have!

Originally Posted by Thomas

Then by the same rule I could equally argue that Jesus never left Judea‚ or I could argue that he was with Elvis and John Lennon in a portacabin on the moon ... or indeed, if I trawl around the internet, that He was in fact studying under just about everyone, just about everywhere, from the US to Japan.

Again, no actual proof, just another opinion. Strike two.

Well, here again, you're just ignoring the evidence that we have presented. I can't help you with that one. You know, the horse is standing by the pool of water ... even the PIERIAN SPRING ... not for MY leading, yet thanks to those Giants Whom you've mentioned. Only I call them Theosophists, or Theosophers, actually - having more to do with the Heart Doctrine, again ... and after dear John Abbenhouse, as he preferred to say.

So, the proof is there, yet you must be the one to investigate. Thus far, the best I've seen you do is read 2nd-hand critiques, written by skeptics and individuals with deep antipathies toward the New Presentations of Truth.

You know, sometimes I paste a paragraph or two from ISIS, and from the SD, because I know others will take a look - if it isn't too long - but also because it's the ONLY way I can ever get you to actually contact HPB's ideas ... and those which came through her ... directly. If you skip over them, however, it's wasted effort, as you will fail to see Nick's point, my point, Bruce's point, and that of any, other open-minded individual ... SalamanderRC, et al, ad infinitum.

For you see, you have your Sacred Scripture ... and certain, SET - or fairly well-established interpretations ... and we have our - Teachings. These, we prefer NOT to look at as finally authoritative, except inasmuch as they are a much, much more accurate, relevant, up-to-date and trustworthy source ... than the Hebrew Scriptures, or even the New Testament & Gospels, could ever be - notwithstanding the comments of Master H. which I have shared on numerous occasions. Bottom line: If you haven't the KEY, then you cannot make complete sense of the ciphers.

You suggest that you have it, put yourself quite out to tell us of lectio divina - and I am on that page with you. But when you start telling me that Jesus didn't go to Egypt, and Eastward, and so forth ... well then, there's something still missing - and what more can we do, than remind you of the evidence?

If you thump your Bible, and another fifteen tons of Vatican-stamped testimony, I will ask that we compare apples to apples ... and let us take that up, if you so have the patience. But you see, you will ask me to accept the writings and the authority of WHOM, exactly?

Ahhhhh. Ah-HA! Yes, now it really does come down to `Lectio Divina.'

I cannot keep this up. It is at least helpful to realize, that although one is right, it may be - for all the wrong reasons. YOU must do what you believe is right, in YOUR heart ... and so must I. So must we all ... but we do not, always, do that. Wherein, then, does conscience enter in?

A bit of meat, perhaps ... as I drink my daily bread - I grow weary of this.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Surely the point of the film, and the point I was making? is that it was all a dream ... and what's more Professor Marvel (the Wizard) was no more than a genial fraud, a carnival showman.

Nope. Once again, only half right. The Wizard, representing in this Theosophist's tale the Master, or Mahatma, is only conditionally a humbug. I like how you turn him into a genial fraud, a showman, however ... as this is exactly what you have called the Masters' Greatest Messenger in the 19th Century, time & time again. But of course, while we forgive you for that, we must go on to clarify the error ...

The Master, you see, is a HUMBUG, for the same reason that Christ Jesus is. NEITHER can get you from here to there, so to speak. YOU must do it YOURSELF. True, all disciples need the [a] Master, at one point or another, along the Path ... just as Christ Himself is Hierophant, for the Birth and Baptism Initiations (you remember those things? the ones I painstakingly showed you as existing in even the most COMMON of exoteric traditions in both Buddhist countries and Hindu? ah well, no matter - I didn't expect a response, or even an acknowledgment ... just a bit more inconvenient truth, as Al Gore might put it).

So we do not discard, ignore, or forsake the Master, certainly not abandon the Masters, in terms of the Hierarchy - as esotericists - lest we embark upon Krishnamurti's journey into the trials of Arhatship - lifetimes ahead of schedule!

