Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity
A long thread combatting
the theological arsenal of John Morehead, an evangelical expert
on the New Age cult of Anthroposophy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 19:56:33
I don't know if we're getting anywhere, Tarjei,
but I'll try my best to respond.
I had said that we need to have a rational
foundation for truth claims, including religious truth claims,
especially when they move from subjective beliefs to publicly
proclaimed truth claims. You
responded:
In that case you are going beyond the realm
of religion based on faith and entering the approach taken by
spiritual science, anthroposophy. If you are not doing this,
you are within the limits of faith-religion, where any talk of
objective proof is inapplicable.
This is a common misunderstanding of the New
Testament's teaching on faith. Faith in a biblical sense is not
an irrational belief in something in spite of contradiction,
or a lack of reasons to believe. Rather, faith is a trust in
the Personal God of the Old and New Testaments, especially as
revealed through Jesus Christ. Orthodox Christianity holds that
one gains a right relationship with God by God's grace through
faith which is provided by God. This is *not* what is going on
in anthroposophy, where the emphasis is on psychic or supersensible
knowledge of occultic "higher worlds" of knowledge.
Although the term "spiritual science" is used, this
is certainly not scientific in the accepted uses of the term.
Orthodox Christianity, by contrast, should be open to the testing
of its truth claims, when and where possible, by applying tests
of history, science, philosophy and the like. How is this possible
with anthroposophical spiritual science? I claim that the marshalling
of evidence is possible with orthodox Christianity, but not so
with anthroposophy.
By the same token, nobody can set up a
boundary between subjective belief and "objective public
realm" unless they they are taking the step from faith to
knowledge, from religion to science.
Is faith in your understanding contradictory
to knowledge? I would hold that they are compatible, and that
religion and true science must be reconcilable as well.
Analysis is a part of the scientific method
and should be distinguished from traditional faith-religion.
Only if you put a wedge between reason and
religious truth claims. If you do this, why take the leap of
faith in the direction of anthroposophy, or orthodox Christianity,
and not Hitler's national socialism for example? There must be
some objective grounds for holding religious truth claims.
These contradictions, lack of substantiation,
and falseness is all in your subjective lack of understanding,
or of misunderstanding, which you may share with your peers.
I know this is your understanding, and your
affirmation, but with no examples, it is just a mere affirmation
and nothing more. Can you demonstrate how I, and my "peers",
whoever that may be, do have this misunderstanding?
The lady in question had integrated Catholicism
with anthroposophy. I saw the harmony in it, which made it valid.
So if you subjectively believe something,
that makes it valid? What about the racist who says he believes
in racial purity, but that he is not a racist. Since he sees
the harmony in that is it valid? Or perhaps he has an internal
contradiction which he hasn't noticed, thereby making his conclusions
invalid, despite his sincerity in holding his views. Roman Catholicism
and anthroposophy are not teaching the same thing. They are contradictory.
This can be easily demonstrated.
You dont see this harmony, but you cannot
borrow criteria from the rules of intellectual proof as used
in the laboratory and apply these to the religious philosophy
of a senior citizen. That is an arrogant lack of respect and
a total misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of religious
concepts, which are ultra-rational by their very nature.
You're losing me here. I'm simply trying to
apply the rules of rational thought that we all use each day,
often without realizing it. How is that an arrogant lack of respect
or a misunderstanding. I've tried very hard to understand Steiner,
anthroposopy and anthroposophists. That doesn't mean I have to
agree with them, or that anthroposophy is true, or that it should
be in public schools via Waldorf education. I realize that to
critique another's spiritual views, and to consider claims of
truth and falsity with regards to religion is not politically correct, but it simply must be done.
All roads to not lead to God. Consider the following short poem
by a colleage, Christian philosopher Frank Beckwith:
"All roads lead to God,
So many people say,
But when the get to Jonestown,
They beg to look away."
Evidence or intellectual proof has nothing
to do with subjective religious beliefs.
If this is your view then you are left with
a radical subjectivism in religious belief, with no way to share
with another the reasons why they should share in your religious
worldview. By contrast, the early Christians were encouraged
to "be ready always to give an answer for the reason for
the hope within you, but do this with gentleness and reverence"
(1 Peter 3:15). The word translated "reason" is "apologia"
in the Greek. It means a vigorous, rational defense of the faith.
Again, New Testament Christianity is at variance with Anthroposophy
and the a-rational, eastern-oriented spirituality of much of
the West.
Your evidence probably convinces yourself
and your peers, but the hyper-intellectuality you thus apply
to religion is actually killing the religion in the process.
Again, if you denigrate reason as applied
to religion, you are stuck in a swamp of subjectivism. A true,
biblical form of Christianity incorporates an emphasis upon the
development of the intellectual life as a vital part of the spiritual
life.
It surprises me that you call yourself
an evangelist, or an evangelical, when your line of reasoning
is actually virulently anti-religious.
It appears you are not familiar with evangelical
Christianity. Evangelicalism, and orthodox Christianity are historically
quite at home with intellectual endeavors. Case in point: the
brilliant Christian philosophical minds of Thomas Aquinas and
Augustine.
Orthodox Christianity runs into a very
big problem here in regard to two Gospel events. One is the Immaculate
Conception of Mary (fertilization without a male physical sperm);
I think you're referring her to the Virgin
Birth or Virgin Conception. The Immaculate Conception is a Roman
Catholic doctrine which holds that if Jesus was conceived without
original sin, then Mary must have been as well. The Virgin Birth
is the Lukan and Matthian Gospel accounts referring to the supernatural
conception of the child Jesus within the womb of Mary without
the usual sexual reproductive processes. For a defense of the
historicity of these narratives, see J.G. Machen, _The Virgin
Birth_, in a cogent and scholarly work written in the 1930s,
if memory serves me correctly. This treatise has never been adequately
addressed by Christian liberalism.
the other is the flesh-physical Resurrestion
and Ascension of christ. You may play around with as many intellectual
proofs as you want, but your creed is in blatant contradiction
with natural science; it is a scientific impossibility.
Contradiction with natural science? If the
God of Christian theism exists, then by definition He is omnipotent,
the Creator of the cosmos, and the Author of natural law. Thus,
as the Author, He can temporarily interrupt His creation to bring
about His sovereign purposes. These are called miracles. Only
if we assume that naturalism is true, and no supernatural exists,
are miracles false and at variance with natural science. There
have been some good expositions of the evidence for the existence
of God, and for the possibility of miracles, by Christian philosophers,
such as William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler and J.P. Moreland.
This is not problem for orthodox Christianity. Perhaps for anthroposophy...
I am not mentioning this to suggest that
your creed is wrong, but to illustrate that you cannot apply
scientific concepts to it, like "providing evidence."
Evidence is not limited to natural science.
One can also provide philosophical, legal, historical evidences
and the like. You seem to think that Steiner's esoteric Christianity
is compatible with orthodox Christianity. I'm asking you to provide
evidence, of whatever kind, for your assertions. Your assertions
by themselves tell us what you believe, but not why you believe
it, or why anyone else should believe it.
Your description of Steiner's Christology
is foggy and wishy-washy. He used the Bible to substantiate his
claims to a much greater extent than Gnosticism or hermiticism.
Yes. The Bible, read esoterically, in violation
of hermeneutical, historical or grammatical considerations. Further,
his interpretation of the Bible was influenced by Gnosticism,
hermeticism, Rosicrucianism, Spinoza's pantheism, Goethe, etc.
This esoteric grid was used to filter the New Testament texts
resulting in an esoteric Christianity contrary to the New Testament
author's world view and intended textual meanings. You've provided
not evidence to the contrary to counter my claims here.
Having read the entire Bible myself, and
having studied Christianity, church history, and anthroposophy
for more than thirty years, I may say with authority and conviction
Glad to see that you've studied these things
for a while, but as I tried to state earlier, this doesn't guarantee
accurate research or valid conclusions.
Steiner's esoteric Christianity have many
traits in common indeed, and that any individual may mold his
own cosmology and Christology from any combination of sources
of his choosing. And people are doing this all over Europe. And
it is extremely arrogant to say that you cannot do so, because
when you say that, you refuse to accept any line of reasoning
The differences outweigh any similiarity,
making them contradictory. It is not arrogant to point out contradiction.
It is closed mindedness not to recognize, or to consider, such
a possibility.
You are either ignorant of, or deliberately
overlooking, the fact that anthroposophical Christology also
affirms the unique nature of Christ, that He was the unique incarnation
of God in human flesh, who died a substitionary death for human
sin. This is one of the key concepts that anthroposophy holds
in common with traditional Christianity.
As Dan Dugan's post made clear, Steiner's
redefintion of the atonement is not the orthodox New Testament
understanding of a once-for-all sacrifice for human sin in fulfillment
of Old Testament prophecy and sacrificial types. Again, Steiner
opts for Christ as "unique" among other religious leaders,
marking his differences with theosophy, but still classifying
it as esoteric rather than orthodox.
You are also obviously unaware that there
are Buddhist monks who are members of the Anthroposophical Society.
The blending of Christianity and Buddhism is happening all over
the world along with the increase of believers in reincarnation,
also among traditional Christians.
The fact that it is done does not mean it
is not contradictory. You see such a synthesis more among naive
Westerners rather than Eastern Buddhist adherents. Even the Dalai
Lama, in his recent book of reflections on Christ's teachings,
acknowleges that Buddhism and Christianity are not compatible
and are separate religions. If the leader of a major sect of
Buddhism acknowledges this, it should give reason for pause by
errant Western "Christian-Buddhist" synretists.
Your main objection to the harmony of christianity
and Buddhism, which you base upon "the law of non-contradiction"
is an incomprehensible abstraction which is conveniently ignored
by the rising mumber of Buddhist Christians like myself.
You are self-refuting here. You must use the
law of non-contradiction to deny it. It is not an abstraction
but a basic rule of thought which you use every day. You must
use it to deny the assertions I've made in previous posts!
Your description of how Steiner developed
anthroposophy is false, but I'll skip my comments and corrections
for now.
See the scholarly reference works which mention
anthroposophy, such as the Encyclopedia of American Religions.
My understanding the influences on anthroposophy are accurate
and references can be provided.
What author? Moses? Luke? John? Since Steiner
obviously knew and understood those seers of old a lot better
than you or any spiritually blind grammarians and book-worms,
the "interpretation" was at variance not with the author,
but with the orthodox scribes and pharisees of modern times -
those who are blind to the living spirit and are choking in the
dust of libraries and headspins.
How do you know Steiner understood them when
he used a purely subjective, mystical method of interpretation?
When he quotes a biblical author, any of them, and arrives at
an esoteric understanding, he is scripture twisting and arriving
at a meaning contrary to the author. If you used an esoteric
interpretation of the Reader's Digest, TV Guide, TIME, or your
tax forms, you'd be in trouble quickly. Why do it with the biblical
texts?
In case of old documents, that cannot be
done without spiritual research independent of external documents.
After the spiritual investigation has been done, comparisons
can be made with the original documents to see if they are accurate.
So you have to access alleged occultic worlds
to ascertain the meaning of a New Testament text? Nonsense. One
can look at the original languages, the history, culture, grammar,
syntax, context of the text. This is responsible hermeneutics.
And who says that Judeo-Christian theism
is superior to Western esotericism if they are indeed in conflict?
And what about the Quabalah?
I maintain that Western esotericism, properly
classified within the New Age movement, is philosophically inferior
to Christian theism. In fact, I believe it cannot be demonstrated
philosophically that it is not true.
This may be the contemporary postmodern
understanding of history, but it can be demonstrated that the
process of defining the creeds arose in church history as a result
of a concern for theologically revealed truth in response to
heretical error, not as a power play of oppression.
[small snip] And from the perspective of
today, we can easily find that many insights proposed by the
Gnostics and other heretics are more compatible with the understanding
of our scientific age than are the orthodox dogma.
How is modern gnosticism more in touch with
modern science? Again, nice assertion, no evidence. Let me provide
a counter-example. Gnostic influence in alternative medicine.
Prime example: Deepak Chopra. The cure for aging, disease and
death? Simply change your consciousness, thereby bringing yourself
into harmony with the infinite Creative Intelligence, and viola.
No more sickness, because it was an illusion created by thinking.
I submit that Dr. Chopra will still age, and die, regardless
of his meditation, because reality is not as he perceives it.
He has a false worldview and ideas have consequences. Those who
follow Gnostic/New Age influences in alternative medicine are
taking their very lives into their hands. Why not apply reason
to this area? Why deny the advances of modern medicine in favor
of a superstitious and magical worldview? If you do your homework,
you'll see that historically, Christianity as life and world-affirming
helped provide the philosophical soil for the advent of the modern
scientific method, not gnosticism.
There is nothing wrong with defending truth
against error, but the church has been most busy doing the exact
opposite: Defending error against truth.
Nice assertion. Care to provide some examples
and evidence for that assertion?
I think you would agree with me since you
are defending your view of truth against my own. And I assure
you, even though we disagree, I won't burn you at the stake,
and neither will the rest of orthodox Christendom. :)
That's because they no longer have that
legal option.
I'll have to ask you to try to leave the chip
on your shoulder on the side when we chat. You insinuate that
I'd burn you at the stake if it wasn't for the legal prohibitions.
I wouldn't because that isn't sound Christian ethical teaching.
It is immoral. To question my moral integrity is not the best
way to build bridges of communication and understanding.
...and belief is subjective - *merely*
subjective.
Not veridical? With corresponding objective
object of that faith? Then how does this differ from self-deception,
illusion or wish fulfillment? Why be an anthroposophist and not
create a subjective religion of one's one design?
You're referring to the faith-religion
that the evangelists, and the apostle Paul, taught the uneducated
masses. But if this should have remained the essence of Christianity
forever, there would have been no critical, self-dependent thinking,
and subsequently no human freedom. There would only be blind
obedience to the decrees from a metaphysical dictator.
Huh? I was describing the essence of historic
orthodoxy. You have reinterpreted it according to postmodern
sensibilities with notions of an oppressive orthodoxy. And how
can you have a "critical, self-dependent thinking"
within esoteric Christianity since you deny the law of non-contradiction
and rational thought as applied to religious truth claims?
The latter is a totally superficial and
uneducated rendition of the anthroposophical approach to the
Mystery of Golgotha. There is talk of a physical body (resurrection
body) that should not be confused with the flesh and blood, the
shell around the physical "phantom." this is an extremely
difficult thing to understand, requiring a lot of study and deep
meditation. And it cannot be brushed aside and dismissed as a
wishy-washy, metaphysical etheric, "subjective" nonsense
kind of thing.
Where in historic Christian anthropology do
the biblical texts refer to a "phantom" let alone an
etheric or astral body? Biblical anthropology teaches that human
nature is comprised of a physical and immaterial nature, but
this is not anthroposophical. The physical body is essential
to Judeo-Christian anthropology.
Rudolf Steiner says precisely the same
thing. Did you know that?
Could you provide the references? I'd like
to see them. It would be nice if he interpreted one major Christian
doctrine correctly.
You obviously have no knowledge or understanding
of anthroposophical Christology. You don't know what it has in
common with other varieties of the Christ-idea.
This is your assumption, with no evidence.
It would be nice if you could throw in a few reasons for your
assertions, Tarjei. Christ is not a "Christ-idea,"
but the Greek term from the Hebrew Messiah, referring to a prophesied
historical individual realized in Jesus of Nazareth. Your very
assertion above demonsrates your acceptance of an esoteric worldview
imposed upon Judeo-Christian theism.
You know that Christ said, "Let the
little chiuldren come to me, and don't hinder them, for theirs
is the Kingdom of God" (my paraphraze). But isn't that what
you're doing, chasing Christ out of the schools and away from
the children?
I support private Christian education, and
the legal discussion of religion in public schools. I do not
support the furtherance of a religious group at the expense of
another or of no religion in violation of the Constitution.
John
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 07:34:20 -0400
Tarjei and John are having a discussion:
It surprises me that you call yourself
an evangelist, or an evangelical, when your line of reasoning
is actually virulently anti-religious.
It appears you are not familiar with evangelical
Christianity. Evangelicalism, and orthodox Christianity are historically
quite at home with intellectual endeavors. Case in point: the
brilliant Christian philosophical minds of Thomas Aquinas and
Augustine.
A title of interest which goes right to the
heart of this matter: "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind",
by Mark A. Noll, William Erdmans Publishing Company, 1994.
Noll is a self-described evangelist, a professor
of Christian Thought at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois.
From his preface: "This book is an epistle from a wounded lover.
As one who is in love with the life of the mind but who has also
been drawn to faith in Christ through the love of evangelical
Protestants, I find myself in a situation where wounding is commonplace.
Although the thought has occurred to me regularly over the past
two decades that, at least in the United States, it is simply
impossible to be, with integrity, both evangelical and intellectual,
this epistle is not a letter of resignation from the evangelical
movement. It intends rather to be a cri du coeur on behalf of
the intellectual life by one who, for very personal reasons,
still embraces the Christian faith in an evangelical form."
