Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00084)

Griffin Eddie wrote:
> As Bart pointed out I will use another manner to mark my comments
> instead of bold.
Thanks, Eddie; the easier it is to read a message, the more we can 
learn from it.

> Well I will say this: I had a supervisor who was baptist who
> tried to convert me. When he asked about religion and I
> mentioned Theosophy he knew about it (basics) because he said
> that his church had taught him about the various religions -
> and how to argue against them to show that their way was the
> best.
I keep up on fundamentalist Christian tracts, and am pleased to note 
that, although they still consider Theosophy the devil's work, at least 
they're a LOT more accurate about it than they used to be. When members 
of the Society of Friends (Quakers to most) have business meetings, 
their goal is "consensus"; not that everybody agrees, but that everybody 
understands everybody else's point of view. I always felt this was a 
good idea for ANY business meeting.

> Any philosophy/religion can be "attacked" with either
> theological counterpoints or scholarly counterpoints. Every
> philosophy has points that have to be taken on "faith" until
> they can be proven otherwise. 
To me, that is the difference between philosophy and religion; 
philosophy can eventually be proven one way or another, while religion 
cannot be proven. When a philosophical idea can be tested, it becomes 
science, and when a religious idea becomes testable, it becomes a 
philosophy.

Bart