Nor does the esotericist forsake Christ, or even the seeds planted by the stern yet forgiving Nazaraen Initiate ... regardless of what kind of other experiences s/he may seek out, and what other religions s/he may follow. True, many lifetimes might have gone by, yet Jesus stood beside Moses, accompanied him during his work and travels, and even succeeded him, as spiritual leader. IF ONLY we realized - how far back these karmic, and DHARMIC, bonds extend!

Originally Posted by Thomas

The moral of the story? As Dorothy tells Toto, "There's no place like home."

Strike three, I think.

I dunno, I'd say it's a swing 'n a miss, yeah. Because I don't think you realize what Baum meant by HOME. First of all, the word is even onamatapeic ... as the H is virtually silent, thus OM. But umm (ummm - OMMMMM) - did THAT occur?

If you say, yes actually, then you will also realize that HOME is in fact, NIRVANA. Or rather, it is even beyond Nirvana - as our origin is technically thus (or thence, if we factor in time). Dorothy has, you see, met THREE friends on her Pilgrimage - that of the Prodigal Son, or Monad. The Monad, which we know of and relate to during incarnation through the SOUL, or Christ principle of later esoteric teachings (20th Century), has for it's vehicles of expression in the form-worlds, a lower mental body (mind), an astral body (emotions), and an etheric/dense physical body. These, of course, are the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion, in the EXACT order I mentioned them (from Soul, "downward,"), as also the order in which Dorothy confronted them. Gee.

The Ruby slippers, even with an occult reference to our earth, and it's auric glow, symbolizes - in the very least - Buddhi/Kundalini ... having everything to do with our spiritual shakti, understood materially and psychically, and of course, our SOUL - intellectually and SPIRITUALLY.

But then, how atrocious must all this nonsense be, when it doesn't fit our paradigm. Again, darn. Sorry 'bout that. Fuss at ol' L. Frank if you like, but you see, this is the ANCIENT, and AGELESS, Wisdom. HPB didn't INVENT astral bodies, and Souls, or even the specific soteriology in which we place utmost confidence. In that same way, no, Jesus did NOT have to travel to Tibet to find a Soul, either HIS, or that of the CHRIST. But if you would bother to read accounts of why the PROXIMITY - of yes, even a PHYSICALLY embodied Spiritual Master - is necessary (in this case, the WORLD TEACHER ... not just any Master) ... then at least we could come to the table equally prepared, on equal footing, you know?

Pardon me if I decline your insistence, or belief, in a God Whom and which can literally just do ANYTHING which [emphatically] HE so desires, or wills, merely by WILLING it ... contrary to, and in complete DEFIANCE of - Cosmic LAW.

For you see, we do not believe in any such chimera. This makes God's Laws ARBITRARY, and your counter that God can REPEAL his own, created LAWS - long enough to "Send forth His only begotten Son," etc. ... will mean little for those of us who accept - ON that very authority of the Law Itself - that GOD DOES NOT BREAK HIS OWN LAWS.

Yes, I am tired, so please do pardon my impatience. Yet I just cannot grasp how intelligent people can sit there and say things like, "God can do ANYTHING" - without realizing that yes, even God IS a Conditioned Being ... manifesting according to LAWS, and bound - more so by the very NATURE of His OWN Creation, than by some higher authority - to ADHERE to them!!!

That sounds like some kind of theological paradox, and will befuddle those who are so used to saying GOD ALMIGHTY. Please, I BEG OF YOU, do read Nick's most insightful, clarifying post, recently - on which thread I cannot recall - wherein it is clearly stated, WE DO NOT BELIEVE ... in "Almighty God." It's kind of like saying "ROUND CUBE." But I'll have to leave someone else to pick up that thread, and clarify why GOD COULD NOT JUST MAKE CHRIST APPEAR ... but rather, required the World Teacher to express Himself (and to express God, esp. the Love-Wisdom Aspect), via JESUS, the Initiate.