Here's what Noll has to say about Thomas Aquinas
(page 45):
"The work of Aquinas
and like-minded friars left an extremely important legacy. He
provided a model for reconciling the knowledge we gain through
the senses with the truths we discover in Scripture. He proposed
a theoretical explanation for some of the mysteries of the faith
like the Lord's Supper. And he offered a model for apologetics
that respected both the intellect of non-Christians and the missionary
mandate for believers. In an age where the thought forms of Aristotle
had come to dominate learned discourse, Aquinas taught Aristotle
to 'speak like a Christian' and so preserved the conceptual power
of Christian faith.
Thomas Aquinas did not
provide the last word on any of these matters. Luther and Calvin,
for example, felt that he had overemphasized what we learn about
God from nature at the expense of what we learn from Scripture.
Yet what Thomas did provide was a formulation of the faith that
has encouraged generations of believers to labor with their minds
for the glory of God. In so doing, he left an intellectual perspective
that has helped sustain the wider Christian church to this very
day."
Here are some of Noll's thoughts on Augustine
(pages 202-203):
"One of the earliest
full statements of the problem involved in carrying self-evident,
literal, normal, simple or common-sensical interpretations of
the Bible into the arena of science is also one of the earliest.
It was written by Augustine in the fifth century toward the end
of his life, and after several decades of nearly constant toil
at interpreting the Scripture. When Augustine wrote the work
entitled "The Literal Meaning of Genesis", it represented
a substantial revision of his earlier attempts to understand
the first book of the Bible. Now, sobered by his own earlier
speculations and by repeated contact with learned individuals
of his own age, Augustine, while defending the need to interpret
Genesis 'literally' (as he defined the term), nonetheless had
no patience with those who used the early chapters of Genesis
to promote views about the natural world that contradicted the
best science of his day:
'Usually, even a non-Christian
knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements
of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even
their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses
of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons,
about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and
this knowledge he holds as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a dangerous and disgraceful thing for an infidel to
hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture,
talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means
to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show
up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame
is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that
people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers
held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose
salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized
and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken
in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining
his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe
those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead,
the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they
think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they
themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold
trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught
in one of their mischevious false opinions and are taken to task
by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue
statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof
and even recite from memory many passages which they think support
their position, although *they understand neither what they say
nor the things about which they make assertion* [quoting 1 Tim. 1:7].'
Augustine's claim is nothing less than that
a Christian who attempts to interpret passages of the Bible with
cosmological implications will *misinterpret* the Bible if that
believer does not take account of what can be learned 'from reason
and experience'. To limit oneself only to the Scriptures in such
instances, says Augustine, is to misread the Bible."
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 18:04:56 +0200
John W. Morehead wrote:
Faith in a biblical sense is not an irrational
belief in something in spite of contradiction, or a lack of reasons
to believe. Rather, faith is a trust in the Personal God of the
Old and New Testaments, especially as revealed through Jesus
Christ.
If one tries to adopt the concept of faith
in the Biblical sense and then sets it up as a standard to be
emulated today, it is easy to fall victim to a common misconception
arising from ignorance of evolution. What has to be kept in mind
is that the epistemological foundation of anthroppsophy, as spelled
out in "A Theory of Knowledge Impicit in Goethe's World
Conception" (1886), "Truth and Knowledge (1892), and
"Philosophy of Freedom" (1994), uses Darwinism, not
theology, as a major point of departure. (Hence the title of
Chapeter 12 in POF, "Moral Imagination - Darwinism and Morality.")
All subsequent dissemination of anthroposophy must be seen in
this light.
Because evolution involves not only the metamorphoses
of plants, animals, and humans biologically, but also psychically
and spiritually, there is a vital difference between how "faith"
was understood in Biblical times and how it is understood today.
The same applies to the relation between faith and knowledge,
and between physics and metaphysics. On the one hand, the apostle
Paul wrote that "Faith is evidence of things not yet seen...",
and on the other hand, the Indian proverb says that "Faith
in knowledge from within," the modern understadning of faith
has become something like "Faith is trust in something that
cannot be proven or demonstrated, and that may even contradict
scientific evidence and common sense." And this is why dogmatically
correct traditional religion (orthodox theology adhering to the
law of non-contradiction if you like) is rapidly losing support
these days.
Orthodox Christianity holds that one gains
a right relationship with God by God's grace through faith which
is provided by God. This is *not* what is going on in anthroposophy,
where the emphasis is on psychic or supersensible knowledge of
occultic "higher worlds" of knowledge.
The reason for this is very simple: Anthroposophy
was developed for those who cannot accept orthodox Christianity
as a foundation for religious truth because it is irrational,
illogical, and at odds with Darwinism and other branches of natural
science.
Although the term "spiritual science"
is used, this is certainly not scientific in the accepted uses
of the term.
That is well-known, and it has been discussed
quite extensively on this list, on the Anthropos-Science list
and elsewhere. The reason for this is that the epistemology laid
out in the books mentioned above provide for a redemption of
science, broadening its definition. The "accepted use"
you refer to is identical with the restrictions imposed by the
Scientific Community, which never has been, and never will be,
an authority for the culturally heretical anthroposophical community.
Orthodox Christianity, by contrast, should
be open to the testing of its truth claims, when and where possible,
by applying tests of history, science, philosophy and the like.
If orthodox Christianity were a scientific
theory, you would have a point. It isn't.
How is this possible with anthroposophical
spiritual science? I claim that the marshalling of evidence is
possible with orthodox Christianity, but not so with anthroposophy.
Anthroposophy is an integration, or rather
a re-integration, of science, religion, art, and philosophy.
The tests you mention may be applicable to the natural-scientific
branch of Anthroposophy. Orthodox Christianity has no such branch.
All it has is theology, old faith, and old books.
By the same token, nobody can set up a
boundary between subjective belief and "objective public
realm" unless they they are taking the step from faith to
knowledge, from religion to science.
Is faith in your understanding contradictory
to knowledge?
As a personal question: No. As a general question:
Not ipso facto.
I would hold that they are compatible,
and that religion and true science must be reconcilable as well.
That is also the premise for most anthroposophists.
But the attempt made by orthodox Christians to go scientific
has resulted in absurdities like "creation science."
Again, ignorance of Darwinism and evolution is a key issue here.
Analysis is a part of the scientific method
and should be distinguished from traditional faith-religion.
Only if you put a wedge between reason
and religious truth claims.
That wedge was put by the German philosopher
Immanuel Kant. His argument was that the objects of religious
faith belonged to a category that would remain forever hidden
to cognition based upon knowledge. Rudolf Steiner disagreed and
argued that the dualism of Kant should be replaced by a monism
based upon empirical experience.
If you do this, why take the leap of faith
in the direction of anthroposophy, or orthodox Christianity,
and not Hitler's national socialism for example?
Dietrich Eckart did the latter. He is also
the father of WE criticism and the primeval enemy of anthroposophy.
There must be some objective grounds for
holding religious truth claims.
They are offered by anthroposophy.
These contradictions, lack of substantiation,
and falseness is all in your subjective lack of understanding,
or of misunderstanding, which you may share with your peers.
I know this is your understanding, and
your affirmation, but with no examples, it is just a mere affirmation
and nothing more. Can you demonstrate how I, and my "peers",
whoever that may be, do have this misunderstanding?
I was referring to the marked tendency in
all literature that I have seen from the camp of Protestant Christian
theology when they attack New Age, heresies, etc. When it comes
to Rudolf Steiner, they frequently manage to de-Christianize
Anthroposophy through distortions. If I had kept those books
and carried them across the Atlantic, I should have given you
quotes. But my father was dying when I jumped on the plane from
Houston to Oslo, leaving behind my old car, my kitchen utensils,
some anthroposophical books, and *all* my fiction and orthodox
Christian books, including the Concordance. What I did not leave
behind was the books and lectures by Steiner.
The lady in question had integrated Catholicism
with anthroposophy. I saw the harmony in it, which made it valid.
So if you subjectively believe something,
that makes it valid?
It was valid for her, and I could see how.
I am not a Catholic, so I cannot judge this any further than
that.
What about the racist who says he believes
in racial purity, but that he is not a racist.
He reminds me of the orthodox Christian who
says he believes in religious tolerance while at the same time
attacking other religions and philosophies.
Since he sees the harmony in that is it
valid?
You are attempting to compare the old lady
in Houston who was a Catholic and an Anthroposophist with a racist
who believes in racial purity? Naughty. (She was a Republican
and a political conservative, and I didn't get to know her well
enough to find out exactly how she stood on racial questions,
but she was a dear friend. She was the last friend I went to
see in America before I left.)
Your insinuation deserves no further comment
except another note about Dietrich Eckart. What initiated his
attacks against Steiner and anthroposophy was a certain blunder
made by some anthroposophists, who approached him about the Threefold
Social Order. Eckart was a man with political clout with an active
interest in esoteric Christianity and mysticism. He used all
this knowledge in his attempt to discredit and destroy anthroposophy.
And Adolf Hitler was one of his friends.
Or perhaps he has an internal contradiction
which he hasn't noticed, thereby making his conclusions invalid,
despite his sincerity in holding his views. Roman Catholicism
and anthroposophy are not teaching the same thing. They are contradictory.
This can be easily demonstrated.
I suggest that you demonstrate this to anthroposophists
who are also Catholics. If no such person belongs to this list
of subscribers, I believe it would be off-topic. But there were
Catholic priests who approached Steiner after listening to his
lectures and asked him why he didn't join the church and spoke
on its behalf. And the theosophists accused him of being a Catholic
agent and a Jersuit. And there is Valentine Tomberg, who joined
the Catholic chirch with Steiner's books under his arm, writing
his "Catholic Anthroposophy." And in the Vatican library,
the works of Steiner are available to the Cardinals. The current
pope discovered Steiner's Mystery dramas when working with theater
in Poland.
You're losing me here. I'm simply trying
to apply the rules of rational thought that we all use each day,
often without realizing it.
This is precisely what anthroposophy is doing.
How is that an arrogant lack of respect
or a misunderstanding.
The Houston-lady explained to me that she
had to hide her Steiner-books even from her own daughter, who
treatened with the index and excommunication and the like. When
she saw my reaction to this, she asked me if I disagreed with
the way she was handling it. If I had been her, I would have
left the church. But I recognized that this lady had a life-long
attachment to the Catholic rituals, and that she had discovered
anthroposophy in her later years. So I told her that I could
not advise her what to do, and that I respected the way she chose
to handle it. You, on the other hand, are saying that she has
no right to such a spiritual life (Catholic-Anthroposophy) because
it contradicts *your* logic. That is arrogant lack of respect
in my book.
<Poem about Jonestown snipped>
Evidence or intellectual proof has nothing
to do with subjective religious beliefs.
If this is your view then you are left
with a radical subjectivism in religious belief, with no way
to share with another the reasons why they should share in your
religious worldview.
Every individual must seek out his or her
own reasons for adopting any religious world view of his or her
own choosing. When it comes to spiritual matters and religion,
absolute freedom must reign. Any attempt on my behalf to persuade
another person to share my convictions in this area would be
a violation of personal freedom. This dialogue is no such attempt;
it is merely a defense against attacks - attacks where misrepresentations
are involved.
By contrast, the early Christians were
encouraged to "be ready always to give an answer for the
reason for the hope within you, but do this with gentleness and
reverence" (1 Peter 3:15). The word translated "reason"
is "apologia" in the Greek. It means a vigorous, rational
defense of the faith. Again, New Testament Christianity is at
variance with Anthroposophy and the a-rational, eastern-oriented
spirituality of much of the West.
On the contrary: In the intellectual realm,
anthroposophy is closer to New Testament Christianity than any
other variety of Christianity. A point in question is that Protestant
orthodox Christianity in America is bogged down in Old Testament
ethics that are in the sharpest variance with the Sermon on the
Mount in the New Testament. What I'm getting at is the cult of
the Religious Right, where every expression of compassion, forgiveness,
tolerance, etc. is scorned as "bleeding heart liberalism."
In addition to this, the Christian bookstore chains in America
are packed with arguments for competitive capitalism as being
the best vehicle for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A sharp contrast
indeed to the communism practiced by the early church.
Your evidence probably convinces yourself
and your peers, but the hyper-intellectuality you thus apply
to religion is actually killing the religion in the process.
Again, if you denigrate reason as applied
to religion, you are stuck in a swamp of subjectivism. A true,
biblical form of Christianity incorporates an emphasis upon the
development of the intellectual life as a vital part of the spiritual
life.
And that is where it falls flat on its face
- like in "creation science."
It appears you are not familiar with evangelical
Christianity. Evangelicalism, and orthodox Christianity are historically
quite at home with intellectual endeavors. Case in point: the
brilliant Christian philosophical minds of Thomas Aquinas and
Augustine.
Which reminds me of the fact that Rudolf Steiner
hailed "Thomism" as he called it, and incorporated
it in Anthroposophy.
The Virgin Birth is the Lukan and Matthian
Gospel accounts referring to the supernatural conception of the
child Jesus within the womb of Mary without the usual sexual
reproductive processes. For a defense of the historicity of these
narratives, see J.G. Machen, _The Virgin Birth_, in a cogent
and scholarly work written in the 1930s, if memory serves me
correctly. This treatise has never been adequately addressed
by Christian liberalism.
The fact remains that the conception of Jesus
Christ as explained by orthodox Christianity contradicts biological
and medical science.
Contradiction with natural science? If
the God of Christian theism exists, then by definition He is
omnipotent, the Creator of the cosmos, and the Author of natural
law. Thus, as the Author, He can temporarily interrupt His creation
to bring about His sovereign purposes.
The idea of a lonely, "omnipotent"
super-dictator who contradicts the natural laws of his own making
falls as flat on its face as "creation science" does.
I rest my case.
These are called miracles. Only if we assume
that naturalism is true, and no supernatural exists, are miracles
false and at variance with natural science.
When the explanations of "miracles"
defy natural scientific laws, they are false.
There have been some good expositions of
the evidence for the existence of God, and for the possibility
of miracles, by Christian philosophers, such as William Lane
Craig, Norman Geisler and J.P. Moreland. This is not problem
for orthodox Christianity. Perhaps for anthroposophy...
It sounds more like a suitable topic for yourself
and the hardcore skeptics on this list. You would have a ball
with it.
Evidence is not limited to natural science.
One can also provide philosophical, legal, historical evidences
and the like.
Even within philosophy, all talk of evidence
must at least include some science and mathematics. Still, philosophy
always includes personal conclusions where equally erudite thinkers
may be at variance.
You seem to think that Steiner's esoteric
Christianity is compatible with orthodox Christianity.
I have not said that. I have said that Steiner's
esoteric Christianity has many traits in common with orthodox
Christianity. To the extent that any individual combines and
incorporates these elements, it may be more or less compatible
to that individual. The Houston-lady is a perfect example.
I'm asking you to provide evidence, of
whatever kind, for your assertions. Your assertions by themselves
tell us what you believe, but not why you believe it, or why
anyone else should believe it.
The request for evidence would be valid only
if I made specific *scientific* claims or assertions. Besides,
I have no reason to suggest that anyone else should believe anything
whatsoever. I have never been a proselytizer.
Your description of Steiner's Christology
is foggy and wishy-washy. He used the Bible to substantiate his
claims to a much greater extent than Gnosticism or hermiticism.
Yes. The Bible, read esoterically, in violation
of hermeneutical, historical or grammatical considerations. Further,
his interpretation of the Bible was influenced by Gnosticism,
hermeticism, Rosicrucianism, Spinoza's pantheism, Goethe, etc.
This esoteric grid was used to filter the New Testament texts
resulting in an esoteric Christianity contrary to the New Testament
author's world view and intended textual meanings. You've provided
not evidence to the contrary to counter my claims here.
The Bible consists of 66 books or so, and
almost as many authors. In the New Testament, we have Mark, Matthews,
Luke, John, Paul, and some more. But you seem to suggest that
the New Testament was written by *one* author. Who? Some lonely
omnipotent dictator using the miracle of automatic writing? Or
some editor-in-chief in the Roman Church?
You suggest that you know the "world
view" of this mysterious author. How? This absurdity again
falls flat on its face and needs no evidence to push it.
The differences outweigh any similiarity,
making them contradictory. It is not arrogant to point out contradiction.
It is closed mindedness not to recognize, or to consider, such
a possibility.
The arrogance is that because the contradictions
that represent themselves to you exclude your understanding of
those who integrate them harmoniously, you are actually saying
that they have no right to call themselves Christians
As Dan Dugan's post made clear, Steiner's
redefintion of the atonement is not the orthodox New Testament
understanding of a once-for-all sacrifice for human sin in fulfillment
of Old Testament prophecy and sacrificial types.
Dan's post did not make this clear. It was
a request for clarification, which was in part provided by my
answer.
Again, Steiner opts for Christ as "unique"
among other religious leaders, marking his differences with theosophy,
but still classifying it as esoteric rather than orthodox.
