Taomation.
Although I understand the rationale behind your thoughts in respect of differences, I think it's how we all approach them
For my part, I love to hear the perspectives of others - which are often very different - they make me think, often make me review my own perspectives and inevitably, I find I can learn/grow from them. Even if it doesn't alter my view, I might find a lesson arises from my own reactions. What I think occasionally goes wrong is that others become scathing or perdantic if your views don't match theirs, and that's where the real 'differences' begin to show. Healthy debate - such as appears to be present on this thread - is ...well,....healthy
Edward
I was interested to read both Blavatsky and Bailey's view of God. Or rather, their rampant dismissal
What intrigued me was the life each had led prior to their becoming theosophists. Blavatsky had been very religious - in the conventional, Russian Orthodox fashion, but turned full circle following the death of a child, widely believed to be her own (although she wouldn't admit it). She failed to understand how a loving God could deal her such a hand. Similarly, Bailey had been raised in a somewhat orthodox Christian background -marrying into it too -and later reacted to it (or her one-time husband
) I find both conversions telling and wonder if their personal experiences coloured their later writing. In times of trouble some people 'find' faith, others lose it. The AM's who worked with both apparently found them 'trying'
I don't read many books on the AM's any more. But, I don't regret reading Bailey - if only because it made me think. The number of people who, when reading the racist bits, which truly were appalling, continued to find excuses for Bailey or ways to 'interpret' and 'understand' what she'd said was interesting. Even though what she'd written appeared pretty unenlightened, the blind loyalty was nevertheless apparent. It made me think about how our need for a leader or a teacher can have its darker side.
I was also pleased to have read Bailey just to understand how she is playing out today. As the instigator of the 'New Age', her views are slipping into the UN and apparently into schools in America. Not being American, I don't know how true that is, though
It's actually rather difficult to know which agenda Mrs Bailey's work is supporting, but some believe it isn't particularly healthy. Whether you take that view or not depends on your perspective of race and religion.
Before I leave the topic of the AM's, I wondered what your thoughts are on Benjamin Creme and his assertation that Maitreya is already here and has addressed many crowds in many nations - oh, and certain UN delegates, too?
I don't have too many thoughts with respect to the Bible. Although I am reasonably informed, I haven't made what might be honestly called a scholarly study
. The UK takes a rather quiet, reserved approach to religion. Like politics and money, it's an 'off the agenda' topic, generally considered too personal a question to ask of another
When Tony Blair mentioned God we were mostly appalled! We don't like our politics and religion mixing
Historically, it's led to mindless bloodshed and strife.
I believe that the ancient Jewish scholars did not take the Bible at face value, but interpreted it into what we now know as the Talmud. Their interpretations could be so focused that it wasn't unknown for them to get hung up for ages on the meaning of a single word. The Talmud, however, remains in the same form today - i.e. under an interpretation that is centuries old. It would be very good if today's scholars undertook the task again
I knew a very cool rabbi who gave me some interesting insights into the non-literal interpretations of the bible - such as the book of Ruth, which he said was not to be taken literally as it had been written simply to encourage converts to Judaism
Thanks for the open-minded thread, Edward