If asked, I'll bet I could come up with FIVE more good reasons, nevertheless ... and if you give me a day or two to meditate and ponder, perhaps check a reference or two, I'll give you ten good reasons. But I have here only stated TWO of the most OBVIOUS ... and these should be enough for an open-minded person, one not bent merely on countering an argument with another argument, to take the ideas offered to heart!

More, as hints: World KARMA (with all the lesser, or more particular constituent groups and parties involved), and if we accept World Karma rather specifically, instead of as a catch-all, we can easily add - the necessity of the PROTECTION of the Brotherhood (being also the focal point of Shamballa's Center of contact with Humanity, at that time, and until the 2nd WW).

Yes, I know, I've now given FOUR good reasons - for Jesus' travels Eastward, all dovetailing with what HPB, and other authors have suggested, though it is my own REASON which hints to me ... that all of this is so, and not the authority of any one source, OR all of them combined, OR some kind of external, inspiring Presence - however lofty and admired, or Divine.

No, Thomas, I'm using MY OWN Ruby Slippers ... and THIS, is where they have directed me. You may chase your own tail, if you like ... but I think you'll find the Ourobouros has a lesson for us, once we understand Hermes-Buddha-Mercury's relationship to that tail-chaser.

Originally Posted by Thomas

If further example were necessary‚ I might insist that the child Jesus was taught everything He needed to know by Bridgid, the Celtic goddess of peace and unity, who according to legend, was transported from the Emerald Isle to act as midwife at the delivery of the Holy Child.

At least now you are on the right track.

So long as Mary remains "that woman that gave birth to the baby Jesus," however well revered by the Catholic Church (and rightly so!) ... we won't know the half of it!

Isis, Astarte, Ishtar, Mary ... Brigid, yes, indeed!

+++

Origen taught reincarnation.

Sorry you don't like that. I really do think you've managed to convince yourself that he didn't!

Poor fella. Keep workin at it. Cubes will be round, soon enough. I'm waiting to hear that one, and some kind of valiant defense of flat-earth mush, and geocentric - oops, I know, I know, you have volumes to educate us about how the Church was right, and Galileo was on crack. Ohhh-kay. Whatever!

I say, Origen was squelched, in part, by the PRIESTHOOD - which is EXACTLY what you'd do with all Theosophists, and all things Theosophical, Brother Jesuit ... because history repeats itself.

But enough of your red herrings ...

You may FAULT me, if you like, for quoting BRIEF excerpts rather than multiple paragraphs, amounting to several PAGES, with references ... but Thomas, I THOUGHT you had the good sense, the wherewithal, and the presence of mind to CONSULT the source provided - if you actually wanted to understand, and to pursue the argument.

Don't have ISIS? Hmm, ever heard of that thing called THE INTERNET? Using a SEARCH ENGINE? Google, as a prime example, but choose your own. We're back to the horse and water, again.

Originally Posted by Thomas

if it is a tenet of Theosophy that you are not obliged to accept any of what is put forward, why must I?

Umm ... because we can read ... and we bother to do so?

+++

Originally Posted by Thomas

To bring some chance of reason and logic to the debate, I would suggest the following.

Ha ha ... and that from the man who accuses OTHERS of stuffiness, pompousness, and arrogance. Deary me ...

Oh and - I gave you your ONE and your TWO. I gave you three and four, and I'll also see you ALL THE TEA IN CHINA to prove wrong the evidence that HAS been put forward. What did I say about thristy horses?

As it's been said, "Argue for your limitations, and they're yours!"

Enjoy 'em!

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

You have said Blavatsky was a liar.

You have insinuated that Theosophy is nothing but a pack of lies.

You have insinuated I have the brain-power of a horse.

Now, you are saying Theosophists see no reason to make a distinction between what is fact and fiction.

I would never say such things about you and your fellow Christians.

In the beginning, you were quite reasonable. I thought to myself, "Finally, a reasonable Christian!" Then, you became very obnoxious. Then, you became very reasonable again.