So? Perhaps you need your orthodoxy. I don't.
You are also obviously unaware that there
are Buddhist monks who are members of the Anthroposophical Society.
The blending of Christianity and Buddhism is happening all over
the world along with the increase of believers in reincarnation,
also among traditional Christians.
The fact that it is done does not mean
it is not contradictory. You see such a synthesis more among
naive Westerners rather than Eastern Buddhist adherents. Even
the Dalai Lama, in his recent book of reflections on Christ's
teachings, acknowleges that Buddhism and Christianity are not
compatible and are separate religions. If the leader of a major
sect of Buddhism acknowledges this, it should give reason for
pause by errant Western "Christian-Buddhist" synretists.
The Dalain Lama has no more authority over
an anthroposophist than does the Pope in Rome or some Jerry Falwell
in America.
Your main objection to the harmony of christianity
and Buddhism, which you base upon "the law of non-contradiction"
is an incomprehensible abstraction which is conveniently ignored
by the rising mumber of Buddhist Christians like myself.
You are self-refuting here. You must use
the law of non-contradiction to deny it. It is not an abstraction
but a basic rule of thought which you use every day. You must
use it to deny the assertions I've made in previous posts!
The problem is that when it comes to spiritual
matters, there are many paradoxes. In the Bible, these paradoxes
are also known as contradictions. For this reason, the Bible
may easily be torn to shreds by "the law of non-contradiction".
The ability to see through a paradox and discern the truth within
it prevents you from falling into the trap of dismissing it because
of its apparent contradiction.
Your description of how Steiner developed
anthroposophy is false, but I'll skip my comments and corrections
for now.
See the scholarly reference works which
mention anthroposophy, such as the Encyclopedia of American Religions.
My understanding the influences on anthroposophy are accurate
and references can be provided.
The falsehoods are based upon misuderstanding.
This is why in Norwegian encyclopaedia and reference works, anthroposophy
and related terms have always been defined by anthroposophists.
How do you know Steiner understood them
when he used a purely subjective, mystical method of interpretation?
On the contrary, he used objective spiritual-scientific
research.
When he quotes a biblical author, any of
them, and arrives at an esoteric understanding, he is scripture
twisting and arriving at a meaning contrary to the author.
Your identification of the author is diffuse
enough as it is, because you are obviously not referring to the
writer of the Biblical book in question, but to some nebulous
omnipotent dictator or some equally obscure editor-in-chief.
If you used an esoteric interpretation
of the Reader's Digest, TV Guide, TIME, or your tax forms, you'd
be in trouble quickly. Why do it with the biblical texts?
Because the Biblical texts are antique, occult
documents. The TV guide isn't.
So you have to access alleged occultic
worlds to ascertain the meaning of a New Testament text? Nonsense.
One can look at the original languages, the history, culture,
grammar, syntax, context of the text. This is responsible hermeneutics.
Still, ignoring evolution, which has affected
our comprehension of language considerably, especially during
the last centuries.
And who says that Judeo-Christian theism
is superior to Western esotericism if they are indeed in conflict?
And what about the Quabalah?
I maintain that Western esotericism, properly
classified within the New Age movement, is philosophically inferior
to Christian theism.
I call that religious-philosophical fascism.
In fact, I believe it cannot be demonstrated
philosophically that it is not true.
And you are perfectly entitled to believe
what you want.
How is modern gnosticism more in touch
with modern science?
I did not write that. I wrote: "And from
the perspective of today, we can easily find that many insights
proposed by the Gnostics and other heretics are more compatible
with the understanding of our scientific age than are the orthodox
dogma." What is meant by "the understanding of our
scientific age" is the kind of reaoning and cognition that
has evolved since the dawn of modern science in the 15th century,
and as a result of it since the Enlightenment of the 19th century,
not modern science per se.
Again, nice assertion, no evidence.
Ditto.
Let me provide a counter-example. Gnostic
influence in alternative medicine. Prime example: Deepak Chopra.
The cure for aging, disease and death? Simply change your consciousness,
thereby bringing yourself into harmony with the infinite Creative
Intelligence, and viola. No more sickness, because it was an
illusion created by thinking. I submit that Dr. Chopra will still
age, and die, regardless of his meditation, because reality is
not as he perceives it.
The most deluded quackery of this kind comes
from evangelical circles and their faith healing. this is based
upn the simple command given by Christ to a sick person, "Take
your bed and walk." The way this is being practiced today,
with magical circus trickery, mass-suggestion and the like, is
a prime gift for the Skeptics Society. Anthroposophical doctors
have never engaged in this kind of nonsense, but orthodox Christians
are notorious for it.
He has a false worldview and ideas have
consequences.
A false world view he obviously shares with
evangelical Christians.
Those who follow Gnostic/New Age influences
in alternative medicine are taking their very lives into their
hands.
I was referring to religious cosmology, not
medicical practice, when I said that Gnostic thought was understood
in our scientific age.. Because evangelical Christian movements
best fit the bill of the trap you describe, you are shooting
at your own cause.
Why not apply reason to this area? Why
deny the advances of modern medicine in favor of a superstitious
and magical worldview?
Anthroposohical doctors are educated in regular
medicine just like any other doctors. They don't practice Gnosticism.
This is outside my scope of expretise, but you seem to be completely
off target here.
If you do your homework, you'll see that
historically, Christianity as life and world-affirming helped
provide the philosophical soil for the advent of the modern scientific
method, not gnosticism.
The orthodox church has done everything to
prevent the advance of modern science. Gnosticism is not useful
for science, and I have never claimed that it is. Religion and
cosmology is a different matterr.
Nice assertion. Care to provide some examples
and evidence for that assertion?
Suppression of modern science, like heliocentric
astronomy.
I'll have to ask you to try to leave the
chip on your shoulder on the side when we chat. You insinuate
that I'd burn you at the stake if it wasn't for the legal prohibitions.
I wouldn't because that isn't sound Christian ethical teaching.
It is immoral. To question my moral integrity is not the best
way to build bridges of communication and understanding.
I wasn't questioning *your* moral integrity.
Anyway, i's nice to know that you wouldn't put me to death for
my heresy.
...and belief is subjective - *merely*
subjective.
Not veridical? With corresponding objective
object of that faith? Then how does this differ from self-deception,
illusion or wish fulfillment? Why be an anthroposophist and not
create a subjective religion of one's one design?
My point is that the subjective inherent in
religious beliefs, which is present everywhere what religion
is concerned, also in anthroposophy, excludes the applicability
of intellectual proof. What anthroposophy is concerned, I am
venturing my own conclusions and insights here, which may be
disputable, but I think a line can be drawn between objective
spiritual-scientific facts on the one hand (that may still be
identified by outsiders as objects of subjective faith), and
personal conclusions and beliefs on the other.
You're referring to the faith-religion
that the evangelists, and the apostle Paul, taught the uneducated
masses. But if this should have remained the essence of Christianity
forever, there would have been no critical, self-dependent thinking,
and subsequently no human freedom. There would only be blind
obedience to the decrees from a metaphysical dictator.
Huh? I was describing the essence of historic
orthodoxy. You have reinterpreted it according to postmodern
sensibilities with notions of an oppressive orthodoxy.
Are you suggesting that the oppressive element
in the orthodox church is a postmodern invention, a re-writing
of history? Come on.
And how can you have a "critical,
self-dependent thinking" within esoteric Christianity since
you deny the law of non-contradiction and rational thought as
applied to religious truth claims?
As I have already pointed out, the appreciation
and understanding of paradoxes is not tantamount to turning a
blind eye to apparent contradictions.
Where in historic Christian anthropology
do the biblical texts refer to a "phantom" let alone
an etheric or astral body?
I have never stated that Biblical texts refer
to these things. Neither does the Bible teach reincarnation.
Nor does the Bible contain the whole truth about existence, but
only a part of it.
Biblical anthropology teaches that human
nature is comprised of a physical and immaterial nature, but
this is not anthroposophical. The physical body is essential
to Judeo-Christian anthropology.
Body, soul, and spirit.
Could you provide
the references? I'd like to see them. It would be nice if he
interpreted one major Christian doctrine correctly.
Off the top of my head (there are plenty more):
"The Fifth Gospel"'lectures held in Oslo, later in
Cologne, in October and December, 1913 (GA 148) The first of
these lectures (Oslo, 1st October, 1913) answers your question
(that Steiner also said that belief in a literal, physical resurrection
was responsible for the origin of the Christian faith).
This is your assumption, with no evidence.
It would be nice if you could throw in a few reasons for your
assertions, Tarjei. Christ is not a "Christ-idea,"
but the Greek term from the Hebrew Messiah, referring to a prophesied
historical individual realized in Jesus of Nazareth. Your very
assertion above demonsrates your acceptance of an esoteric worldview
imposed upon Judeo-Christian theism.
There is no natural-scientific or historical
conclusive evidence that Jesus Christ ever lived, or that the
events recorded in the Gospels ever took place. That is why "the
Christ-idea" is an accurate term.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 12:17:35
At 06:04 PM 4/10/99 +0200, you wrote:
If one tries to adopt the concept of faith
in the Biblical sense and then sets it up as a standard to be
emulated today, it is easy to fall victim to a common misconception
arising from ignorance of evolution. What has to be kept in mind
is that the epistemological foundation of anthroppsophy
So once again, we commit the fallacy of worldview
confusion. We impose an esoteric, pantheistic grid upon a series
of documents (biblical) which came from a Judeo-Christian monotheistic
worldview. It is the syncretist and the esotericism which arrives
at the misconception through this worldview confusion.
The reason for this is very simple: Anthroposophy
was developed for those who cannot accept orthodox Christianity
as a foundation for religious truth because it is irrational,
illogical, and at odds with Darwinism and other branches of natural
science.
How can orthodox Christianity be irrational,
and illogical if the laws of logic, such as non-contradiction,
are invalid? You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Eschewing logic when it suits anthroposophy, using logic when
you want to denigrate Christian orthodoxy. You can't have your
logical cake and eat it too.
If orthodox Christianity were a scientific
theory, you would have a point. It isn't.
I never claimed it was a scientific theory.
It obviously isn't, anymore than anthroposophy is. However, both
worldviews make claims which can be judged with reference to
various disciplines and evidences. Thus, their truth claims should
be test for truth or falsity.
Anthroposophy is an integration, or rather
a re-integration, of science, religion, art, and philosophy.
The tests you mention may be applicable to the natural-scientific
branch of Anthroposophy. Orthodox Christianity has no such branch.
All it has is theology, old faith, and old books.
See my point above. Many of the truth claims
of orthodox Christianity can be tested (e.g., the historical
existence of Jesus of Nazareth, claims of an empty tomb, a finite
universe, etc.). The same is true of anthroposophy when it makes
truth claims. Anthroposophy may claim to be a reintegration of
science, religion, art and philosophy, but it surely isn't testable
in terms of empirical scientific methods. Is this what you are
claiming? I think you may be equivocating in your definition
of science.
That is also the premise for most anthroposophists.
But the attempt made by orthodox Christians to go scientific
has resulted in absurdities like "creation science."
Again, ignorance of Darwinism and evolution is a key issue here.
Well please don't assume that all orthodox
Christians hold to young-earth creation science. I don't. But
my personal views are irrelevant here. Orthodox Christians are
free to evaluate the various theories of origins and choose the
one which best meets the evidence in natural revelation (nature)
and special revelation (the biblical texts). This means orthodox
Christians run the gamut from theistic evolutionists to young-earth
creationists. The mantra of evolution cited as a proof of the
falsity of orthodox Christianity is a red herring. And it does
nothing to substantiate the cosmology of Steiner and anthroposophy.
That wedge was put by the German philosopher
Immanuel Kant. His argument was that the objects of religious
faith belonged to a category that would remain forever hidden
to cognition based upon knowledge. Rudolf Steiner disagreed and
argued that the dualism of Kant should be replaced by a monism
based upon empirical experience.
If monism is the worldivew undergirding anthroposophy,
and I believe Steiner taught so, then how can you disagree with
me? To disagree with me means there must be duality, otherwise,
if all is one then orthodox and esoteric Christianity, despite
any perceived differences, really dissolve under closer analysis
since all is ultimately one.
I believe it can be demonstrated that monism
is philosophically untenable. Even monists live as dualists,
often without recognizing this is so.
Dietrich Eckart did the latter. He is also
the father of WE criticism and the primeval enemy of anthroposophy.
But you didn't answer my question. Why *not*
move in the subjective direction of national socialism vs. esoteric
Christianity? If you cut yourself off from all testability of
truth claims, and the applicability of logic to the same, you
have not means of knowing whether your beliefs are objectively
true or self-deception.
There must be some objective grounds for
holding religious truth claims.
They are offered by anthroposophy.
And those are objectively what?
I was referring to the marked tendency
in all literature that I have seen from the camp of Protestant
Christian theology when they attack New Age, heresies, etc.
If you'd be so kind as to point out how these
criticisims, philosophically and theologically, are in error,
that would be appreciated so we could make sure the critics are
accurate. No one wants to misrepresent. For example, my colleage,
philosophy professor Francis Beckwith, co-wrote a book with Stephen
Parrish, called _See the Gods Fall_, where they philosophically
critique various worldviews, including the New Age. If you could
point out how their critique fails philosophically, I'd be happy
to pass along your corrections for the next edition of the book.
Otherwise, it sounds like sour grapes in that you mischaracterize
a sound critique as an "attack."
When it comes to Rudolf Steiner, they frequently
manage to de-Christianize Anthroposophy through distortions.
Steiner "de-Christianized" himself
through the adoption of a monistic, pantheistic, esoteric worldview
which put him at variance with the orthodox monotheistic worldview
of the biblical writers. You can hardly blame orthodox Christian
critics of Steiner for that.
So if you subjectively believe something,
that makes it valid?
It was valid for her, and I could see how.
I am not a Catholic, so I cannot judge this any further than
that.
But you missed the point of my question. Does
merely believing something subjectively make it true, regardless
of contradiction or incomprehensibility?
What about the racist who says he believes
in racial purity, but that he is not a racist.
He reminds me of the orthodox Christian
who says he believes in religious tolerance while at the same
time attacking other religions and philosophies.
An ad hominem attack, Tarjei. Please answer
my question and don't engage in personal attacks. If you don't
want to respond, fine. We'll cease the exchange. But please don't
question my motives. I have said in previous posts that I support
the freedom of religion. That is not incompatible with pointing
out errors in your posts when you claim harmony between orthodox
and esoteric Christianity. You can believe whatever you want
but that doesn't make it true, and it does not immunize your
claims for analysis. I don't attack other religions and philosophies.
I try to understand them, enter into dialogue with their adherents,
and then analyze them as well. If criticism is attack then you
ar intolerant because you take issue with my orthodox Christianity.
It cuts both ways.
You are attempting to compare the old lady
in Houston who was a Catholic and an Anthroposophist with a racist
who believes in racial purity? Naughty. (She was a Republican
and a political conservative, and I didn't get to know her well
enough to find out exactly how she stood on racial questions,
but she was a dear friend. She was the last friend I went to
see in America before I left.)
Naughty? Come on, Tarjei. I was making no
comparison. I was using an example of another situation using
your logic to demonstrate that it doesn't hold water. If, as
you said, believing Catholicism was compatible with anthroposophy
was true for that woman, then does a racist who believes in racial
equality mean that it is true for him/her. Or is this a contradiction,
which would mean that logical thinking is valid, and that one
shouldn't hold contradictory views?
Your insinuation deserves no further comment
except another note about Dietrich Eckart
It wasn't an insinuation, it was a question
based upon your method of thinking. If you don't think such questions
deserve a response, perhaps this means you are more interested
in anthroposophical evangelism and intolerance against skepticism
and orthodox Christianity, than about honest dialogue over truth
and falsehoood as it relates to Waldorf in public education.
I suggest that you demonstrate this to
anthroposophists who are also Catholics.
I'd be happy to talk to them. One example
should suffice: It is impossible to be a Roman Catholic and believe
in a Personal Transcendent God, while at the same time believing
in monism and a form of modern Gnosticism. They are contradictory
and both cannot be true at the same time.
You're losing me here. I'm simply trying
to apply the rules of rational thought that we all use each day,
often without realizing it.
This is precisely what anthroposophy is
doing.
What? Using the rules of rational thought
(I thought they were invalid)?
You, on the other hand, are saying that
she has no right to such a spiritual life (Catholic-Anthroposophy)
because it contradicts *your* logic. That is arrogant lack of
respect in my book.
Logic is no more *my* logic that it was Aristotle's
when he discovered the laws of logic. We all use the same logic.
Some of us are more willing to apply it to our worldviews and
spirituality than others I guess. This does not boil down to
arrogance or lack of respect.
Every individual must seek out his or her
own reasons for adopting any religious world view of his or her
own choosing. When it comes to spiritual matters and religion,
absolute freedom must reign. Any attempt on my behalf to persuade
another person to share my convictions in this area would be
a violation of personal freedom. This dialogue is no such attempt;
it is merely a defense against attacks - attacks where misrepresentations
are involved.
