Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00297)

Michael Cremo's theory is based on the Vedas using Eastern cyclical 
thought but its not emantionism ?


One the other hand emanationism like Plotinus and pseudo-Dyonisus 
that develloped "the great Chain of Being" theorie, is based on the Bible. 

Also the Catholic church is not creationist, but all have a "creation myth." 

including the SD wirth globes and rounds spiritual hierarchies that 
particitated, and various pralayas inbetween, hypobereans, Lemurians 
and so on.

With a major difference to all modern theories of evolution ,that 
Theosophy denies man would have derieved from chimps. And 
Theosophy does this without any evidence to support this.

Like Cremo Theosophy claims man comes from some kind of spirirtual 
golden age (from on high) Cremo calls it "devolution" instead of the 
modern evolution theory that invariable says man split of from the 
monkeys and not the other way around as Theosophy claims.

Brian

--- In theos-talk@y..., "Wes Amerman" <amerman@t...> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> <If your belief is based on "inner feelings" (the "inner 
man") , "religion"
> ("Theos-" ) or even so-called "common sense" as you might claim, it is
> far more likely to be wrong than theories based on scientific evidence.
> 
> If what you claim is based on more then religious faith then
> present the evidence that supports SD creation myth, the posting 
below
> and the content of your two previous postings. And I' be glad to 
discuss
> them.>
> 
> 
> Dear Brian,
> 
> Ah, yes, the problem of "evidence." I'm perfectly willing to accept that 
my
> "inner feelings," intuitions and "religion" may be entirely wrong. 
However,
> I make no "claim" to be able to "prove" anything to someone whose 
world-view
> accepts nothing but what can be weighed and measured. The 
subjective, the
> intuitional and the mythic only have value to those with whom and in 
whom
> they resonate. They simply don't "exist" for anyone else, and certainly
> cannot be "proven."
> 
> Since you choose not to respond directly to what I have already 
written --
> twice -- I don't think we really have much to talk about. If you are 
really
> willing to discuss the points I have already raised, I will gladly do so.
> They are readily available in the archives of this list.
> 
> However, I will list just a few of the things which come up "short" in 
my
> assessment of the traditional system of modern science. Others who
> participate here may wish to add areas I have neglected:
> 
> 1. The phenomenon of consciousness itself.
> 
> 2. The lack of "evolutionary" value to awareness of self, or
> self-consciousness.
> 
> 3. The fact (in my experience and that of thousands) of precognitive
> experiences of all kinds (including but not limited to dreams,
> "premonitions," and non-drug or -alcohol induced visions) and the 
utter lack
> of satisfactory "scientific" explanations.
> 
> 4. The well-documented phenomena of past-life memories and out-
of-body
> experiences (See "Reincarnation: the Phoenix Fire Mystery," by Head 
and Cran
> ston, and "Reincarnation: A New Horizon in Science, Religion and 
Society" by
> Cranston and Williams just as beginning points).
> 
> 5. The tremendous volume of disregarded archeological evidence 
that does
> not fit the current scenarios, as noted in the work of Cremo and 
Thompson,
> and others such as Michael Denton's "Evolution: a Theory in Crisis."
> 
> 6. The "cultural" aspects of modern "scientific" thought, and the
> limitations inherent in that world-view. (Points four and five in my last 
to
> you).
> 
> One final, important note. You wrote to Dallas:
> 
> < Brian: Please present your evidence that supports your creation 
myth
> other then religious belief alias the belief supernatural Hierarchical
> beings that supposed to have created this planet acording to the SD.>
> <And the evolution of modern man since he split of from the chimps.>
> <give us your scientific theory of theosophical creationism, and tell us
> how we can test it using a scientific method.>
> 
> You have completely and utterly misrepresented Theosophy in saying 
it has a
> "creation myth," or that it advocates "creationism," theosophical or
> otherwise. Theosophists are "emanationists," not "creationists," and 
reject
> the idea of "creation ex-nihilo" by an extra-cosmic Deity as firmly as 
any
> modern scientist.
> 
> We can discuss the implications of the latter if you like, but only after 
we
> take up the other points above.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Wes