Why is your attitude now going down the tubes for the second time? I must say, I am very disappointed in you.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

This serves to demonstrate, I believe, that by the arguments of faith and of reason, that no-one is bound to accept your books as authoritative, any more than they are mine.

Sorry to quote at length, but it is important, as the logic of Aquinas' argument is irrefutable.

Thomas

Aha!

Now, at least, we're getting somewhere.

Thomas, you can talk what you like with Nick, Bruce Michael, SalamanderRC, et al ... but now that we're clearing the air, here, let me ask you:

Have YOU ever met a spiritual Teacher?

And now I'd like you to tell me something about him, or her. You don't have to give any identifying details, just those qualities, characteristics, or other signifying features/behavior which suggst to you, indicate, or prove - to your satisfaction - that so-and-so was/is a Teacher.

Let us, however, go ONE STEP FURTHER.

Without appeal to YOUR `Sacra Doctrina,' and without appeal to MINE, I challenge you to tell me how you know ANYTHING at all. And just to keep it non-personal, and to give you the benefit of the doubt, let us simply ask, HOW can ANY person know ANY THING?

Remember, NO Holy books ... and NO quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, or Plato, or Iraneaus, or Origen, or the Gospels.

Nor shall I quote HPB, or Alice Bailey, or Rudolf Steiner, or Max Heindel, or Plato, or the Buddha, or the Book of Dzyan.

I want to hear what YOU have to say, about HOW WE KNOW THINGS.

It's time to truly tackle THAT branch of Philosophy ... and see how you fare.

Start with a few words about a spiritual teacher, if you like, and let that be a segue, by answering the question, and how does S/HE know, or TRULY understand, a SINGLE THING?

I really want to hear it. Because if you can't give me an epistemology which rests firmly upon a more secure foundation than "Because the Bible says it's so" - where `Bible' is some book, person, or even a HUMAN authority ... such as Christ Himself ...

... then Brother, I'd have to say that you don't know which end is up.

The question will best be answered - if you FORGET, for a moment, what you have said about the Apostolic tradition, since we too, claim that line or source of authority - and date it sometimes, by minutes or hours, rather than thousands of years.

Forget it. Toss it all, long enough to try and share with me a sensible epistemology.

I for one, don't believe you can do it. Yet I will meet the same challenge, of giving you MY epistemology, a working one and a sensible one ... which does not violate the laws of sound logic, and of good reason, yet which also has as its authority, source or ultimate frame of reference - something SO SOLID, that it is unassailable.

Now, meet me there ... if you remember how.

Namaskar,

~andrew

p.s. - If this needs to be on a new thread, I will entitle it `An Esoteric Epistemology,' though a more neutral title might be - `Approaches to Epistemology,' or something of that nature. I don't mean to sidetrack this thread, but having now stated your own, and the `official Catholic' viewpoint on this matter, I fail to see how any additional arguments you make will ADD to the discussion. Rather, I see them as SIDETRACKING it, or attempting, clearly, to DERAIL it. Prove me wrong, by showing that you care enough to discuss epistemology(ies), and not just HAMMER away at anything, anyone, Theosophical.

p.p.s. - still don't `get it?' Let me assure you, no matter how sharp your blade, no matter how assiduously you attack, the Mighty Yggdrasil - the Tree of Knowledge, the Sephiroth Itself, which so offends you - cannot be felled ... not by you (for no one before you has succeeded), and not even by those arrayed against us, en masse. You still do not understand Kurukshetra, do you ... {Thank God you have your Shield, as I have mine. Did you know that He also lives, and move, and breathes, and Thinks, and Loves, and WORKS - as well as Guards, and Guides? Yeah ...}

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said,

"...no-one is bound to accept your books as authoritative, any more than they are mine."

--> You were the one who insulted the authority of my Theosophical books, not the other way around.

Since you always talk trash about Theosophy, and put up your Bible as superior, we should take a closer look. The Bible says the human race was created twice (once on Day Six, a second time during the story of Adam and Eve), yet it does not give an explanation of how this could have happened. As such, the Bible is not making sense. Theosophy does give an explanation of this "Double-Creation" Story -- and makes sense as it does. We have yet to hear you make sense of your Bible's Double-Creation Story.