I would argue that we use a variety of means
to influence others to accept things we believe in (food products,
restaurants, politics, etc.) and we still recognize and support
personal freedom. It is just as true for spiritual questions.
They are not immune from rational thought and should not be left
to the whims of subjectivism.
On the contrary: In the intellectual realm,
anthroposophy is closer to New Testament Christianity than any
other variety of Christianity.
You keep making this claim, but you have not
demonstrated this. I've asked about monism and the Gnostic reinterpretation
of Christ by Steiner and you haven't responded as to how these
things are the original Christian teaching.
A point in question is that Protestant
orthodox Christianity in America is bogged down in Old Testament
ethics that are in the sharpest variance with the Sermon on the
Mount in the New Testament. What I'm getting at is the cult of
the Religious Right, where every expression of compassion, forgiveness,
tolerance, etc. is scorned as "bleeding heart liberalism."
In addition to this, the Christian bookstore chains in America
are packed with arguments for competitive capitalism as being
the best vehicle for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A sharp contrast
indeed to the communism practiced by the early church.
I'm afraid you can't validly raise the specter
of the evil "Religious Right" as a characterization
of the original New Testament teaching. They are a modern expression
of Christian thought in the area of politics and cultural influence.
I submit that the doctrinal teachings and worldview of the original,
historic Christian church are at variance with Steiner's esoteric
reinterpretation, and you have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise.
You are free to hold your views and deny you want anything to
do with Christian orthodoxy, but you aren't free to misrepresent
it at will contrary to all historical and theological evidences.
Which reminds me of the fact that Rudolf
Steiner hailed "Thomism" as he called it, and incorporated
it in Anthroposophy.
Really? He incorporated Thomistic logical,
and perhaps philosophical reasoning in his books? If so, he imposed
the foreign grid of monism upon Thomas Aquinas. And why emulate
Aquinas' logical reasoning as applied to theology? I thought
we had to transcend rational thought in favor of a subjective
experience?
The fact remains that the conception of
Jesus Christ as explained by orthodox Christianity contradicts
biological and medical science.
*If* the God of Christian theism does not
exist, yes. If He does, there is no problem whatsoever.
The idea of a lonely, "omnipotent"
super-dictator who contradicts the natural laws of his own making
falls as flat on its face as "creation science" does.
I rest my case.
One can't rest a case, when one hasn't presented
a sound one to begin with. Why is an omnipotent Supreme Being
a "lonely...super-dictator"? This is a subjective mischaracterization
put forward without *any* philosophical or theological reasons
to sustain it. And you have demonstrated no parallel with creation
science. If your case is closed then the God of Christian orthodoxy
is acquitted.
When the explanation of "miracles"
defy natural scientific laws, they are false.
Natural scientific laws are only immutable
if the God of Christian theism does not exist. You assume this
to be the case, but it is possible to provide sound reasons to
the contrary, thus providing a satisfactory worldview background
making miracles possible. And if you want to push natural law,
I would submit that it is hostile to the "scientific"
"supersensible" worlds of anthroposophy as well, and
I have seen no argumentation to substantiate that to the satisfaction
of naturalism.
There have been some good expositions of
the evidence for the existence of God, and for the possibility
of miracles, by Christian philosophers, such as William Lane
Craig, Norman Geisler and J.P. Moreland. This is not problem
for orthodox Christianity. Perhaps for anthroposophy...
It sounds more like a suitable topic for
yourself and the hardcore skeptics on this list. You would have
a ball with it.
Sorry you are not interested in exploring
new ideas which may strenghten your current worldview, or challenge
it to the contrary.
I have not said that. I have said that
Steiner's esoteric Christianity has many traits in common with
orthodox Christianity. To the extent that any individual combines
and incorporates these elements, it may be more or less compatible
to that individual. The Houston-lady is a perfect example.
So we are back to mere subjectivism and experience
without reference to tests for veridicality? Is that it?
The Bible consists of 66 books or so, and
almost as many authors. In the New Testament, we have Mark, Matthews,
Luke, John, Paul, and some more. But you seem to suggest that
the New Testament was written by *one* author. Who? Some lonely
omnipotent dictator using the miracle of automatic writing? Or
some editor-in-chief in the Roman Church?
Where did I say there was only one human author?
Nowhere. And then we go back to your charicature of the God of
Christian theism.
The Dalain Lama has no more authority over
an anthroposophist than does the Pope in Rome or some Jerry Falwell
in America.
You completely missed my point. Ignorant American
Buddhists try to synthesize Buddhism with Christianity. But knowledgeable
Buddhists, such as the Dalai Lama, while acknowledging similar
ethical codes and that each tradition can learn much from the
other, at least the Dalai Lama stops short of trying to combine
the two because he recognizes their incompatibility on foundational
matters.
The problem is that when it comes to spiritual
matters, there are many paradoxes. In the Bible, these paradoxes
are also known as contradictions.
A paradox or a mystery is something which
goes beyond the limits of human reason, but not contrary to it.
I submit there are no genuine violations of the law of noncontradiction
in orthodox Christianity. But you merely skirt criticism here.
Are the laws of logic applicable to spiritual truth claims or
not? If so, they must be applied to orthodox and esoteric Christianity.
If not, then you can't criticize orthodox Christianity for alleged
contradictions. The sword of logic is two edged, Tarjei.
For this reason, the Bible may easily be
torn to shreds by "the law of non-contradiction". The
ability to see through a paradox and discern the truth within
it prevents you from falling into the trap of dismissing it because
of its apparent contradiction.
If there is a genuine contradiction, then
it is falsified. Why look for alleged "deeper or hidden
truth" when you find contradiction. Nonsense.
The falsehoods are based upon misuderstanding.
This is why in Norwegian encyclopaedia and reference works, anthroposophy
and related terms have always been defined by anthroposophists.
So Western scholars of religion cannot adequately
understand or classify anthroposophy? Is that it? Hmmm. Then
I guess only an orthodox Christian can truly understand orthodox
Christianity and these believers alone must define it. Cool.
Your criticisms are all invalidated by your misunderstanding?
Do you accept this line of reasoning?
On the contrary, he used objective spiritual-scientific
research.
How is a subjective investigation of supersensible
higher worlds "scientific" in the accepted meaning
of the term?
Your identification of the author is diffuse
enough as it is, because you are obviously not referring to the
writer of the Biblical book in question, but to some nebulous
omnipotent dictator or some equally obscure editor-in-chief.
Please don't dodge the question. How can Steiner
arrive at a proper interpretation of any biblical writer by denying
scholarly methods of literary interpretation in favor of subjective
esotericism?
If you used an esoteric interpretation
of the Reader's Digest, TV Guide, TIME, or your tax forms, you'd
be in trouble quickly. Why do it with the biblical texts?
Because the Biblical texts are antique,
occult documents. The TV guide isn't.
So the literary interpretive techqnique one
uses is determined by the age of the documents in question, at
least in part? How old do they have to be before one uses an
esoteric technique, and how do you know the biblical texts are
occult documents, whose true meaning is hidden beneath the surface
of the actual words unless one assumes this to be the case? Sounds
like circular reasoning.
I maintain that Western esotericism, properly
classified within the New Age movement, is philosophically inferior
to Christian theism.
I call that religious-philosophical fascism.
I call this philosophical analysis, and the
willingness to submit the Christian theistic worldview to the
tests of philosophical reasoning in contrast with a Western esoteric
worldview. Tests for truth and falsehood with regards to worldviews
is not fascism.
Let me provide a counter-example. Gnostic
influence in alternative medicine. Prime example: Deepak Chopra.
The cure for aging, disease and death? Simply change your consciousness,
thereby bringing yourself into harmony with the infinite Creative
Intelligence, and viola. No more sickness, because it was an
illusion created by thinking. I submit that Dr. Chopra will still
age, and die, regardless of his meditation, because reality is
not as he perceives it.
The most deluded quackery of this kind
comes from evangelical circles and their faith healing. this
is based upn the simple command given by Christ to a sick person,
"Take your bed and walk." The way this is being practiced
today, with magical circus trickery, mass-suggestion and the
like, is a prime gift for the Skeptics Society. Anthroposophical
doctors have never engaged in this kind of nonsense, but orthodox
Christians are notorious for it.
Another ad hominem against Christianity, which
provides no evidence for the alleged scientific status of anthroposophy.
I don't agree with the abuses of alleged evangelical faith healers
either, but that doesn't mean the whole world view is false.
And regardless of Christian faith healing, it does not establish
the alleged scientific status of anthroposophical medicine, or
New Age alternative medicine either. You will find out very quickly
that New Age monism is deadly to the Western dualistic worldview
that modern medicine is based upon.
[large snip]
There is no natural-scientific or historical
conclusive evidence that Jesus Christ ever lived, or that the
events recorded in the Gospels ever took place. That is why "the
Christ-idea" is an accurate term.
How about some historic evidence, from non-Christian
sources, for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Josephus,
a Jewish historian, has at least one reference to him that is
undisiputed, and possibly another that may have experienced,
Christian interpolation. Additionally, he is mentioned in the
writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Jewish Talmud.
And one cannot discount the testimony of the early Pauline epistles,
nor the Gospels, written, quite likely according to the latest
scholarly concensus, prior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70,
within a generation of the events they described. That's good
historical evidence. The earliest critics did not deny his historical
existence, they denied the identity with which the early Christians
associated him, as Messiah. The "Christ-idea" concept
ignores the historical evidence and the Judeo-Christian framework
that it originated from, in favor of a monistic and esoteric
framework. You can create a fictionalized Christ-idea if you
want, but please don't claim that is the historical concept.
I don't know that we're getting anywere, Tarjei,
and we're probably boring this list to death.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposophical
Influence?)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 22:51:53 +0100
John & Wendy Morehead wrote:
Tarjei:
I suggest that you demonstrate this to
anthroposophists who are also Catholics.
I'd be happy to talk to them. One example
should suffice: It is impossible to be a Roman Catholic and believe
in a Personal Transcendent God, while at the same time believing
in monism and a form of modern Gnosticism. They are contradictory
and both cannot be true at the same time.
A former colleague is a devout Roman Catholic
and a member of the Anthroposophical Society. I very much doubt
that she is the only person who is comfortable in this position.
Perhaps those who believe that such a situation is impossible
misunderstand Roman Catholicism, anthroposophy (most likely),
or both. Perhaps the solution to this conundrum lies in the fact
that being an anthroposophist does not require a belief in anything
(although I grant that I cannot imagine an anthropop who does
not believe in the existence of a spiritual reality -- but it
is not *required* -- this, IMHO, is one of the distinctions between
anthroposophy and religion).
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 03:15:51 +0200
I wrote:
If one tries to adopt the concept of faith
in the Biblical sense and then sets it up as a standard to be
emulated today, it is easy to fall victim to a common misconception
arising from ignorance of evolution. What has to be kept in mind
is that the epistemological foundation of anthroppsophy
John Morehead wrote:
So once again, we commit the fallacy of worldview confusion.
We impose an esoteric, pantheistic grid upon a series of documents
(biblical) which came from a Judeo-Christian monotheistic worldview.
It is the syncretist and the esotericism which arrives at the
misconception through this worldview confusion.
The imposition of an abstract monotheistic
theology upon barely understood ancient scriptures by scholars
who get lost in word-definitions because they cannot evoke a
living relationship to them, results in a fallacy where such
self-appointed authorities are blind to their own confusion,
which they suppress in order to project the illusion of insight.
When the evolution of conceptualizing arising
from language is conveniently ignored and ancient languages are
approached with the consciousness of today in the belief that
the texts were written by and for individuals with the same consciousness,
the result is self-delusion due to soul-spiritual anachronisms.
How can orthodox Christianity be irrational,
and illogical if the laws of logic, such as non-contradiction,
are invalid? You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Eschewing logic when it suits anthroposophy, using logic when
you want to denigrate Christian orthodoxy. You can't have your
logical cake and eat it too.
In the first place, comprehension of divine-spiritual
truth requires a higher logic, an extra-rational logic. Secondly,
orthodox Christianity claims that their lonesome, monotheistic
dictator intervenes in history with miracles that contradict
the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics. It
is required that one makes a leap of faith to accept such things
and ignores intellectual honesty. For someone whose acceptance
of reality is dependent upon the scientific intellect, this is
irrational and illogical. This irrationality and illogic is not
identical with what you call a violation of non-contradiction
because it is not a paradox. Or if it is a paradox to you, which
makes it possible for you to hold the contradictory views of
natural laws on the one hand, and the unheard-of violations of
such laws on the other, it is not acceptable to the more science
oriented thinker, for whom Anthroposophy was developed.
<snip>
Many of the truth claims of orthodox Christianity
can be tested (e.g., the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth,
Nope. There is no conclusive scientific evidence
that he ever lived.
claims of an empty tomb,
No scientific evidence of any resurrection
either. You're referring to the accounts by the evangelists,
who were "eyewitnesses," seers, who perceived these
events clairvoyantly. (Luke, for example, was never physically
present.)
Natural science does not support Christianity
in any form.
a finite universe, etc.).
Oh, try that one on talk.origins.
The same is true of anthroposophy when
it makes truth claims. Anthroposophy may claim to be a reintegration
of science, religion, art and philosophy,
Correction: Anthroposophy does NOT CLAIM to
be THE reintegration of science, religion, art and philosophy,
as if it had a monopoly on such integration. I merely stated
that Anthroposophy does integrate these fields.
but it surely isn't testable in terms of
empirical scientific methods.
You don't test the composition of a culture
by scientific methods any more than you test a song, a non-scientific
thought experiment, a poem, or a religious feeling. The testing
of the scientific aspect of anthroposophy, i.e. goethean science,
bidynamic agriculture etc. is a different matter, and that is
one of the key topics being discussed on this and other lists.
Again, it suprises me that you are a religionist,
because your reasoning process resembles more that of a materialistic
science freak who wants to make even the validity of a work of
art subject to scientific testing.
<snip>
Well please don't assume that all orthodox
Christians hold to young-earth creation science. I don't. But
my personal views are irrelevant here. Orthodox Christians are
fee to evaluate the various theories of origins and choose the
one which best meets the evidence in natural revelation (nature)
and special revelation (the biblical texts). This means orthodox
Christians run the gamut from theistic evolutionists to young-earth
creationists. The mantra of evolution cited as a proof of the
falsity of orthodox Christianity is a red herring. And it does
nothing to substantiate the cosmology of Steiner and anthroposophy.
The criticism of anthroposophical Christology
as erroneous and false falls flat on its face when confronted
with the consideration of psychic-spiritual evolution and its
effect upon present-day orthodox interpretation of old literature.
Beyond this, the consideration in question is not intended to
substantiate anything, but to encourage more comprehensive research
and less condescending arrogance.
If monism is the worldivew undergirding
anthroposophy, and I believe Steiner taught so, then how can
you disagree with me? To disagree with me means there must be
duality, otherwise, if all is one then orthodox and esoteric
Christianity, despite any perceived differences, really dissolve
under closer analysis since all is ultimately one.
It's no miracle that you can believe in miracles
that go contrary to physical causality.
I believe it can be demonstrated that monism is philosophically
untenable. Even monists live as dualists, often without recognizing
this is so.
Granted. Dualism is very pervasive in our
culture, and hardly anyone is unaffected by it. But monism makes
perfect sense, and it is worth striving for.
If you do this, why take the leap of faith
in the direction of anthroposophy, or orthodox Christianity,
and not Hitler's national socialism for example?
Dietrich Eckart did the latter. He is also
the father of WE criticism and the primeval enemy of anthroposophy.
But you didn't answer my question.
Yes I did - in the affirmative with Dietrich
Eckart as an example.
Why *not* move in the subjective direction
of national socialism vs. esoteric Christianity? If you cut yourself
off from all testability of truth claims, and the applicability
of logic to the same, you have not means of knowing whether your
beliefs are objectively true or self-deception.
This discrimination is a continuous process.
It is of crucial importance to recognize how much of our perceive
reality is in fact illusion, self-deception. This is a struggle
that drives every true artist - to get deeper and deeper in touch
with reality, with one's real self.
There must be some objective grounds for
holding religious truth claims.
They are offered by anthroposophy.
And those are objectively what?
It's all in the basic books, from scratch.
Start with "Truth and Science" (or "Truth and
Knowledge"). As a specialist in new religions and an expert
on anthroposophy from an evangelical perspective, you ought to
read them.
If you'd be so kind as to point out how
these criticisims, philosophically and theologically, are in
error, that would be appreciated so we could make sure the critics
are accurate. No one wants to misrepresent. For example, my colleage,
philosophy professor Francis Beckwith, co-wrote a book with Stephen
Parrish, called _See the Gods Fall_, where they philosophically
critique various worldviews, including the New Age. If you could
point out how their critique fails philosophically, I'd be happy
to pass along your corrections for the next edition of the book.
