Re: Theos-World Hi there, I'm new.
Jan 19, 2007 07:22 AM
--- In email@example.com, leonmaurer@... wrote:
> The second God referred to in theosophical metaphysics is the
> or consciousness of the primal universal "space" before and after
> manifestation, that is aware and willful with respect to its
inherent abstract motion
> that contains, encoded in it (most likely in the form of
> interference patterns of its fundamental spin-energy or G-force
> the Akasha) all the information or experiential knowledge of all
> cyclic existence's plus the wisdom of its own inherent nature --
as the basis
> of determining the initially involved fractal fields and their
> and, through the guidance of its initial hierarchy of spiritual
> the Dhyan Chohans) the subsequent evolution of inorganic matter,
leading up to
> the evolutionary ladder of sentient and super sentient organic
> the apparent purpose of ultimately replicating itself in mankind,
> their evolution... Until they further evolve to the state of super
> existence equivalent to itself... Thus, adding infinite lines of
> individual experiences and knowledge to its previous store of self
Similar to the 'cosmological supergod' concept that began evolving
from the time of King Solomon in the Old Testament, except perhaps
for the expansion part. The Christians and biblical Jews had
adopted a slightly lesser god concept than the one that you present
here when they declared their god to be omnisicent, omnipotent and
However, I personally regard this not so much as a god concept, but
instread a 'multiverse' concept. Namely, I believe that
the 'multiverse' itself has the same qualities which you present, a
living organism in and of itself, yet I do not call it a god, nor do
I worship the 'multiverse'. Nor do I believe that we can
qualitatively 'know' the 'multiverse' much beyond the abstract
mathematical calculation that you've presented.
> And if that "God" refers to the one that is
> separate and personal, then that person could not be a true
Not even all Christians believe in a separate god as you suggest.
Some do and some don't. The god concept that you've extrapolated
from is largely borrowed from the Christians, with various
modifications made for perhaps scientific value.
> But, even then,
> agnostic would only apply to the separate Gods of those cults or
I believe that you're putting agnosticism into a box. There are
several strains of agnosticism.
> Thus, a
> Christian or follower of the teachings of Yeshua or Jesus, without
> his divinity, or the God of the churches that worship them, can
still be a true
I believe that Jesus is a perfected human being, with the same
potentials of any other human being.
> > atheism is
> > > as much a religious belief or faith as theism.
> > >
A common assertion made among Christians themselves concerning
atheists, which atheists nonetheless deny.
> I was speaking of organized religions that require a faith or
belief in a
> personal and separate God or his representative, such as Jesus.
> > >
> > > Leon
> > > >
Modernized Christianity teaches the omniscience, omnipotence and
omnipresence of the Trinity in it's orthodox textbooks at it's
mainstream seminaries. The concept of omnipresence does not imply
separateness. Some Christian god concepts are more evolved than
others and some less than others. Variations of god concept
presentations may occur if presented by educated seminary scholars
versus street corner lay-evangelists.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application