Theosophy's version of your Double-Creation story makes sense, and so has a better claim of being authoritative. I still have not heard how your Double-Creation Story makes sense, which leads us to question the authority of your version of the story, and the authority of the book it appears in.

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

Originally Posted by AndrewX

... So - believe as ye so wish.

That is all we (as Christians) ask. Our argument rests on the fact that the Theosophical Society seems incapable of presenting its own doctrine without a radical misrepresentation of Christian doctrine.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

But I do think, and I do claim, to "actually understand the teachings of Christ," well enough, at least, to speak on this subject.

I know you do, from the TS perspective. As do I, from the traditional Christian perspective. There we differ. It's all a matter of in whom, and what, one has faith. I, however, do not cite Theosophist sources in support of my arguments, whereas more than once I have been obliged to point out where Theosophists cite Christian Tradition in defence of itself, as it does so erroneously, or out of context, or in ignorance of the mileau from which the tradition arose.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

The best challenge you can offer me, EVER, and AT ALL, would be to MATCH - and suspersede - my demonstration of my grasp of the HEART Doctrine, as opposed to the Eye.

I have consistently demonstrated the logical inadequacy of the Theosophist presentation of doctrine.

I am not offended, nor bothered, by your doctrines and dogmas. I am offended, and bothered, when you misrepresent mine.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Well, here again, you're just ignoring the evidence that we have presented.

I'm not ignoring it ... I'm questioning it, as I find its metaphysical assumptions fundamentally flawed. You choose to ignore the fundamental issue, you don't address it, but simply post more material from a source that is already in question, as if sheer quantity is enough to overcome all interrogation.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

So, the proof is there, yet you must be the one to investigate.

I have investigated, my questions are the fruit of my investigations. I still await answers.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Thus far, the best I've seen you do is read 2nd-hand critiques, written by skeptics and individuals with deep antipathies toward the New Presentations of Truth.

Strawman argument again ... one could easily say your texts are "2nd-hand critiques, written by skeptics and individuals with deep antipathies toward" Christian doctrine. HPB is on record as such.

The critique of Guénon however, is hardly 'second hand', nor uninformed, he being at the forefront of esoteric affairs in France, and an acknowledged scholar, beyond compare in his day, of Hindu doctrine.

My critique is precisely of the veracity of your 'New Presentation of Truth' — that is your dogma, not mine. If its presentation is dependent upon fabrication, as in the case of Origen, then I have every good reason to doubt.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Dear dear, Nick ... have I struck a nerve, i wonder? We seem extraordinarily thin-skinned all of a sudden ... or perhaps it's simply that you can't muster an argument against the irrefutable logic of the Angelic Doctor? Three fundamental arguments, and not a word in response?

I can only logically assume you have none.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

You have said Blavatsky was a liar.

I have never said anything of the sort. Misguided and misled, perhaps.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

You have insinuated that Theosophy is nothing but a pack of lies.

I have never said anything of the sort. Misguided and misled, perhaps.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

You have insinuated I have the brain-power of a horse.

I have never said anything of the sort. Misguided and misled, perhaps.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Now, you are saying Theosophists see no reason to make a distinction between what is fact and fiction.

I was told that, by a Theosophist, and ridiculed for drawing attention to the distinction. I assumed it was part of your praxis, as a common TS misrepresentation of Christian doctrine depends on it.

If you feel strongly, take it up with your people the next time you meet. The evidence is all over the internet.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I would never say such things about you and your fellow Christians.

Nor, I hope you now see, have I said anything such thing of you or yours.
Actually, you have insituated far worse ... but I make nothing of it.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Why is your attitude now going down the tubes for the second time? I must say, I am very disappointed in you.

Nice try to regain the upper hand, Nick, but you've lost the initiative on this one, and this kind of response won't get it back.