Otherwise, it sounds like sour grapes in that you mischaracterize
a sound critique as an "attack."
First, I have not read the book you mention,
so I cannot comment on it. Secondly, the very title of the book
makes it clear that my corrections would not be included in the
next edition. Anyway, an error I have already mentioned from
another book was that Buddhism was supposed to be the invention
of Satan to confuse the Christians - that because Satan knew
Christ was coming, he came up with Buddha as his own disciple.
That's just one example.
When it comes to Rudolf Steiner, they frequently
manage to de-Christianize Anthroposophy through distortions.
Steiner "de-Christianized" himself
through the adoption of a monistic, pantheistic, esoteric worldview
which put him at variance with the orthodox monotheistic worldview
of the biblical writers.
What you mean is that because esotericism
is unpalatable to you, and because Steiner's view collides with
your Bible-interpretation and your Christianity, you have the
right to judge Rudolf Steiner's personal relation to Christ,
and mine. You have no such right by no authority whatsoever.
The "authority" you represent is a paper tiger of no
consequence whatsoever.
But you missed the point of my question.
Does merely believing something subjectively make it true, regardless
of contradiction or incomprehensibility?
I have not declared, suggested, nor implied
anything of the kind.
What about the racist who says he believes
in racial purity, but that he is not a racist.
He reminds me of the orthodox Christian
who says he believes in religious tolerance while at the same
time attacking other religions and philosophies.
An ad hominem attack, Tarjei. Please answer
my question and don't engage in personal attacks.
I wasn't attacking you at all; I was comparing
your hypocritical racist with a hypocritical Christian. If you
are not a hypocritical Christian, it was not a personal attack.
If you are, I apologize.
If you don't want to respond, fine. We'll
cease the exchange. But please don't question my motives. I have
said in previous posts that I support the freedom of religion.
That is not incompatible with pointing out errors in your posts
when you claim harmony between orthodox and esoteric Christianity.
This is the SECOND time you distort my point
here. I said that orthodox and esoteric Christianity have many
traits in common. I said nothing about them being in harmony,
and I certainly didn't CLAIM their harmony. I said that any individual
is free to harmonize any religious streams of his or her choosing.
You can believe whatever you want but that
doesn't make it true,
Ditto.
and it does not immunize your claims for
analysis.
People may analyze everything I write to this
list until their faces turn blue for all I care. And they may
call every word from my keyboard a "claim" for that
matter.
I don't attack other religions and philosophies.
You call them falsehoods and errors.
I try to understand them, enter into dialogue
with their adherents, and then analyze them as well. If criticism
is attack then you ar intolerant because you take issue with
my orthodox Christianity. It cuts both ways.
That is only a partial truth. I am not taking
issue with orthodox Christianity, because it has too much in
common with Anthroposophy for that - obviously a lot more than
you are aware of. What I am taking issue with is the arrogant
labelling of Anthroposophy as a false and erroneaous Christianity
- even a de-Christianized Christianity. When I point to flaws
in orthodox logic, it is to demonstrate that attacks against
Anthroposophy from an orthodox chair is tantamount to hurling
bricks from a glass-house.
You are attempting to compare the old lady
in Houston who was a Catholic and an Anthroposophist with a racist
who believes in racial purity? Naughty. (She was a Republican
and a political conservative, and I didn't get to know her well
enough to find out exactly how she stood on racial questions,
but she was a dear friend. She was the last friend I went to
see in America before I left.)
Naughty? Come on, Tarjei. I was making
no comparison. I was using an example of another situation using
your logic to demonstrate that it doesn't hold water. If, as
you said, believing Catholicism was compatible with anthroposophy
was true for that woman, then does a racist who believes in racial
equality mean that it is true for him/her. Or is this a contradiction,
which would mean that logical thinking is valid, and that one
shouldn't hold contradictory views?
When you conclude from the philosophy of the
Houston-lady that a racist can believe in racial equality, your
logic is, in my opinion, seriously flawed at this point.
Your insinuation deserves no further comment
except another note about Dietrich Eckart
It wasn't an insinuation, it was a question
based upon your method of thinking. If you don't think such questions
deserve a response, perhaps this means you are more interested
in anthroposophical evangelism and intolerance against skepticism
and orthodox Christianity, than about honest dialogue over truth
and falsehoood as it relates to Waldorf in public education.
I suggest that you demonstrate this to
anthroposophists who are also Catholics.
I'd be happy to talk to them. One example
should suffice: It is impossible to be a Roman Catholic and believe
in a Personal Transcendent God, while at the same time believing
in monism and a form of modern Gnosticism. They are contradictory
and both cannot be true at the same time.
It's because you're getting lost in an intellectual
labyrinth with no exit. Anthro-Catholics don't. If Christ is
real, and if He meets those who seek Him, He doesn't care about
such nonsense. If the Catholic church and Anthroposophy are both
paths to Christ, only the Devil would pose an intellectual objection
of this kind.
You're losing me here. I'm simply trying
to apply the rules of rational thought that we all use each day,
often without realizing it.
This is precisely what anthroposophy is
doing.
What? Using the rules of rational thought
(I thought they were invalid)?
I have made no such statement. I said that
intellectual proof and scientific evidence has no validity outside
natural science and mathematics.
Logic is no more *my* logic that it was
Aristotle's when he discovered the laws of logic. We all use
the same logic.
This very exchange testifies to the opposite.
I would argue that we use a variety of
means to influence others to accept things we believe in (food
products, restaurants, politics, etc.) and we still recognize
and support personal freedom. It is just as true for spiritual
questions. They are not immune from rational thought and should
not be left to the whims of subjectivism.
I am still left with the distinct impression
that spiritual views that do not conform with your own rational
understanding are dismissed as "whims of subjectivism."
And when you now say that spiritual questions should not be left
to such whims, you are in a sense setting yourself up as an authority
over other people what such questions are concerned.
You keep making this claim, but you have
not demonstrated this. I've asked about monism and the Gnostic
reinterpretation of Christ by Steiner and you haven't responded
as to how these things are the original Christian teaching.
There isn't enough room in these posts for
me to quote entire lecture-cycles by Steiner on the four Gospels.
Monism is dealt with in POF, Gnosticism in "Christ and the
Spiritual World and the Search for the Holy Grail" (GA 149).
As an inquisitive bookworm, you shouldn't ask me to spell it
all out for you under the guise of "demonstrating claims."
Save that for talk.origins or another ng that is strictly limited
to science.
I'm afraid you can't validly raise the
specter of the evil "Religious Right" as a characterization
of the original New Testament teaching. They are a modern expression
of Christian thought in the area of politics and cultural influence.
I submit that the doctrinal teachings and worldview of the original,
historic Christian church are at variance with Steiner's esoteric
reinterpretation, and you have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise.
I have made myself perfectly clear all the
way, and your repeated demands for demonstrations appear to be
expressive of your needing a hand to pull you out of those intellectual
labyrinths of your own making - your own cerebral spider-webs.
You are free to hold your views and deny
you want anything to do with Christian orthodoxy, but you aren't
free to misrepresent it at will contrary to all historical and
theological evidences.
I have not misrepresented Christian orthodoxy,
because I haven't even presented it. What I have done is to poke
holes in your misrepresentation of Anthroposophy at the expense
of your version of orthodoxy.
Which reminds me of the fact that Rudolf
Steiner hailed "Thomism" as he called it, and incorporated
it in Anthroposophy.
Really? He incorporated Thomistic logical,
and perhaps philosophical reasoning in his books? If so, he imposed
the foreign grid of monism upon Thomas Aquinas. And why emulate
Aquinas' logical reasoning as applied to theology? I thought
we had to transcend rational thought in favor of a subjective
experience?
You have misunderstood my point altogether.
What I have tried to explain is that a higher level of reasoning,
which Steiner called "sense-free thinking," should
be supplemented to the logical intellectualizing that is fettered
to the physical brain cells. I did not say that the former should
replace the latter.
As for Thomism, read the three RS lectures
"The Redemption of Thinking, a Study in the Philosophy of
Thomas Aquinas" (GA 605). Again, don't ask me to spell everything
out for you.
One can't rest a case, when one hasn't
presented a sound one to begin with. Why is an omnipotent Supreme
Being a "lonely...super-dictator"? This is a subjective
mischaracterization put forward without *any* philosophical or
theological reasons to sustain it. And you have demonstrated
no parallel with creation science. If your case is closed then
the God of Christian orthodoxy is acquitted.
No god is on trial here. Only theologians.
The "lonely super-dictator" is my expression to illustrate
that I find the concept absurd and untenable. I am not interested
in demonstrating, and I have no ambition to persuade you or anybody
else to share my insight.
When the explanation of "miracles"
defy natural scientific laws, they are false.
Natural scientific laws are only immutable
if the God of Christian theism does not exist. You assume this
to be the case, but it is possible to provide sound reasons to
the contrary, thus providing a satisfactory worldview background
making miracles possible. And if you want to push natural law,
I would submit that it is hostile to the "scientific"
"supersensible" worlds of anthroposophy as well, and
I have seen no argumentation to substantiate that to the satisfaction
of naturalism.
Natural law is not hostile to anthroposophically
oriented spiritual science, but it IS hostile to the idea of
a deity breaking this law like some circus magician, which is
found in Christian fundamentalist orthodoxy.
<snip>
I have not said that. I have said that
Steiner's esoteric Christianity has many traits in common with
orthodox Christianity. To the extent that any individual combines
and incorporates these elements, it may be more or less compatible
to that individual. the Houston-lady is a perfect example.
So we are back to mere subjectivism and
experience without reference to tests for veridicality? Is that
it?
You're incredible. First you distort my statement,
and then when I correct your distortion, you start chanting your
totally irrelevant science-test-song.
The Bible consists of 66 books or so, and
almost as many authors. In the New Testament, we have Mark, Matthews,
Luke, John, Paul, and some more. But you seem to suggest that
the New Testament was written by *one* author. Who? Some lonely
omnipotent dictator using the miracle of automatic writing? Or
some editor-in-chief in the Roman Church?
Where did I say there was only one human
author? Nowhere.
Your memory fails. You wrote: "This esoteric grid was used
to filter the New Testament texts resulting in an esoteric Christianity
contrary to the New Testament author's world view and intended
textual meanings."
<snip>
Ignorant American Buddhists try to synthesize
Buddhism with Christianity.
There may be ignorant Buddhists all over the
world. But if harmonizing Buddhism with Christianity is evidence
of ignorance in your view, you are calling all Anthroposophists,
including Yours Truly, ignorant. Anthropopsophy is Christian
Buddhism, or Buddhist Christianity. So much for your religious
tolerance and your respect for other philosophies.
But knowledgeable Buddhists, such as the
Dalai Lama, while acknowledging similar ethical codes and that
each tradition can learn much from the other, at least the Dalai
Lama stops short of trying to combine the two because he recognizes
their incompatibility on foundational matters.
Now you are implying quite clearly that anthroposophists
are not knowledgeable because they do not share YOUR view that
Buddhism and Christianity are compatible. Your prejudice and
bigotry is exposed.
The problem is that when it comes to spiritual
matters, there are many paradoxes. In the Bible, these paradoxes
are also known as contradictions.
A paradox or a mystery is something which
goes beyond the limits of human reason, but not contrary to it.
I submit there are no genuine violations of the law of noncontradiction
in orthodox Christianity. But you merely skirt criticism here.
Are the laws of logic applicable to spiritual truth claims or
not? If so, they must be applied to orthodox and esoteric Christianity.
If not, then you can't criticize orthodox Christianity for alleged
contradictions. The sword of logic is two edged, Tarjei.
The contradictions in orthodox Christianity
are clear what natural laws versus the metaphysical circus magician
is concerned. In esoteric Christianity there are no logical contradictions,
except those of your own making.
For this reason, the Bible may easily be
torn to shreds by "the law of non-contradiction". The
ability to see through a paradox and discern the truth within
it prevents you from falling into the trap of dismissing it because
of its apparent contradiction.
If there is a genuine contradiction, then
it is falsified. Why look for alleged "deeper or hidden
truth" when you find contradiction. Nonsense.
If you don't look for "the deeper hidden
truth," you are stuck with two choices: You either reject
the Bible altogether as imaginative fiction, or you take it at
surface face-value, as inerrant and literally true in the simpleton-sense.
Pick your own nonsense.
The falsehoods are based upon misuderstanding.
This is why in Norwegian encyclopaedia and reference works, anthroposophy
and related terms have always been defined by anthroposophists.
So Western scholars of religion cannot
adequately understand or classify anthroposophy? Is that it?
Hmmm. Then I guess only an orthodox Christian can truly understand
orthodox Christianity and these believers alone must define it.
Cool. Your criticisms are all invalidated by your misunderstanding?
Do you accept this line of reasoning?
You're missing one crucial point here: I have
been an orthodox Christian of the Protestant variety. I even
taught Bible classes according to orthodox theology. If you had
been an ex-anthroposophist and lectured about the spiritual evolution
of humanity from a spiritual-scientific viewpoint before you
became an orthodox Christian, you might have a point.
On the contrary, he used objective spiritual-scientific
research.
How is a subjective investigation of supersensible
higher worlds "scientific" in the accepted meaning
of the term?
The investigation is objective, not subjective.
Read "Outline of Occult Science." Don't ask me to spoon
any of it out to you, because I've already done that for Dan
Dugan.
Please don't dodge the question. How can
Steiner arrive at a proper interpretation of any biblical writer
by denying scholarly methods of literary interpretation in favor
of subjective esotericism?
He checks out the author's sources before
examining the text to see if it matches his own independent findings.
You can't beat that.
If you used an esoteric interpretation
of the Reader's Digest, TV Guide, TIME, or your tax forms, you'd
be in trouble quickly. Why do it with the biblical texts?
Because the Biblical texts are antique,
occult documents. The TV guide isn't.
So the literary interpretive techqnique
one uses is determined by the age of the documents in question,
at least in part? How old do they have to be before one uses
an esoteric technique, and how do you know the biblical texts
are occult documents, whose true meaning is hidden beneath the
surface of the actual words unless one assumes this to be the
case? Sounds like circular reasoning.
If you don't know how to classify literature,
if you don't know the difference between the TV guide and the
Bible, I'm afraid I can't help you. If my reasoning sounds circular
to you, it's because you're stuck in that labyrinth of yours.
I maintain that Western esotericism, properly
classified within the New Age movement, is philosophically inferior
to Christian theism.
I call that religious-philosophical fascism.
I call this philosophical analysis, and
the willingness to submit the Christian theistic worldview to
the tests of philosophical reasoning in contrast with a Western
esoteric worldview. Tests for truth and falsehood with regards
to worldviews is not fascism.
When you call your own subjective judgement
objective tests in the capricious name of philosophy and use
it as a platform to throw dirt on esoteric Christianity, it's
arrogant religious fascism.
Let me provide a counter-example. Gnostic
influence in alternative medicine. Prime example: Deepak Chopra.
The cure for aging, disease and death? Simply change your consciousness,
thereby bringing yourself into harmony with the infinite Creative
Intelligence, and viola. No more sickness, because it was an
illusion created by thinking. I submit that Dr. Chopra will still
age, and die, regardless of his meditation, because reality is
not as he perceives it.
The most deluded quackery of this kind
comes from evangelical circles and their faith healing. this
is based upn the simple command given by Christ to a sick person,
"Take your bed and walk." The way this is being practiced
today, with magical circus trickery, mass-suggestion and the
like, is a prime gift for the Skeptics Society. Anthroposophical
doctors have never engaged in this kind of nonsense, but orthodox
Christians are notorious for it.
Another ad hominem against Christianity,
which provides no evidence for the alleged scientific status
of anthroposophy.
Every single time I catch you red-handed in
throwing bricks from your glass-house, you cry "ad hominem."
And this time you say I'm doing an ad hominem against Christianity
- against Christ? Come on.
On top of this, you add something about lack
of evidence for anthroposophical science, which has nothing whatsoever
to do with modern evangelical healing-circuses.
I don't agree with the abuses of alleged
evangelical faith healers either, but that doesn't mean the whole
world view is false. And regardless of Christian faith healing,
it does not establish the alleged scientific status of anthroposophical
medicine, or New Age alternative medicine either.
Your sentence lacks clarity of reference.
EXACTLY WHAT does not establish the alleged scientific status
of anthroposophical medicine, or New Age alternative medicine?
You will find out very quickly that New
Age monism is deadly to the Western dualistic worldview that
modern medicine is based upon.
You are making a scientific claim here, namely
that philosophical monism will undermine medical practice, medical
research, and the art of healing. This is indeed a claim that
you are required to test, to demonstrate, and to prove if it
is to be taken seriously.
How about some historic evidence, from
non-Christian sources, for the historical existence of Jesus
of Nazareth? Josephus, a Jewish historian, has at least one reference
to him that is undisiputed, and possibly another that may have
experienced, Christian interpolation. Additionally, he is mentioned
in the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Jewish
Talmud. And one cannot discount the testimony of the early Pauline
epistles, nor the Gospels, written, quite likely according to
the latest scholarly concensus, prior to the fall of Jerusalem
in A.D. 70, within a generation of the events they described.
