Theosophobia and christophobia

[Adyarman]

Janeth advised me to open a discussion of my own where Christianity can be discussed. I thought it more appropriate to discuss each other's negative image, as that might be most fruitful.
Only a few years ago I gave courses in theosophy, then I turned around and now I explain why theosophy is wrong. That is what I mean with 'theosophobia'. It happens often that converts like to criticize convictions of the past and while I think: "from how deep has God lifted me", theosophists probably think: "how deep can human fall" on contemplating my case. Of course my contributions to this forum are provocative, although I try to comment on ideas and concepts and not on people holding them. I admit that I'm not very polite or respectful about most ideas, but I always try to be respectful to the person whom I conceive to entertain incorrect views. Every human being has a right to be stupid, to fail, to sin and still be treated in a cordial way. And he has a right to be shown where and how his concepts go wrong, if he likes to learn.
I got a few remarks back, like Pablo Sender explaining how Christianity is 'especially' killing infidels. Such reactions are natural and don't bother me. I think Pablo is a gentle person. On the other hand, Christophobia is part of theosophy. It has deeper roots than Pablo's take, where he explains: "This is one of the reasons why Blavatsky was so against the church, although she was never against the figure of Jesus and his teachings." I believe she was against the figure of Jesus and also against his teachings. At the root of this conflict lie contradictory interpretations of the universe and the destiny of man. HPB depicts Gnostics as 'esoteric Christianity', while Christians call it 'heresy'. Some other day I intend to go deeper into this conflict.
The title of this discussion wall is negative. I intent to give negative comments on theosophy and counter negative comments on Christianity. Theosophists are invited to 'talk back'. Perhaps, out of all this negativity something good may arise, like a deeper understanding.

[Adyarman]

You believe in a cyclical universe. This is a theosophical concept. Indeed it leaves a lot of space to the idea that the universe isn't a serious place, that what happens is a play, a trivial persuit, which in the end leads to nothing worth while.
A created, non cyclical universe, with a selection process where sinners and rightious have a different fate, does lead in the end to something worth while, doesn't it?

[Jack Donaldson]

Adyarman wrote; You believe in a cyclical universe. This is a theosophical concept. Indeed it leaves a lot of space to the idea that the universe isn't a serious place, that what happens is a play, a trivial persuit, which in the end leads to nothing worth while.
A created, non cyclical universe, with a selection process where sinners and rightious have a different fate, does lead in the end to something worth while, doesn't it?>>

You believe Julian and Mennas of Constantinople. For the New Testament contains as a result of the banning as anathema, and subsequent prohibition of the Teachings of Origen, beliefs beginning in the year 542 A.D. This is how far you go back in time. But this is something people have argued over and over again.

At the bottom, or behind it all, the one understanding we all agree upon, is the death of the physical human body. This is a shocking revelation to any human. The realization that we will die is frightening. One way we cope with knowledge of our mortality, is understanding we will die... but not yet.

Now, how we live is important within my perspective. We have the Preacher Man saying its the end of time, and those who believe in Jesus and live in accordance to this belief go to heaven. All others go to a torment filled hell. There is inarguable truth that we will die, but what happens after is hearsay. "Believing is seeing" is an important concept to me, so I will allow for Christians to have the first part of their belief. I will not begrudge them this. As for the second part concerning those who do not measure-up by believing what Christians would have them believe, I will not hold this.

How we live is important, quite important, extremely important. Dogma is difficult to believe while we have scientific understandings possessed within our make-ups equally if not more strongly. Christianity is often, if not most of the time at odds with science. I see science being utilized by Christians 'as it suits them' however.

What I have come to question, is the inarguable truth that we will all die. I have been travelling along a path bringing me closer in an ever increasing advance, which indicates death is only a perceived concept, while we only leave a body for another. I at least have some parameters for approaching an accumulation of evidence which might satisfy my belief on this matter. Dogma simply states BELIEVE! as any question is considered wicked and pernicious. I will not accept a belief I cannot test against reality. Especially when I see it only results in countless numbers of people currently living upon this planet, acting either piously judgemental, agnostic and not really knowing what to believe, or simply being of a positivistic bent. All three types seem to cause suffering to themselves and others, and this only differs in the solution; more suffering to self as compared to suffering put upon others, or more suffering upon others as compared to the suffering they cause to themselves.