"going down the tubes"? Excuse me, your response to a very reasonable, logical, and polite argument is ... where? ... the silence is deafening.

+++

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas, you said,

"...no-one is bound to accept your books as authoritative, any more than they are mine."

--> You were the one who insulted the authority of my Theosophical books, not the other way around.

I am not insulting anyone, I am stating the obvious — to say "there is no more authoritative book in the world" is a question of dogma, yours, not mine. In a stroke you have written off all other sacra doctrina, and then have the audacity to claim you have been wronged.

By the way, you have been far more direct and offensive with regard to Christian Scripture, as well you know, as I have been informed by you that it has been fraudulently fabricated for the sake of political expediency.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Since you always talk trash about Theosophy, and put up your Bible as superior, we should take a closer look.

I don't talk anything about Theosophy, I question the trash Theosophy purports to be the true interpretation of Christian doctrine — and who is 'we' by the way? Are you acting on behalf of a collective, or do you assume that if you don't understand the answer, no-one else can?

And, by the way, I am well aware of this attempt to 'turn the tables' and shift the spotlight from the evident inadequacies of your own dogma.

... not one of my questions answered .... and you want to ask questions ...

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

The Bible says the human race was created twice (once on Day Six, a second time during the story of Adam and Eve), yet it does not give an explanation of how this could have happened.

As you question however, gives me the chance to demonstrate the very thing I have been talking about, on those grounds, I will engage with you.

Otherwise I might point out you have asked this question before, and I have answered it before, and you have ignored my answers, but simply roll on to the next question. So let me condition it this time ... I shall, for your benefit, answer no further questions until you are happy you understand the answer to this one.

Well, let me enlighten you again. The First time — Genesis 1:26-27 — is a statement of metaphysical principle. The second time — Genesis 2:7-25 — is an account of the manifestation of man according to the principle.

Two aspects of the one event. Cause (Genesis 1) and Effect (Genesis 2).

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

As such, the Bible is not making sense.

To the uninstructed, such is often the case — that is the inestimable value of the traditional commentaries — in them resides more sense than one can encompass.

Assuming this is a Theosophist argument, then I can only assume that the organisation is unaware of the traditional commentaries ... or at least, wanting of an authentic exegesis of the text.

This is why orthodox and traditional interpretation is vital, without it one is bound to get into a muddle. I hope I have made it sufficiently clear for you now.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

We have yet to hear you make sense of your Bible's Double-Creation Story.

We again?

Obviously you don't bother reading my earlier responses. I have explained this on more than one occasion. If you didn't understand, you should not have gone on.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Theosophy's version of your Double-Creation story makes sense, and so has a better claim of being authoritative.

Well, now you can see that such a claim is relative, and conditional upon all manner of contingency, and that the statement is itself an ill-informed assumption.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I still have not heard how your Double-Creation Story makes sense, which leads us to question the authority of your version of the story, and the authority of the book it appears in.

Us?

Ah me ... so now I can assume that TS treats the sacra doctrina of the three Abrahamic traditions as neither meaningful nor authoritative, purely on the grounds of its ignorance of the meaning?

I shall desist from taking you to task over the obvious illogical error of assuming that 'our' text is not authoritative when it would appear you have not made sufficient enquiry of 'us'.

The text is 'our' witness after all. There is no telling what nonsense 'another' might make of 'our' texts when 'another' has not thoroughly immersed himself in 'our' experience.

I don't 'believe' in the Upanishads, the Pali Canon, nor the Q'ran, but I do accept them as binding and authoritative with regard to the traditions that hold them as such, and I do treat them with the reverence due them, as a simple matter of courtesy, if nothing else. And, might I add, from even my own very limited knowledge, I know they are creaking at the seams with wisdom, spiritual sustenance and insight into the Divine.

... and if there is something I do not understand, I ask someone who belongs to the tradition in question, in short, I enquire at the source, and do not assume that because I don't understand, the text is at fault.

... But then, these people do not heap insult on me, nor seek to injure the good standing of my Scriptures. Quite the reverse, as ecumenical relations between Catholicism and the Great Traditions proceeds apace, better today than it has ever been.

