You can interpret my words and claim that they mean what they mean to you. But it would be unfair to claim that your speculations about the meaning of my words have the same absolute meanings for me.
Granted, people are entitled to belong to the religion of their choice. It doesn't mean that they subscribe to outer dogma and teachings in the same way as everyone else. I have researched and compiled a lot of history over the years and anybody who has done the same knows that history doesn't absolutely equate with credible and verifiable truth. In many instances you find myth and fiction blended in.
With regard to Rebazar Tarzs, I called it an issue for me because the context of truth or myth was not absolutely clear (I am an Eckist remember, and according to the "church" to which I belong this issue has not been clarified exactly. This is my impression, at least). So if you can understand what I am saying, in some respects it does still appear to me that Rebazar Tarzs is not wholly a myth (according to my "church", which could mean my immediate church community, at least) . And in other respects there appears to be a case that he is a myth (according to various literal evidence, etc.). Confused is an appropriate word to use hear. Specifically, confused about what is truth and what is myth with regard to the actual physical identity of Rebazar Tarzs.
As a compiler of history, and as an Eck member, I would naturally want to be clear about the context of truth vs. myth. What I tried to express earlier was that Rebazar Tarzs (in the context of myth) is not an issue for me. Maybe it would have been better to say "would not be an issue for me".
Can you not fathom how a member of religion could remain a member even if some of that religion's outer history were mythical? If you can't fathom this then I would have to conclude that maybe you don't know the truth about the "outer" teachings and "dogma" of many religions.
I am only one who would like to clarify what components are myth and what components are truth with regard to Eckankar history, the "outer" teachings, because I don't want to equate the inner with the outer, or the truth with fiction. One reason being, that if I have to explain to others what is Rebazar Tarzs, or any of the other apparently confusing elements about religious history to other people, I would like to describe them in their proper context.
If I could not tolerate or stand for a mythical element to religious history, then I would not be a member of a religion. Maybe you don't understand how I can tolerate it, but I have. I tolerate it like I do all of the other history that I read about or compile.
I give it an objective form, and in context to time (a timeline), so that I can study it.
Do you not believe that it says something about the freedom of religion when a person can research and study the actual "outer" history to their own religion? I do.
B.T.W., where do you suppose are my other posts to Mish? I guess they are a little bit delayed. I hope that when they arrive they will clarify some things for you.