That's good historical evidence.
To you perhaps. But there are many atheists
who with good reason claim that this evidence is elusive and
inconclusive, and that the entire story may be a fable, a myth,
a legend.
The earliest critics did not deny his historical
existence, they denied the identity with which the early Christians
associated him, as Messiah. The "Christ-idea" concept
ignores the historical evidence and the Judeo-Christian framework
that it originated from, in favor of a monistic and esoteric
framework. You can create a fictionalized Christ-idea if you
want, but please don't claim that is the historical concept.
You have totally misunderstood and misconstrued
what I meant by the Christ-Idea. I did not call it the Christ-Idea
*because* the Mystery of Golgotha eludes physical evidence, but
because the history of Christianity is the history of an Idea
arising from the event in question.
I don't know that we're getting anywere, Tarjei, and we're probably
boring this list to death.
Right. Anyway, I'm bored with it. On the other
hand, so far, at least since I've joined the list, all the critics
have been more or less secular humanists, and there haven't been
any fundies to play with.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:45:29 +1200
John Morehead has been having a long ... conversation
... with Tarjei Straume about the differences (if I understand
the arguments, which is debatable, given my lack of theological
education) between two world-views, Christianity and Anthroposophy.
I don't need to quote any of the discussion
... let's cut to the chase:
I don't know that we're getting anywere,
Tarjei, and we're probably boring this list to death.
John Morehead
Michael KOPP says:
On the contrary, I find the discussion extremely
illuminating of two things: the facts of the matter as seen by
the two sides; and a confirmation of something I (along with
most other Steiner/ Waldforf/ Anthroposophical (SWA) critics)
have been saying for three-and-one-half years.
And that is the impossibility of holding a
rational discussion between an adherent of SWA and a critic of
SWA.
For the Anthroposophist, it is impossible
that one who disagrees with any of Steiner's teachings can have
enough understanding of Anthroposophy to hold such a discussion.
This is contrary to all scholarship principles of which I have
been aware throughout my life.
Critics (even mild questioners, like parents
of children in an SWA school who find something their children
are being taught to be strange, incomprehensible, or at variance
with their own understanding of the world) are told that the
issues are quite complicated and that only by long study would
one understand them.
They are further told that if they study Anthroposphy
according to Steiner's prescriptions, they will come to understand.
Invariably, people who do this become as convinced of Anthroposophy's
tenets as those who have told them the path to understanding.
In other words, to study according to the master's teachings
is to become what the master had in mind in the first place,
despite his guru-trick pronouncement that each should come to
his or her own conclusions.
As I understand SWA, there has not been one
critic from within who has published any kind of major difference
of opinion with Steiner. (We have seen some people on this list
who call themselves apostates of some sort, but they mostly say
it is the _practice_ of SWA today which bothers them, not Steiner's
original world view and cosmology.) Anthroposophy has not progressed,
despite the myriad books purporting to explain it or build on
it or employ it.
This seems to me to be at variance with Mr
Morehead's and other Protestant Christian religions, at least,
and with most others, like Catholicism, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism,
which have extremely lively intellectual arguments and schisms.
(Some too lively, at the moment, leading to authoritarian, patriarchal
fascism.)
To my knowledge -- despite the claim of the
SWA apologists on this list -- there is no such process, no such
schisming, in SWA.
Now isn't this curious?
And isn't it fun to see the emperor's new
clothes paraded so elegantly in the eloquent and erudite chatting
of two such obvious authorities as Mr Morehead and Mr Straume?
Please don't get me wrong: I am not religious,
and I see no more "proof" of the existence of a "God"
in Mr Morehead's arguments and history and documents, (or those
of any other religion) than I do for the existence of a spiritual
higher plane as proposed by Mr Straume's. And I think religion
-- an invention of humans for their own comfort and politics
in the early days of sentience in the face of great unknowns
-- has much to answer for in the history of human conflict. Disagreements
of theology have not always been polite parlour talk or disembodied,
physically remote, cybernetic gabble.
But I think I Mr Morehead's discussions with
Mr Straume make it transparently obvious that for the purposes
of the those who are challenging SWA in public education SWA
is, in fact, a religion under the definitions of the U.S. Constitution
and its legal interpretation for 250 years.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 22:32:57 -0400
Michael Kopp says:
But I think I Mr Morehead's discussions
with Mr Straume make it transparently obvious that for the purposes
of the those who are challenging SWA in public education SWA
is, in fact, a religion under the definitions of the U.S. Constitution
and its legal interpretation for 250 years.
Now why is it so obvious? I don't believe
they've touched on the practice of waldorf education once in
the course of their discussion.
Also, your use of the SWA acronym is really
unwieldy here: are you claiming their dialogue proves Steiner
a religion, or Waldorf, or Anthroposophy, or all three?
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:09:58 +1200
Robert Flannery says:
Michael Kopp says:
But I think I Mr Morehead's discussions
with Mr Straume make it transparently obvious that for the purposes
of the those who are challenging SWA in public education SWA
is, in fact, a religion under the definitions of the U.S. Constitution
and its legal interpretation for 250 years.
Now why is it so obvious? I don't believe
they've touched on the practice of waldorf education once in
the course of their discussion.
KOPP:
Which are you challenging: that their discussions
make it obvious SWA is a religion; or their discussions make
it obvious SWA is practiced in "Waldorf education"?
The former is obvious on its own. The latter
doesn't have to be discussed by them; it's already been thoroughly
thrashed out on this list.
It's obvious because copious evidence on this
list, and statements by "SWA" adherents, have already
established that Steiner's pedagogical religiosity, and Anthroposophy
holus-bolus, are practiced by SWA teachers and school upon their
students. I will no longer be drawn into debate on this issue.
Also, your use of the SWA acronym is really
unwieldy here: are you claiming their dialogue proves Steiner
a religion, or Waldorf, or Anthroposophy, or all three?
KOPP:
It is impossible to separate the three, and
any attempt to artificially do so by defenders of one or the
other of them are doomed. They are all three integral to the
educational enterprises under discussion here and under litigation
elsewhere.
Some Anthroposophists -- and some Anthroposophical
apostates, like Tarjei the "anarchosophist" -- may
claim that Anthroposophy can be divorced from SWA educational
practice in their own lives. That is, that they have nothing
to do with the schools, and simply use (or whatever word you
or they choose to employ to describe their relationship with
it) Anthroposophy.
But Steiner made no such distinction, and
in fact said that they were inseperable.
I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding
my meaning just because of the employment of the abbreviation
for the triumverate subjects of this list. But I think it's been
in use here long enough for most people to know what I mean.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 06:11:12 -0400
Michael Kopp promises:
It's obvious because copious evidence on
this list, and statements by "SWA" adherents, have
already established that Steiner's pedagogical religiosity, and
Anthroposophy holus-bolus, are practiced by SWA teachers and
school upon their students. I will no longer be drawn into debate
on this issue.
*You haven't been willing to debate it yet*.
Michael, you have always been willing to talk
about anthroposophy and new-age pap being taught in the classroom,
since that was your experience in Wellington. You have never
been willing to acknowledge or even recognize the possibility
that this is the exception to the rule.
"Debate" for you has consisted of
a nearly continuous stream of claim that "Steiner's pedagogical
religiosity and Anthroposophical holus-bolus are practiced by
SWA teachers and school upon their students". Every time
I've asked you to back this type of comment up, you either start
talking about pyramids and sound power or dactylic hexameter.
When I remind you that the instances of miseducation are not
what's at issue, you claim I'm trying to divert you and refer
me to the archives.
There's nothing there on the broader issue,
there's been no debate, and it continues to be a hollow claim.
Whether you're willing to talk about it or not, I'll call you
on it every time I see it, so long as I have the energy and time.
Also, your use of the SWA acronym is really
unwieldy here: are you claiming their dialogue proves Steiner
a religion, or Waldorf, or Anthroposophy, or all three?
KOPP:
It is impossible to separate the three, and any attempt to artificially
do so by defenders of one or the other of them are doomed.
I agree that the three are intertwined in
an understanding of waldorf pedagogy and the inner work of a
waldorf teacher. But we are not always talking about waldorf
on this list when we discuss Steiner or anthroposophy.
They are all three integral to the educational
enterprises under discussion here and under litigation elsewhere.
Yes.
Some Anthroposophists -- and some Anthroposophical
apostates, like Tarjei the "anarchosophist" -- may
claim that Anthroposophy can be divorced from SWA educational
practice in their own lives. That is, that they have nothing
to do with the schools, and simply use (or whatever word you
or they choose to employ to describe their relationship with
it) Anthroposophy.
But Steiner made no such distinction, and in fact said that they
were inseperable.
When a waldorf teacher practices the art of
education, her knowledge of anthroposophy and reading of Steiner
is often inseparable from her understanding of the child and
her interpretation of the classroom situation.
That's the major reason that I disagree with
Dr. Mollett when he claims that anthroposophy can be removed
from the practice of waldorf in public education -- and I too
would like a look at his precis on this question.
But treating the three monolithically does
nothing for analysis. For instance, John and Tarjei are discussing
anthroposophy, Christianity, and comparative religion. Tarjei,
by his own admission, knows little about waldorf education. He's
discussing Steiner and anthroposophy. How can you characterize
the tenets of his discussion as "SWA"?
Just because the study of anthroposophy is
central to being a waldorf teacher, you cannot assume that whenever
someone speaks about Steiner or anthroposophy that waldorf is
included.
I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding
my meaning just because of the employment of the abbreviation
for the triumverate subjects of this list. But I think it's been
in use here long enough for most people to know what I mean.
I don't misunderstand you -- the meaning of
"SWA" has always been clear.
The reduction of anthroposophy and waldorf
education and the study of Steiner's work to a unity simplifies
the problem of defining boundaries, but doesn't do anything to
help clarify a discussion. Similarly, oversimplifying to hang
a label or an argument on something isn't always as clear as
you would like it to be.
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:30:25
At 10:51 PM 4/11/99 +0100, you wrote:
A former colleague is a devout Roman Catholic
and a member of the Anthroposophical Society. I very much doubt
that she is the only person who is comfortable in this position.
Comfort within a contradictory position does
not constitute rational consistency.
Perhaps those who believe that such a situation
is impossible misunderstand Roman Catholicism, anthroposophy
(most likely), or both.
Or, those who believe it is contradictory
understand the views quite nicely, and it is in fact contradictory.
Let's not leave out all the logical possibilities for consideration.
Perhaps the solution to this conundrum
lies in the fact that being an anthroposophist does not require
a belief in anything (although I grant that I cannot imagine
an anthropop who does not believe in the existence of a spiritual
reality -- but it is not *required* -- this, IMHO, is one of
the distinctions between anthroposophy and religion).
Just how can you be an anthroposophist, or
adhere to any worldview or belief system, without holding at
least some beliefs which define it? Sounds like anthroposophists
want to have such a vague and undefined position as to avoid
any criticism, including religious education in a public educational
setting.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthropo
sophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:37:00 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp
They are further told that if they study Anthroposphy according
to Steiner's prescriptions, they will come to understand. Invariably,
people who do this become as convinced of Anthroposophy's tenets
as those who have told them the path to understanding. In other
words, to study according to the master's teachings is to become
what the master had in mind in the first place, despite his guru-trick
pronouncement that each should come to his or her own conclusions.
This is not a criticism of your criticism,
Michael. I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying
here.
Is it you or the anthroposophists who are
making the conclusion that "invariably" those who study
it become convinced?
In the third sentence, which is obviously
your own conclusion, you state (I think) that because those who
study anthroposophy invariably become entranced by it, they have
not come to their own conclusions. I'm not sure that the conclusion
follows the premise.
Help me out here.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:13:42 +0200
John Morehead wrote:
New Testament scholars generally concede
that this belief in a literal, physical resurrection was responsible
for the origin of the Christian faith.
I wrote:
Rudolf Steiner says precisely the same
thing. Did you know that?
John Morehead wrote:
Could you provide the references? I'd like
to see them. It would be nice if he interpreted one major Christian
doctrine correctly.
I wrote:
Off the top of my head (there are plenty
more): "The Fifth Gospel"-lectures held in Oslo, later
in Cologne, in October and December, 1913 (GA 148) The first
of these lectures (Oslo, 1st October, 1913) answers your question
(that Steiner also said that belief in a literal, physical resurrection
was responsible for the origin of the Christian faith).
I think it is appropriate
to fortify this reference with a quote from the first lecture
of "The Fifth Gospel". When the RS quotes I give are
longer than those provided by the critics, it is partly because
of the misconceptions that can so easily ensue when a short excerpt
is taken out of context - a fact clearly demonstrated by the
PLANS website. Besides, this entire quote touches most profoundly
the exchange between John Morehead and myself, hopefully clearing
up some misconceptions about Steiner's view about Christianity
in history - at least for some of the lurkers. It also highlights
the relationship between Christianity and natural science from
an anthroposophical perspective, which may have relevancy to
the American public school controversy, and to the natural link
between Darwinism and the reincarnation-idea (which makes the
latter very Western indeed).
I am including Saint Rudy's initial remarks
about elementary education in the future (and I am deeply grateful
to the WE critics for canonizing my hero), because if our beloved
guru was right about the future on this point, your current problems
with WE in American public schools with regard to the Constitution
is only the tip of the iceberg. Saint Rudy is here threatening
the teaching of history in American public schools with much
worse things to come:
"Let me say, to begin
with, that the time is certainly not very far distant when even
in the lowest grade schools and in the most elementary education,
the branch of knowledge commonly called history will be presented
quite differently. It is certain - and these lectures should
be a kind of confirmation of it - that in times to come the concept
or idea of Christ will play a quite other and much more important
part in the study of history, even the most elementary, than
it has done hitherto. I know that such a statement seems highly
paradoxical, but let us remember that there were times by no
means very far distant, when countless human hearts turned to
Christ with feelings of immeasurably greater fervour than is
to be found to-day, even among the most learned Christians in
the West. In earlier times these feelings of devotion were incomparably
more intense. Anyone who studies modern writings and reflects
on the main interests of people to-day will have the impression
that enthusiasm and warmth of feeling for the Christ Idea are
on the wane, especially in those who claim an up-to-date education.
In spite of this, I have just said that as this age of ours advances,
the Christ Idea will play a much more important part than hitherto
in the study of human history. Does this not seem to be a complete
contradiction?
"And now we will approach
the subject from another side. I have already been able to speak
on several occasions in this very town [Oslo] about the significance
and the content of the Christ Idea; and in books and lecture-courses
which are available here, many deep teachings of Spiritual Science
concerning the secrets of the Christ Being and the Christ Idea
are to be found. Anyone who assimilates what has been said in
lectures, lecture-courses, and indeed in all our literature,
will realise that any real understanding of the Christ Being
needs extensive preparation, that the very deepest concepts and
thoughts must be summoned to his aid if he desires to reach some
comprehension of Christ and of the Christ Impulse working through
the centuries. If nothing else indicated the contrary, it might
even perhaps be thought that a knowledge of the whole of Spiritual
Science or Anthroposophy is necessary before there can be any
true conception of Christ. But if we turn aside from this and
look at the development of the spiritual life of the last centuries,
we are met from century to century by the existence of much profound
and detailed knowledge aimed at a comprehension of Christ and
His revelation. For centuries and centuries men have applied
their noblest, most profound thoughts in endeavors to reach an
understanding of Christ. Here too, it might seem as if only the
most highly intellectual achievements of men would suffice for
such understanding. But is this, in fact, so? Quite simple reflection
will show that it is not.
"Let us, as it were,
lay on one scale of a spiritual balance everything contributed
hitherto by erudition, science and even by anthroposophical conceptions
towards an understanding of Christ. On the other scale let us
lay all the deep feelings, all the impulses within men which
through the centuries have caused their souls to turn to the
Being called Christ. It will be found that the scale on which
we have laid all the science, all the learning, even all the
Anthroposophy that can be applied to explain the figure of Christ,
will rapidly rise, and the scale on which we have laid all the
deep feelings and impulses which have turned men towards the
Christ will sink. It is no exaggeration to say that a force of
untold strength and greatness has gone forth from Christ and
that learned scholarship concerning Him has contributed least
of all to this impulse. Truly it would have boded ill for Christianity
if, in order to cleave to Christ, men had had to resort to all
the learned dissertations of the Middle Ages, of the Schoolmen,
of the Church Fathers, or even to what Anthroposophy contributes
to-day towards an understanding of Christ. This whole body of
knowledge would be of very little help. I hardly think that anyone
who studies the march of Christianity through the centuries with
an unprejudiced mind can raise any serious argument against this
line of thought; but the subject can be approached from still
another side.