Thomas — still waiting for an answer to his questions ...

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Aha!

Now, at least, we're getting somewhere.
Have YOU ever met a spiritual Teacher?

Am I to assume then, that you are the benchmark, the median, by which all Spiritual Teachers are to be measured? The authority on the matter?

Have you any idea how condescending you sound?

Does your pride know no bounds?

Do you seriously propose to start a new thread to sit in judgement upon the names I might tremble to mention ... an Apostle ... a Dionysius, or an Origen, the Cappadocians .... Tertullian or Augustine ... a Cyril, a Leontius or a Maximus, an Aquinas or a Bonaventure, a Francis or a Benedict or a Catherine or a Theresa or a St John of the Cross, an Eckhart, a Julian ... a host of names I am quite sure you have never even heard of ... and more than a few still alive and (please God) well today ... might not measure up to your obviously high standard ...

You dare to inform me that you will sit in judgement on them and decide just whether they count in your book or not?

Your karma, baby, and welcome to it...

+++

Originally Posted by AndrewX

Yet I will meet the same challenge, of giving you MY epistemology, a working one and a sensible one ... which does not violate the laws of sound logic, and of good reason, yet which also has as its authority, source or ultimate frame of reference - something SO SOLID, that it is unassailable.

Feel free to start the ball rolling. You seem intent on proving the human is infallible. Yo uhave caught my interest ... please ... I have always found the human to be utterly fallible when it comes to the crunch.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, we discussed,

"...have I struck a nerve, i wonder?"

--> You call HPB a liar? You characterize Theosophy as a pack of lies? You characterize me as having the brain-power of a horse? You say Theosophists cannot tell fact from fiction? Yes, you have struck a nerve.


When you said Theosophists cannot tell fact from fiction, you opened up a can of worms. I must now respond to your can-opening.

"You have said Blavatsky was a liar. --> I have never said anything of the sort. Misguided and misled, perhaps."

"You have insinuated that Theosophy is nothing but a pack of lies. --> I have never said anything of the sort. Misguided and misled, perhaps."

--> You are a liar. You continually throw up your slanderous smokescreens, trying to distract people from discussing the issues. Do not worry, I will always bring the discussion back to the issues.

"Actually, you have insituated far worse ... but I make nothing of it."

--> Typical Thomas slander, again not backed by an example. One of your greatest weaknesses as a debater is your use of slander-without-examples. I wait for the day when you stop throwing up a slanderous smokescreen. I only want to discuss the issues. Now that your slander has been addressed, we can look at the issues.

"The First time — Genesis 1:26-27 — is a statement of metaphysical principle. The second time — Genesis 2:7-25 — is an account of the manifestation of man according to the principle."

--> Let's take a look.

Genesis 1:26
"So God created man in his own image...."

Genesis 2:5
"...there was no man to till the ground...."

Genesis 2:7
"...the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground...."

--> Metaphysical, huh? By denying that Genesis 2:5 was written, you are the one who slanders the Bible.

"Obviously you don't bother reading my earlier responses."

--> I did. You may not do it for my benefit, but there must be at least one Christian out there who did not read your "earlier response", and wanted to hear your story.

You say the human race was created twice. It is you who cannot tell fact from fiction.

Your Bible clearly shows the human race being created twice. Therefore, we have no choice but to say the Bible is not authoritative.

It is your Bible, not mine, that says a physical human race was created, then uncreated, then recreated. One more time, for the benefit of Christians who are reading of this discussion for the first time...

Why do you think the human race was created, uncreated, and then recreated? How does Genesis 2:5 fit into your belief system?

[Thomas]

Hi Nick.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Yes, you have struck a nerve.

I know ... everything was going swimmingly until I quoted Aquinas. From that point on you've been deploying smokescreen and diversion tactics to circumvent the issue.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> You are a liar.

I will let others be the judge of that.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I wait for the day when you stop throwing up a slanderous smokescreen. I only want to discuss the issues. Now that your slander has been addressed, we can look at the issues.