So, it all shows up in the solute and the solvent, while I read all this upon the Akashic. Humans are all quite interesting people, each and everyone, but I wish they would allow for less suffering upon themselves and others. We will not always live in this manner in which we feel so very isolated within our skins, one from the other. This last paragraph is simply the result of my imagination, and I was simply inspired to write it.

signed,

regular old human living in his skin.

[Adyarman]

My definition of 'sinner' is: someone who fails to trust God. Adam and Eve were both the first humans and the first sinners, as they prefered the snake's words over Gods.
Now if someone has a wish to live without God and God grands that wish, the best He can do is provide him with a 'no God illusion', part of which is death and suffering. However in His goodness He also provides a way out.

[Adyarman]

Is autonomy in conformity with our experiences?
As my objection to theosophy is that in fact the Universe is not an autonomous system, I'll start my arguments with an explanation of the conceptions 'autonomy' and 'heteronomy'.
The word 'autonomy' comes from the Greek 'auto', which means 'self', and the Latin 'nomen', which means 'name'. The combination means: 'to give yourself a name' or 'to define yourself' of 'to be your own source of authority'.
The word 'heteronomy' comes from 'hetero', which means 'other, different, outer or outside' and 'nomen'. The combination means: 'to have been given a name' or 'to have been defined by something or someone else' or 'to be obedient to some outside authority'.
Let me give an example: I am known on this forum as 'Adyarman'. True: I've given myself that nickname. But after all the posts I contributed, I cannot define myself any more, can I?
Conclusion: Adyarman is not an autonomous phenomenon on this theosophical forum.
So we can deduct that autonomy is not in conformity with our experience. In fact nothing in the universe is autonomous, yet theosophy requires the universe to be an autonomous system. Why theosophy requires that and why its philosophy is incompatible with the concept of a heteronymous universe is something I'll go into in some later post.

[Adyarman]

I'm sorry that your birth was such a drama. You didn't give yourself a name and you didn't cast yourself out, did you? If you don't believe that God had His teachings summed up in the bible, its best use might indeed be fuel. I believe that God is the only source of true love in the universe.

[Adyarman]

I think God has humour, but even if He had no humour, we've no other options, have we. There's only one choise: God or something else. If God would have been frightful, dishonest, and not worth our dedication, I would choose something else. But I discovered Him to be loving and honest and changed my choise.

[Adyarman]

God doesn't like conditions, so I guess He'll stay out of your way.

[Adyarman]

God doesn't like to be seen as an entity. He wants me to love Him as the heavenly Father of my renewed and reborn self. He has humour, but I guess you dont trust Him, nor me. He'll wait patiently until your time in life is done to loosen up and enjoy His presence. Then there will be judgment ....

[Jeff Zolkes]

To All:
I think it would be best not to dignify this instigation with any further response. And yes, Adyarman, there is quite a difference between provocation and instigation.

[Nabil Naser]

Jeff

Silence, much like the vacuum, creates what we know.
But when you can speak, and you know that what you are saying is the truth, then go up to the roof top, and yell the truth. Do it from the bell tower, if you feel like it.

Christianity is in a difficult position now, and they also may need our help.
Just as all religions may soon do

[Adyarman]

I am completely honest about myself and my intentions. The fact that someone argues against the basic tenets of theosophy, might indeed stir things up.

[Nabil Naser]

"Every human being has a right to be stupid, to fail, to sin and still be treated in a cordial way. And he has a right to be shown where and how his concepts go wrong, if he likes to learn."

You certainly have that right.
And thanks to Jesus people who do stupid things do not have to go to hell. In fact, no one should judge them before they judge themselves first.

Jesus was a theosophist. Probably the first, but not likely.