Moderator

If the Occult Brotherhood founded most/all religions, are they actually good?

It has been a long time since I read about the Occult Brotherhood in probably Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine, and I am not done with The Mahatma Letters.

I read an argument by some advanced philosophers recently that went along the following lines of 'P&Q imply R.'

Premise P. Theosophy says the Occult Brotherhood founded most/all religions (perhaps implying harmful cults are excluded.)

Premise Q. The Abrahamic religions are evil/Satanism (Gnostic argument, and based on horrors in Abrahamic texts.)

Conclusion R. If, or sInce, the Occult Brotherhood founded the Abrahamic religions, the Occult Brotherhood is evil.

One can read Skeptics Annotated Bible and Quran or do a search on 'anti tracts' to see why Abrahamism is evil.

Apparently Moses, besides carrying out the massacre and condoned enslavement/rape of many, sacrificed 32 girls to 'God.' Abraham was a lunatic who followed either an imaginary voice in his head or an insane, cruel 'God.' Jephtha sacrificed his daughter to 'God.' King David crucified seven people and thought 'God' was appeased.

The first link you would see if you do a search on 'anti tracts' would probably be one with several tracts showing the Jesus of the New Testament said and did 10 or more disturbing things, such as saying he is here 'to bring a sword, not peace,' letting demons kill a herd of pigs, cursing/killing a tree, teaching in parables in order that non-followers would not understand and would not be saved, stealing, saying people calling others fool are in danger of Hellfire, but using the insult several times himself and being rude to his parents, lying, etc. Paul's writings, which not all Christians accept, are pretty negative. A Nazarean Essene/Gnostic story of Jesus is more positive.

As for the Quran, it is a violent, misogynistic text like the Old Testament and is hateful.

The Abrahamic texts are on the level of harmful cult literature.

I do not recall if Madame Blavatsky strictly said the Occult Brotherhood started Abrahamism, but I was wondering if anyone else recalls. If not, I think this argument about Theosophy is an honest mistake on the part of the writers. They say Theosophy has several great ideas, but also a lot of nonsense.

Views: 879

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

tja Dominique...it is always the same old story. Even Buddha was teaching esoteric sciense with an small circle so Mohamed did.

They teaching were right-but look what the people did to them...

The key is the esoteric study.Than one will understand.....

Om Patita.

And: also from the Koran the doctrin from karma and rebirth was moved......

And by the way: Mohamed i consider not an Avatar. Jesus was.........

Mohamed was passing by to be a messenger-yes.

Om Patita

those who know of karma, rebirth ect., are unfortunately a very very small minority in Islam, as to not even be there. I'm surprised when I find fans of say Rumi, e.g., who put such doctrines in his poems. ...O well

Same point I was trying to make. I have also met many, and I heard the exact same thing. The ones I've talked to actually don't say anything in reply to my questions of esotericism, they seem puzzled, (as to say, this Westerner, what is he talking about it?) which is what I was trying to tell Patita. There are some distorted views that have to be dealt with before answering the question properly.

Perhaps getting back on track....  Let's try

Premise P. Theosophy says the Occult Brotherhood founded most/all religions.

Premise Q. Religions are evil as they all have caused human strife and suffering.

Conclusion R. If, or since, the Occult Brotherhood founded them, the Occult Brotherhood is evil.

I have never seen any major world religion as evil. It takes human-created organizations and specific individuals to create what we call evil.

a lot to answer to here..
Points:
1. I used the phrase "major world religion" to limit myself to my personal knowledge base.
2. Paper with ink on it is not evil. What people do is the problem. Neither my Koran, Bible, Vedas etc. have had disputes on my bookcase.
3. Fundamentalism and "Literal" interpretation are a major problem. These texts have all been redacted and emended to greater or lesser degrees. The original meanings (words) are in doubt as well. Some are still unknown as to what they mean.

I am unsure what to due with efforts like "The Parliament of World's religions"??  Ban the Abrahamic faiths?

To promote Brotherhood amongst Humanity, a prime theosophical goal, Abrahamic Religions must be brought together within the fold. Book burning never works.

He did alot worse than that. You can't even really compare him to Genghis Khan. Plus, you have to consider these peoples positions in history. Conquering lands weren't always, if any at all, in defense. On the other hand, the patterns of thought and behavior exhibited by the mass of followers (the general population) of a particular religion should often give us a birds eye view of the working of the tradition on the minds of the follower, e.g., its structure, the feelings of grandeur, and inferiority/superiority followers get from the text. Islam is inherently fundamentalist, the book is understood generally to be infallible, generally accepted literally that angels exist (not much room for interpretation), generally accepted Muhammad received the qur'an from an angel named Gabriel. The same is with Abraham, whether he existed or not, he is considered the patriarch father of the four Abrahamic traditions (i'm including Baha'i, because it considers itself to be apart of that loop). 

"One never hears of followers of Patanjali, Laozi, Mahavira, Buddha, and Classical Western philosophers carrying out tens of terror attacks daily, but followers of some Abrahamic religions do so, because of what their texts say or what they were taught."

 

Very true indeed. I took classes on violence and religious texts actually. There may be a semantic problem in all this as well, i.e., outdated ways of logic, particularly in the rigid, and dual Aristotelian logic. The Abrahamic traditions exhibit this limited system of logic, read some of Alfred Korzybski's work. It shows difference in the thought processes of the Eastern traditions you speak of and the pattern of reasoning exhibited by that of those from the Abrahamic traditions which leads to such kind of thinking, and patterns of action. What I learned from the classes is that the texts, the language is vulnerable or open to infinite kinds of interpretation, not like a language of mathematics, or engineering. 

Premise "P" is incorrect, or is at best a misunderstanding of what Theosophy teaches.

Religions are always formed by followers, never by the Reformers who sought to correct the abuses and errors of existing religions.

It seems inevitable that the Great Teachers have to repeat their message again and again, because we humans continually forget just who and what we are -- spiritual beings.  In the words of Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita, "I incarnate from age to age, for the preservation of the just, the destruction of the wicked and the establishment of righteousness."

RSS

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2019   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service