OK. I am awaiting your response to the questions posed in reference to Aquinas. This is where it all began.

PS — to set your mind at rest on Genesis, cause is prior to effect, principle is prior to production.

The former are eternal, so there was never a moment when God did not say "Let us make man in our own image" (the Absolute undergoes no change or alteration). So Genesis one is in principle.
The latter are created and contingent, so appear, in place and time, according to Divine Plenitude, so there was a time when man was not. Genesis 2:5 is in production.
Focus on that, and you will see that you've been labouring under a misapprehension.

See ... at every step of the way, knowing it is an utterly fruitless exercise, I seek to offer up the wisdom of my tradition, knowing it will be ignored.

Now. Back to Aquinas ... the ball's in your court.

Thomas
(PPS — the more you ignore it, the more you prove Aquinas' point.)

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said,

"...everything was going swimmingly until I quoted Aquinas. From that point on you've been deploying smokescreen and diversion tactics to circumvent the issue."

--> Aquinas explains the uncreation of humanity in Genesis 2:5?

"You are a liar. --> I will let others be the judge of that."

--> I can spot your lies all by myself, thank you.

"...there was never a moment when God did not say 'Let us make man in our own image' "

--> He said it on Day Six. By day Seven the saying of it was already in the past. Try as you may, you cannot rewrite the Bible.

"...the Absolute undergoes no change or alteration...."

--> Indeed, It does not. That is why the Absolute is not God. Your God gets angry (a change in His state of being), so He cannot be It. Wow! This is great -- a chance to show God is not absolute.

"...there was never a moment when God did not say 'Let us make man in our own image' "

--> The 'Let us make man in our own image' " in 1:26 may be timeless (I disagree), but the creation of man in 1:27 was not. It was an event in a timeline.

"Genesis 2:5 is in production."

--> Were Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:7 in production?

"I am awaiting your response to the questions posed in reference to Aquinas."

--> The funny things is, I am ready to discuss any topic. But I cannot let you change the topic until we finish this topic: Why did God create a humanity in Genesis 1:27, then uncreate them in Genesis 2:5? Answer me this question, then we will discuss Aquinas.

The same question rephrased:

Was Genesis 1:27 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:5 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:7 an event in a timeline?

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas, you said,

"...everything was going swimmingly until I quoted Aquinas. From that point on you've been deploying smokescreen and diversion tactics to circumvent the issue."

--> Aquinas explains the uncreation of humanity in Genesis 2:5?

No, that and the ad hominem attacks are all part of your diversionary strategem to avoid the issue.

Let me refer you back to the text in question:
"The supreme philosophical science, metaphysics, can dispute against someone who denies its premises only if the adversary will concede something. If he concedes nothing, then debate is impossible, although it may still be possible to show that the adversary's argument is invalid."
Summa First Part, Question 1, article 8.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

The funny things is, I am ready to discuss any topic. But I cannot let you change the topic until we finish this topic: Why did God create a humanity in Genesis 1:27, then uncreate them in Genesis 2:5? Answer me this question, then we will discuss Aquinas.

Well patently you are not, otherwise we would have stayed with Aquinas, and not gone off onto this tangent, would we? This is your evasion tactic ... you changed the topic, not I ... Genesis appears to be your favourite 'spoiler'.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

That is why the Absolute is not God. Your God gets angry (a change in His state of being), so He cannot be It. Wow! This is great -- a chance to show God is not absolute.

Don't be too quick to broadcast your glee, it might perhaps be nothing more than revealing your own naïveté when it comes to the interpretation of texts?

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

Was Genesis 1:27 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:5 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:7 an event in a timeline?

[ALMIGHTY GOD]

Originally Posted by SalamanderRC

I also believe that Jesus was influence by the Awakened One while living in Egypt

He was?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas,

Was Genesis 1:27 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:5 an event in a timeline?
Was Genesis 2:7 an event in a timeline?

For once, my question first ...

Thomas