Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Theos-World "slanders quashed and settled"

Expand Messages
  • Bill Meredith
    LOL! Still there is something to be learned from almost any encounter. I would always ask where exactly in the bible does it say that the bible is the
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 7, 2002
      LOL! Still there is something to be learned from almost any encounter. I
      would always ask where exactly in the bible does it say that the bible is
      the infallible word of God? I can hear the somber warning even today:
      "Don't doubt the Word of God!"

      lol,
      Bill

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Larry F Kolts" <llkingston2@...>
      To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 3:02 PM
      Subject: Re: Theos-World "slanders quashed and settled"


      > Hi Bill,
      >
      > The arguement I always thought was interesting goes something like:
      >
      > The Bible is the infallible word of God
      >
      > How do you know that?
      >
      > Why, it says so right in the Bible!
      >
      > And remember...
      >
      > He who thinks he has no faults had just found the first one.
      >
      > Larry
      >
      > On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 11:49:32 -0500 "Bill Meredith" <bilmer@...>
      > writes:
      > > Hey Paul,
      > > Yes I agree with your assessment below. I am interested methods
      > > for
      > > reclaiming one's freedom from the rigidity of thought that seems to
      > > lurk
      > > under every rock.
      > >
      > > I went to an Uncle's funeral yesterday, and as expected the preacher
      > > spent
      > > more time trying to save souls for Jesus than he did in a dignified
      > > marking
      > > of my Uncle' passage. As I listened to this self-proclaimed
      > > God-fearing
      > > preacher I was struck repeatedly by the tangled web of
      > > contradictions that
      > > he had come to accept as truth.
      > > I will give but one example: He made the following remarks within
      > > two
      > > minutes of each other:
      > > "God is almighty and all knowing."
      > > "God does not intend for any man to burn in hell."
      > > "Men who die without first accepting the Lord will burn in hell
      > > forever."
      > > "God loves each of us."
      > >
      > > How can one not notice the contradictions? Now I am aware of
      > > non-literal
      > > interpretations of these quotes that render them less contradictory
      > > and
      > > maybe even esoterically supportive. The preacher was not preaching
      > > esoterically. I know that if I start sending in commentary to this
      > > list
      > > that contains evident contrary conditions, I want someone to point
      > > them out
      > > to me. Not because I like being proven wrong, but because I want to
      > > keep
      > > tabs on where my thinking is taking me.
      > > Keep up these kinds of posts. They help me to see the process I use
      > > to
      > > select words and phrases.
      > >
      > > regards,
      > > Bill
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@...>
      > > To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:44 AM
      > > Subject: Theos-World "slanders quashed and settled"
      > >
      > >
      > > > --- In theos-talk@y..., <dalval14@e...> wrote:
      > > > > So far. as I read those posts, they have on the main, repeated
      > > > > slanders that were quashed and settled years ago.
      > > >
      > > > This phrase is telling, and provides an opportunity to discuss
      > > > principles without reference to personalities. What Dallas
      > > > calls "slanders that were quashed and settled years ago" I and
      > > many
      > > > others would call "questions that remain unresolved despite a
      > > hundred
      > > > years of Theosophical and anti-Theosophical polemics, and which
      > > are
      > > > now receiving long overdue historical examination." Is this a
      > > matter
      > > > of fact, or of opinion? Are there not objective criteria that
      > > would
      > > > determine whether an issue has really been settled years ago or
      > > not?
      > > > Dallas may wish that these "slanders" had been "quashed" but even
      > > a
      > > > cursory glance at recent writings on HPB shows that the issues in
      > > > question remain quite alive.
      > > >
      > > > The temptation to *pretend* that a controversy had been settled
      > > years
      > > > ago, even when it is abundantly clear that it had not, is
      > > > understandable. It allows believers to file the most hot-button
      > > > issues away in a drawer marked "not even worth thinking about."
      > > > For example, some Mormons would claim that anyone who says that
      > > the
      > > > Book of Mormon is not an ancient document but rather a 19th
      > > century
      > > > production is slandering Joseph Smith. Christian Scientists would
      > > > say that anyone who says that Mrs. Eddy got a great deal of her
      > > > system from P.P. Quimby is slandering her. And so on down the
      > > line.
      > > > Some Mormons have written works that purport to prove the
      > > historicity
      > > > of the Book of Mormon. Some Christian Scientists have written
      > > > biographies that attempt to dismiss the influence of Quimby on
      > > Eddy.
      > > > And some members of these groups would say that any non-Mormon or
      > > non-
      > > > CS who raises these issues from the POV of historical scholarship
      > > is
      > > > merely repeating slanders that were quashed and settled years ago.
      > > I
      > > > think that word "quashed" speaks volumes about the mindset of such
      > > > believers. Dallas goes on to say:
      > > >
      > > > On the basis
      > > > > of fairness and accuracy in reporting, I have always understood
      > > > > that true scholarship was impersonal. Hence in the service of
      > > > > accuracy, such true scholarship reveals every side of a question
      > > > > as a matter of course.
      > > >
      > > > Which means that religious believers who declare the topics
      > > explored
      > > > by historical researchers "slanders quashed and settled years ago"
      > > > (despite abundant evidence to the contrary) lack the impersonality
      > > > required for true scholarship.
      > > >
      > > > If this is not done, then the research is
      > > > > either fragmentary and unfinished, or it is opinionated, and as
      > > > > such, it does not yet deserve the designation of "history."
      > > > >
      > > > All historical research is fragmentary and unfinished. All
      > > > historical works include opinion. There is not a finite number
      > > > of "sides" past which we can say there aren't any more left;
      > > people
      > > > will keep looking at new sides as long as the subject in question
      > > > attracts new historical research.
      > > >
      > > > PJ
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________
      > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
      > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
      > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
      > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.