"Let us turn our thought
to the times before Christianity had come into existence. I need
only mention something of which those sitting here are certainly
aware. I need only remind you of the ancient Greek dramas, especially
in their earlier forms. When portraying a god in combat or a
human being in whose soul a god was working, these dramas make
the sovereignty and activity of the gods concretely and perceptibly
real. Think of Homer and how his great Epic is all inwoven with
the workings of the Spiritual; think of the great figures of
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. These names bring before our mind's
eye a spiritual life that in a certain domain is supreme. If
we leave all else aside and look only at the single figure of
Aristotle, who lived centuries before the founding of Christianity,
we find there an achievement which, in a certain respect, has
remained unexcelled to this very day. The scientific precision
of Aristotle's thinking is something so phenomenal, even by present-day
standards, that he can be said to have raised human thinking
to a height never yet surpassed.
"And now for a moment
we will take a strange hypothesis, but one that will help us
to understand these lectures. We will imagine that there were
no Gospels to tell us anything about the figure of Christ, that
the earliest records which have come to us in the form of the
New Testament were simply not in existence. Leaving on one side
all that has been said about the foundation of Christianity,
let us study its progress as historical fact, observing what
has happened among men through the centuries of the Christian
era. In other words, without the Gospels, without the Acts of
the Apostles, without the Epistles of St. Paul, we will consider
what has actually come to pass. This, of course, is pure hypothesis,
but what is it that has really happened?
"Turning our attention
first of all to the South of Europe in a certain period of history,
we find a very highly developed spiritual life and culture -
represented, as we have seen, in Aristotle - which developed
along particular channels through the subsequent centuries. At
the time when Christianity began to make its way through the
world, large numbers of men who had assimilated the spiritual
culture of Greece were living in the South of Europe. If we follow
the evolution of Christianity to the time of Celsus - that strange
individual who was such a violent opponent of Christianity -
and even on into the second and third centuries after Christ,
we find in Greece and Italy numbers of highly cultured men who
had absorbed the lofty Ideas of Plato, men whose subltelty of
thought seems like a continuation of Aristotle's. Here were minds
of refinement and power, versed in Greek learning; here were
Romans who added to the delicate spirituality of Greek thought
the element of aggressive personality characteristic of Roman
civilisation. Such was the world into which the Christian impulse
made its way. Truly, in respect of intellectuality and knowledge
of the world, the representatives of this Christian impulse seem
to be uncivilised and uneducated in comparison with all the learned
Romans and Greeks. Men lacking in culture make their way into
a world of mature intellectuality. And now we witness a remarkable
spectacle. through these simple, primitive people who were its
first bearers, Christianity spreads comparatively quickly through
the South of Europe. And if with an understanding of the nature
of Christianity acquired, let us say, from Anthroposophy, we
think of these simple, primitive natures who spread Christianity
abroad in those times, we shall realise that they knew nothing
of these things. We need not think here of any conception of
Christ in His great cosmic setting, but of much simpler conceptions
of Christ. Those first bearers of the Christian impulse who found
their way into the world of highly developed Greek learning had
nothing to bring into this arena of Greco-Roman life save their
own inwardness, their personal connection with the Christ whom
they so deeply loved; for this connection was as dear to them
as that with their own kit and kin. Those who brought into the
Greco-Roman world in those days the Christianity that has continued
to our own time were not well-informed theosophists, were by
no means highly educated people. The Gnostics who were the learned
theosophists of those times had, it is true, risen to sublime
ideas concerning Christ, but even they contributed only what
must be placed in the rising scale of the balance. If everything
had depended upon the Gnostics, Christianity would certainly
not have made its victorious headway through the world. It was
no highly developed intellectuality that came over from the East,
causing the comparatively rapid decline of the old Hellenic and
Roman culture. There we have one side of the picture.
"We see the other
side when we consider men of intellectual distinction, beginning
with Celsus - the opponent of Christianity who even then brought
forward all the arguments that are still valid to-day - down
to Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher of the throne. We think of
the Neo-Platonists with their subtle scholarship, whose ideas
make those of philosophy today seem mere child's play, so gently
do they surpass them in loftiness and breadth of wision. If we
think of all the arguments against Christianity brought from
the standpoint of Greek philosophy by these men of high intellectual
eminence in the world of Greek-Roman culture, we get the impression
that they all failed to understand the Christ Impulse. Christianity
was spread by men who understood nothing of its real nature;
it was opposed by a highly developed culture incapable of grasping
its significance. Truly, Christianity makes a strange entry into
the world - with adherents and opponents alike understanding
nothing of its real nature. And yet men bore within their souls
the power to secure for the Christ Impulse its victorious march
through the world.
"And now let us think
of men such as Tertullian who with a certain greatness and power
entered the lists on behalf of Christianity. Tertullian was a
Roman who, so far as his language is concerned, may almost be
said to have re-created the Latin tongue; the very certainty
of aim with which he restored to words a living meaning constrains
us to recognize him as a personality of real significance. But
if we ask about his *ideas*, there is a very different story
to tell. In his ideas and thoughts he gives very little evidence
of intellectual or spiritual eminence. Supporters of Christianity
even of the calibre of Tertullian do not accomplish anything
very considerable. And yet as personalities they are potent -
these men like Tertullian, to whose arguments no highly educated
Greek could attach much weight. There is something about Tertullian
that attracts one's attention - but what exactly is it? That
is the important point.
"Let us realise that
a real problem lies here. What power is responsible for the achievements
of these bearers of the Christ Impulse who themselves do not
really understand it? What power is responsible for the influence
exercised by the Church Fathers, including even Origen, in spite
of all their manifest ineptitude? Why is Greco-Roman scholarship
itself unable to comprehend the essential nature of the Christ
Impulse? What does all this signify?
"But let us go further.
The same spectacle stands out in still stronger relief when we
study the course of history. As the centuries go by, Christianity
spread over Europe, among peoples such as the Germanic, with
quite different ideas of religion and worship, who are, or at
least appear to be, inseparable from these ideas and who nevertheless
accepted the Christ Impulse with open hearts, as if it were part
and parcel of their own life. And when we think of those who
were the most influential missionaries among the Germanic peoples,
were these men highly educated theologians? No indeed! Comparatively
speaking, they were simple, primitive souls who went out among
the people, talking to them in the most homely, everyday language,
but moving their very hearts. They knew how to frame their words
in such a way as to touch the deepest heartstrings of those to
whom they spoke. Simple men went out into regions far and wide,
and it was their work that produced the most significant results.
So we see Christianity spreading through the centuries. But then
we are astonished to find this same Christianity becoming the
motive force of profound scholarship, science and philosophy.
We do not undervalue this philosophy, but to-day we will focus
our attention on the remarkable fact that up to the Middle Ages
the peoples among whom Christianity spread in such a way that
it soon became part of their very souls, had lived until then
with different forms of thought and belief. And in no very distant
future many other features in connection with the spread of Christianity
will be stressed. So far as the effect produced by this spread
of Christianity is concerned, it will not be difficult to agree
with the statement that there was a period when these Christian
teachings were the source of fervent enthusiasm. But in modern
times the fervor which in the Middle Ages accompanied the spread
of Christianity seems to have died away.
"And now think of
Copernicus, of the whole development of natural science on into
the nineteenth century. This natural science, which since the
time of Copernicus has become an integral part of Western culture,
might appear to run counter to Christianity. The facts of history
may seem, outwardly, to substantiate this. For example, until
the 'twenties of the nineteenth century the writings of Copernicus
were on the so-called Index of the Roman Catholic Church. But
that is an external detail and the fact remains that Copernicus
was a dignitary of the Church. Giordano Bruno was burnt at the
stake by the Roman Church, but he was, for all that, a member
of the Dominican Order. The ideas of both these thinkers sprang
from the soil of Christianity and their work was an outcome of
the Christian impulse. To maintain that these teachings were
not the fruits of Christianity would denote very poor understanding
on the part of those who claim to hold fast by the church. These
facts only go to prove that the Church did not understand the
fruits of Christianity. Those who see more deeply into the roots
of these things will recognize that what the peoples have achieved,
even in the more recent centuries, is a result of Christianity;
that through Christianity, as also through the findings of Copernicus,
the gaze of the human mind was turned from the Earth towards
the wide spaces of the Heavens. Such a change was possible only
within christian culture and through the Christian impulse. Those
who observe the depths and not merely the surface of spiritual
life will understand something which, although it will seem highly
paradoxical when I say it now, is nevertheless correct. For this
deeper observation, a Haeckel, for all his opposition to Christianity,
could have sprung only from the soil of this same Christianity.
Ernst Haeckel is inconceivable without the basis of Christian
culture. And however hard modern natural science may try to promote
opposition to Christianity, this natural science is itself an
offspring of Christianity, a direct development of the Christian
impulse. When modern natural science has got over the ailments
of childhood, men will perceive quite clearly that if followed
to its logical conclusions, it leads to Spiritual Science; that
there is an entirely consistent path from Haeckel to Spiritual
Science. when that is grasped, it will also be realised that
Haeckel is Christian through and through, although he himself
has no notion of it. The Christian impulses have given birth
not only to what claims to be Christian but also to what appears
on the surface to run counter to Christianity. This will soon
be realised if we study the underlying reality, not merely the
concepts and ideas that are put into words. As can be seen from
my little essay on Reincarnation and Karma, a direct line leads
from the Darwinian theory of evolution to the teaching of repeated
earthly lives.
"But in order to understand
these things correctly we must be able to perceive the influence
of the Christian impulses with entirely unprejudiced eyes. Anyone
who understands the doctrines of Darwin and Haeckel and is himself
convinced that only as a Christian movement was the Darwinian
movement possible (Haeckel had no notion of this, but Darwin
was aware of many things) - anyone who realises this is led by
an absolutely consistent path to the idea of reincarnation. And
if he can call upon a certain power of clairvoyance, this same
path will lead him to knowledge of the *spiritual* origin of
the humkan race. True, it is a *detour*, but with the help of
clairvoyance an uninterrupted path leads from Haeckel's thought
to the conception of a spiritual origin of the Earth. It is conceivable,
of course, that someone may accept Darwinism in the form in which
it is presented to-day, without grasping the life-principles
which in reality are contained in it. In other words, if Darwinian
thought becomes an impulse in someone who lacks any deep understanding
of Christianity - which nevertheless lies in Darwinism - he may
end by understanding no more of Darwinism than he does of Christianity.
The good spirit of Christianity and the good spirit of Darwinism
may alike forsake him. But if he has a grasp of the good spirit
of Darwinism, then - however much of a materialist he may be
- his thought will carry him back over the Earth's history to
the point where he recognises that man has *not* evolved from
lower animal forms but must have a spiritual origin. He is led
to the point where man is perceived as a spiritual being, hovering
as it were over the earthly world. Darwinism, if developed to
its logical conclusion, leads to this recognition. But if someone
has been forsaken by the good spirit of Darwinism and happens
to believe in the idea of reincarnation, he may imagine that
he himself once lived as an ape in some incarnation of the planet
Earth. Anyone who can believe this lacks all real understanding
of Darwinism and of Christianity and must have been forsaken
by the good spirits of both! For Darwinism, consistently elaborated,
could lead to no such belief. In such a case the idea of reincarnation
has been grafted into the soil of materialism. It is possible,
of course, for modern Darwinism to be stripped of its Christian
elements. If this does *not* happen, we shall find that on into
our own times the impulses of Darwinism have been born out of
the Christ Impulse, that the impulses of Christianity work even
where they are repudiated. Thus we find that in the early centuries,
Christianity spreads quite independently of scholarship or erudition
in its adherents; in the Middle Ages it spreads in such a way
that the Schoolmen, with all their learning, can contribute very
little to it; and finally we have the paradox of Christianity
appearing in Darwinism as in an inverted picture. Everything
that is great in the Darwinian conception derives its motive
power from the Christian impulses. The Christian impulses within
it will lead this science out of and beyond materialism.
"The spread of Christian
impulses has indeed been strange, owing nothing, it appears,
to intellectuality, learning, erudition. Christianity has spread
regardless of the views of its adherents or opponents - even
appearing in an inverted form in the domain of modern materialism.
But what exactly is it that spreads? It is not the ideas or the
knowledge of Christianity; nor can we say that it is the morality
instilled by Christianity. Think only of what morality was like
in those times and we shall find much justification for the diatribes
levelled by the representatives of Christianity against its real
or alleged enemies. Even the moral power that might have been
possessed by souls without much intellectual education will not
greatly impress us. What, then, is this mysterious impulse which
makes its victorious way through the world? Let us turn here
to Spiritual Science, to clairvoyant consciousness. What power
is at work in those unlearned men who, coming over from the East,
infiltrated the world of greco-Roman culture? What power is at
work in the men who bring Christianity into the foreign world
of the Germanic tribes? What is really at work in the materialistic
natural science of modern times - the doctrines of which disguise
its real nature? What is this power? It is Christ Himself who
through the centuries wends His way from soul to soul, from heart
to heart, no matter whether souls understand Him or not. It behooves
us to look away from our ingrained concepts and scientific ideas
and point to the reality, showing how mysteriously Christ Himself
is present in multitudinous impulses, taking form in the souls
of thousands and tens of thousands of human beings, filling them
with His power. It is Christ Himself, working in simple men,
who sweeps over the world of Greco-Roman culture; it is Christ
Himself who stands at the side of those who in later times bring
Christianity to the Germanic peoples; it is He - Christ Himself
in all His reality - who makes His way from place to place, from
soul to soul, penetrating these souls regardless of the ideas
they may hold concerning Him.
"Let me here make
a vivid comparison. How many people are there who understand
nothing about the composition of foodstuffs and are none the
less well and properly nourished? It would certainly mean starvation
if scientific knowledge of foodstuffs were essential to nourishment.
Nourishment has nothing whatever to do with understanding the
nature of foodstuffs. Similarly, the spread of Christianity over
the earth had nothing to do with men's understanding of it. That
is the strange fact. There is a mystery here, only to be explained
when the answer can be found to the question: How does Christ
Himself wield dominion in the minds and hearts of men?
"When Spiritual Science,
clairvoyant investigation, puts this question to itself, it is
led, first of all, to an event from which the veils can really
be lifted only by clairvoyant vision - an event that is entirely
consistent with what I have been saying to-day. We shall see
one thing clearly: the time when Christ worked in the way I have
described is past and gone, and the time has come when men must
*understand* Christ, must have real knowledge of Christ.
Hence we must also answer
the question why our age was preceded by that other age when
it was possible for the Christ Impulse to spread independently
of men's understanding.
"The event to which
clairvoyant consciousness points is that of Pentecost, the sending
of the Holy Spirit. Clairvoyant vision, quickened by the power
of the Christ Impulse, was therefore directed, in the first place,
to this event of Pentecost, the sending of the Holy Spirit. It
is this event that presents itself first and foremost to clairvoyant
investigation carried out from a certain standpoint."
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:16:37 -0700
Tarjei Straume, you wrote,
The reason for this is very simple: Anthroposophy
was developed for those who cannot accept orthodox Christianity
as a foundation for religious truth because it is irrational,
illogical, and at odds with Darwinism and other branches of natural
science.
Knocking people for being "at odds with
Darwinism"? How about Steiner?
"So with regard to
the animal the child comes to feel that all animals are related
to man, but that man has something that reaches out beyond them
all, for he unites all the animals in himself. And all this idle
talk of the scientists about man descending from an animal will
be laughed at by people who have been educated in this way. For
they will know that man unites within himself the whole animal
kingdom, he is a synthesis of all the single members of it."
[Steiner, Kingdom of Childhood, p. 64]
He was a prophet! "will be laughed at
by people who have been educated in this way" We hear them
on this list.
And if anyone doubts
that Steiner's ideas on evolution come into Waldorf, see the
popular teaching handbooks:
"The man and Animal
period in the Rudolf Steiner school, which is given at about
the age of ten, is one of the most difficult from the teacher's
point of view. In the first place, the teacher must subscribe
to, or be in sympathy with, the ideas on evolution propounded
by Dr. Steiner. (Otherwise, of course, he should not be in the
school). More than that, he must also understand them and this
understanding is not something that can be acquired the night
before the lessons are given, nor is it something that can be
superficially communicated. ... Contrary to the Darwinistic ideas
of man being the final product of animal evolution, Dr. Steiner
considers animals to be the by-products of human development.
Man has been involved from the beginning but not in a physical
form. Man existed spiritually and the animal forms represent
physically incarnated soul forces which the human being had to
dispense with in order to mature sufficiently to receive the
ego."
[Wilkinson, Man and Animal, p. 2]
-Dan Dugan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:26:46 -0700
Tarjei Straume, you wrote,
In the first place, comprehension of divine-spiritual
truth requires a higher logic, an extra-rational logic.
That one line says more than all the rest
of your voluminous writing.
-Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Jones
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 16:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
--- Dan Dugan wrote:
Tarjei Straume, you wrote,
In the first place, comprehension of divine-spiritual
truth requires a higher logic, an extra-rational logic.
That one line says more than all the rest
of your voluminous writing.
-Dan
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty
said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose
it to mean - neither more nor less".
Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll;Chapter
6.
BJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: RE: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:13:03 +1200
Robert Tolz says:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp
They are further told that if they study Anthroposphy according
to Steiner's prescriptions, they will come to understand. Invariably,
people who do this become as convinced of Anthroposophy's tenets
as those who have told them the path to understanding. In other
words, to study according to the master's teachings is to become
what the master had in mind in the first place, despite his guru-trick
pronouncement that each should come to his or her own conclusions.
This is not a criticism of your criticism,
Michael. I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying
here.
Is it you or the anthroposophists who are making the conclusion
that "invariably" those who study it become convinced?
Me.
In the third sentence, which is obviously
your own conclusion, you state (I think) that because those who
study anthroposophy invariably become entranced by it, they have
not come to their own conclusions. I'm not sure that the conclusion
follows the premise.
Come on, Robert, we've been over this ground
before. Critics think Anthroposophy is full of clever cult-like
tricks to make people believe what Steiner wants them to believe
while making them think they have arrived at the beliefs through
their own insight.
Help me out here.
Maybe you should stop studying so much Anthroposopy?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 23:09:23 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp
In the third sentence, which is obviously
your own conclusion, you state (I think) that because those who
study anthroposophy invariably become entranced by it, they have
not come to their own conclusions. I'm not sure that the conclusion
follows the premise.
Come on, Robert, we've been over this ground
before. Critics think Anthroposophy is full of clever cult-like
tricks to make people believe what Steiner wants them to believe
while making them think they have arrived at the beliefs through
their own insight.
You give more credit to the "tricks"
in anthroposophy than I would think you would. You say that the
tricks "invariably" make people believe they are arriving
at their own insight. Hogwash. You can't (invariably) fool all
of the people all of the time. If you believe that the vast majority
of people who study anthroposophy are entranced by it, then unless
the written word of Mr. Steiner is capable of some sort of mass
hypnosis, which I doubt, then there have to be at least one or
two people (probably more) who do use some form of critical thinking
in the process.
Help me out here.
Maybe you should stop studying so much
Anthroposopy?
That's a bit like "maybe you should stop
beating your wife?" I've never studied any Anthroposophy
in my life. Are you confusing me with Robert Flannery for the
fourth time?
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 05:29:30 +0200
Dan Dugan wrote:
Knocking people for being "at odds
with Darwinism"? How about Steiner?
My post with the excerpt from "The Fifth
Gospel" should provide a glimpse of Steiner's view on Darwinism.
There is an interesting remark about Darwin
in this lecture. He says:
"Anyone who understands
the doctrines of Darwin and Haeckel and is himself convinced
that only as a Christian movement was the Darwinian movement
possible (Haeckel had no notion of this, but Darwin was aware
of many things)..."
This reminds me of a story I heard from an
entirely different quarter: Charles Darwin kept working on his
theory of evolution throughout his long life, and when he died,
there were stacks of unpublished manuscripts at his residence.
These manuscripts involved reincarnation and spiritual evolution
very similar to theosophy and anthroposophy. But when the arrangements
were being made for Darwin's funeral, the clergy from the Church
of England, who had been informed about what kind of ideas the
old man might publish some day, conveniently stole the unpublished
manuscripts from the estate and destroyed them. If Darwinism
had been given a spiritual direction by Darwin himself, it would
have been too much of a threat to the church, which still excercised
considerable influence over the spiritual life of the population.
I haven't found a confirmation of this story,
but whether it is true or not, it illustrates the course of Darwin's
thoughts and the attitude of the church.
Ernst Haeckel was a personal friend of Rudolf
Steiner. They discussed biological evolution, but Haeckel was
not capable of grasping the idea of the spirit behind this evolution.
Still, Steiner and Haeckel were always the best of friends with
mutual respect and admiration. But precisely because Haeckel
could grasp evolution only in the the physical-material sense,
Steiner says about the Christ Impulse in Darwinism: "Haeckel
had no notion of this, but Darwin was aware of many things..."
Darwinism has in many ways stagnated in the
hands of his followers, waiting to be awakened like a sleeping
wolf. But if Steiner was right about spiritual evolution, about
the Christ Idea in the course of history, and the true nature
of Darwinism, the students in American public schools may begin
to ask some embarrassing New Age questions - even with no help
from Waldorf, anthroposophy, or New Age religion. They may start
asking about reincarnation in biology class, perhaps also about
Christ. And the public schools will have to start disciplining
and dismissing students for inappropriate behavior, for violating
the constitutional amendment for the separation of church and
state.
Like I've mentioned before, I don't envy you
this problem.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:46:34 +0200
Michael Kopp wrote:
As I understand SWA, there has not been
one critic from within who has published any kind of major difference
of opinion with Steiner. (We have seen some people on this list
who call themselves apostates of some sort, but they mostly say
it is the _practice_ of SWA today which bothers them, not Steiner's
original world view and cosmology.) Anthroposophy has not progressed,
despite the myriad books purporting to explain it or build on
it or employ it.
This seems to me to be at variance with Mr Morehead's and other
Protestant Christian religions, at least, and with most others,
like Catholicism, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, which have extremely
lively intellectual arguments and schisms. (Some too lively,
at the moment, leading to authoritarian, patriarchal fascism.)
To my knowledge -- despite the claim of the SWA apologists on
this list -- there is no such process, no such schisming, in
SWA.
Now isn't this curious?
You wouldn't bother to find out, Michael.
On the Anthropos-Views list, for example, I have recently witnessed
and participated in quite serious schisms of all sorts - strong
disagreements among anthropops. And one of the major problems
with the history of the Anthroposophical Society has been too
many schisms and disagreements through the years.
It's interesting how you shoot off your judgements
and conclusions about subjects that you do not wish to investigate
sufficiently to be able to make pronouncements about them. In
plain English: When it comes to anthroposophy, you don't know
what you're talking about.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:04:48 +1200
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Michael Kopp wrote:
To my knowledge -- despite the claim of
the SWA apologists on this list -- there is no such process,
no such schisming, in SWA.
Now isn't this curious?
And TARJEI replied:
You wouldn't bother to find out, Michael.
On the Anthropos-Views list, for example, I have recently witnessed
and participated in quite serious schisms of all sorts - strong
disagreements among anthropops. And one of the major problems
with the history of the Anthroposophical Society has been too
many schisms and disagreements through the years.
KOPP:
But I've spent about eight years of my life
working on it, Tarjei, which is how long ago I started to look
at enrolling my kids in an alternative to the public school system
they were then in.
But, please, can you tell me where the alternative
sects of the Anthroposphical Society are located? What are there
names? Who are their leaders?
Or is there another offshoot of Anthroposophy
that has formed a new society by another name, because it has
rejected Steiner's teaching?
Can you tell me, please, where is the discussion
list on the internet for "Anthroposophical Science"
which rejects Goethean Science as its basis, and instead chooses
"materialistic science" to the exclusion of all other
spiritual mumbo jumbo?
Can you tell me where there is a Waldorf school
that has, for instance, eschewed -- nay, banned -- Goethean phenomenology
and the "four elements" in the teaching of science?
That might have been a school to which I could have sent my children,
because it would have indicated a certain rationality which is
missing in every other
From the look of the availble evidence on
the Internet and in my neck of the woods (which has a national
Anthroposophical Society which is associated with the Federation
of Rudolf Steiner Schools in New Zealand, which is the body which
runs the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical teachers' training
seminary, and is involved in the financing of SWA school in this
country, and their pedagogy) there is no such schism anywhere
in the world that meets the definition of the word.
Sure, you Anthropops _love_ internecine warfare
among yourselves, and some even become apostates. But none of
the apostates has formed an alternative sect, that I'm aware
of. You'd think that such an event would be big enough news to
be made known on a discussion list like this one, in the 3-1/2
years I've been here. Can you point me at one, please, Tarjei?
STRAUME:
It's interesting how you shoot off your
judgements and conclusions about subjects that you do not wish
to investigate sufficiently to be able to make pronouncements
about them. In plain English: When it comes to anthroposophy,
you don't know what you're talking about.
KOPP:
Well, from the impenetrability of your discourse,
and that of Tom Mellet, and Joel Wendt, and several others of
your ilk on this list in the past, I guess that's understandable.
I don't have the education of John Morehead, for instance, that
would enable me to deconstruct Steiner's creation.
It's certainly the case that studying _Anthroposophy_
as a subject is very difficult for a person who is a lifetime
skeptic, and who has no desire to give up that trait just to
understand, from the point of view of an apprentice or whatever,
which is the only way Anthroposophists believe it can be studied,
what looks from the outside like mumbo jumbo. I was not popular
at the few study group meetings I attended at our former Steiner
school (but then, I'm not popular with a lot of people of whom
I ask blunt questions, such as the Anthroposophists and their
apologists on this list).
However, as a journalist and observer of human
affairs, I think it is possible to get some idea of the nature
of Anthroposophy as a practice of people who run schools and
try to inject their philosophy into existing public schools.
As a parent who spent five years getting children
into and out of a Steiner school -- a difficult process as I
have described here previously -- and a fairly intelligent person
who has tried to follow the discourse between better critics
than myself and a variety of Anthropops and apologists here,
and reading the quotes from Steiner and his followers _from both
sides_, I think I have a pretty good idea of what I was duped
by and then shunned when I learnt its weirdness.
If I have not investigatated Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophy to a degree which you find acceptable, Tarjei,
then I apologise for wasting your time all these months of trying
to get you to speak plainly.
However, I don't think I will let an Anthroposophy
apologist (or an "anarchosophist", for that matter)
determine for me or others whether I have experienced enough,
or learned enough, to make judgements about SWA.
I may not know what I'm talking about, from
your point of view. From my point of view, if you DO know what
you're talking about, you don't make it very comprehensible in
the language I grew up with.
Perhaps you want me to learn another, special,
Anthroposophical language, like you seem to believe exists in
terms of Anthroposophical logic, as you posted recently: "In
the first place, comprehension of divine-spiritual truth requires
a higher logic, an extra-rational logic".
Every other religion, every other subject
I have ever studied, has been comprehensible in terms of the
language (and that means the thought processes, because the two
are inseparable) I was taught.
Maybe that's why I took my kids out of our
former Steiner school: its teaching, even of ordinary, everyday
subjects, was incomprehensible to me, much less to my kids.
I believe -- no matter how much you deny it
-- that Anthroposophical dogma and beliefs are at the heart of
all SWA teaching, and cannot help but be present in everything
a child learns, thus inculcating SWA thought processes, if not
Anthroposophical inclinations, in them.
Your statements make a powerful argument for
keeping Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education separated
completely from secular, state, or state-funded schools.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:53:11 +0200
Michael Kopp wrote:
But I've spent about eight years of my
life working on it, Tarjei, which is how long ago I started to
look at enrolling my kids in an alternative to the public school
system they were then in.
If your nonsense about uniform anthroposophical
conformity is the result of eight years of research, your lack
of objectivity must have interfered with your work.
But, please, can you tell me where the alternative sects of the
Anthroposphical Society are located? What are there names? Who
are their leaders?
This would be better commented by someone
on the list who is a current member of the Anthroposophical Society,
but to the best of my knowledge, the organization in question
does not have any sects. It has administrative branches, because
all it does is distribute newsletters, coordinate contacts, and
arrange theater events and things like that.
Or is there another offshoot of Anthroposophy that has formed
a new society by another name, because it has rejected Steiner's
teaching?
If a group or an organization rejects Steiner's
teachings, it has no interest in anthroposophy.
Can you tell me, please, where is the discussion list on the
internet for "Anthroposophical Science" which rejects
Goethean Science as its basis, and instead chooses "materialistic
science" to the exclusion of all other spiritual mumbo jumbo?
What do you need that kind of nonsense for?
Can you tell me where there is a Waldorf school that has, for
instance, eschewed -- nay, banned -- Goethean phenomenology and
the "four elements" in the teaching of science? That
might have been a school to which I could have sent my children,
because it would have indicated a certain rationality which is
missing in every other
Ask the teachers. I know very little about
schools.
From the look of the availble evidence on the Internet and in
my neck of the woods (which has a national Anthroposophical Society
which is associated with the Federation of Rudolf Steiner Schools
in New Zealand, which is the body which runs the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical
teachers' training seminary, and is involved in the financing
of SWA school in this country, and their pedagogy) there is no
such schism anywhere in the world that meets the definition of
the word.
The schism you are looking for would involve
a party very hostile to anthroposophy itself. You are looking
for a branch of anthroposophy that harmonizes with your anti-spiritual
views. Good luck with your search.
Sure, you Anthropops _love_ internecine warfare among yourselves,
and some even become apostates. But none of the apostates has
formed an alternative sect, that I'm aware of. You'd think that
such an event would be big enough news to be made known on a
discussion list like this one, in the 3-1/2 years I've been here.
Can you point me at one, please, Tarjei?
Schisms can exist within a movement or an
organization without forming all kinds of separate sects. But
all the internal disputes would be mumbo jumbo to you anyway,
so there is no wonder that your conclusions were so uninformed.
It's certainly the case that studying _Anthroposophy_
as a subject is very difficult for a person who is a lifetime
skeptic, and who has no desire to give up that trait just to
understand, from the point of view of an apprentice or whatever,
which is the only way Anthroposophists believe it can be studied,
what looks from the outside like mumbo jumbo.
And that is what it will always look like
to you - mumbo jumbo and nothing else.
I was not popular at the few study group
meetings I attended at our former Steiner school (but then, I'm
not popular with a lot of people of whom I ask blunt questions,
such as the Anthroposophists and their apologists on this list).
An anthroposophical study group consists of
people who are genuinely drawn to anthroposophy and who wish
to learn from it. If someone in such a group keeps attacking
and scorning it, he or she is slowing down those who desire to
learn and grow.
However, as a journalist and observer of human affairs, I think
it is possible to get some idea of the nature of Anthroposophy
as a practice of people who run schools and try to inject their
philosophy into existing public schools.
I agree in theory, but the bitter venom that
taints every word you write about Anthroposophy makes it very
difficult for the objective reader to discern that idea.
As a parent who spent five years getting children into and out
of a Steiner school -- a difficult process as I have described
here previously -- and a fairly intelligent person who has tried
to follow the discourse between better critics than myself and
a variety of Anthropops and apologists here, and reading the
quotes from Steiner and his followers _from both sides_, I think
I have a pretty good idea of what I was duped by and then shunned
when I learnt its weirdness.
I would say that anyone who swallows all your
posts to this list without question, would be as least as duped
by you as you were by the Waldorf school.
If I have not investigated Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy to
a degree which you find acceptable, Tarjei, then I apologise
for wasting your time all these months of trying to get you to
speak plainly.
Haven't I been plain and straight forward?
Haven't I answered all questions asked me as best I could?
However, I don't think I will let an Anthroposophy apologist
(or an "anarchosophist", for that matter) determine
for me or others whether I have experienced enough, or learned
enough, to make judgements about SWA.
Fine, but that entails that your judgements
will be regarded as spurious.
I may not know what I'm talking about, from your point of view.
From my point of view, if you DO know what you're talking about,
you don't make it very comprehensible in the language I grew
up with.
Perhaps you want me to learn another, special, Anthroposophical
language, like you seem to believe exists in terms of Anthroposophical
logic, as you posted recently: "In the first place, comprehension
of divine-spiritual truth requires a higher logic, an extra-rational
logic".
Every other religion, every other subject I have ever studied,
has been comprehensible in terms of the language (and that means
the thought processes, because the two are inseparable) I was
taught.
If anthroposophy is mumbo jumbo to you because
you find the language hard to comprehend, that's fine. It's your
hostility I'm getting at, and how this hostility appears to affect
your judgements. Almost everything you write about anthroposophy
is spiced with polemics.
<snip>
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Hirsch
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:51:52 -0400 (EDT)
Tarjei Straume writes:
Dan Dugan wrote:
Knocking people for being "at odds
with Darwinism"? How about Steiner?
My post with the excerpt from "The
Fifth Gospel" should provide a glimpse of Steiner's view
on Darwinism.
There is an interesting remark about Darwin in this lecture.
He says:
"Anyone who understands the doctrines of Darwin and Haeckel
and is himself convinced that only as a Christian movement was
the Darwinian movement possible (Haeckel had no notion of this,
but Darwin was aware of many things)..."
I'd like to hear the end of this sentence.
It is all hypothesis without conclusion. I would have finished
the sentence with "...is badly mistaken." How did Steiner
finish it?
This reminds me of a story I heard from an entirely different
quarter: Charles Darwin kept working on his theory of evolution
throughout his long life, and when he died, there were stacks
of unpublished manuscripts at his residence. These manuscripts
involved reincarnation and spiritual evolution very similar to
theosophy and anthroposophy. But when the arrangements were being
made for Darwin's funeral, the clergy from the Church of England,
who had been informed about what kind of ideas the old man might
publish some day, conveniently stole the unpublished manuscripts
from the estate and destroyed them. If Darwinism had been given
a spiritual direction by Darwin himself, it would have been too
much of a threat to the church, which still excercised considerable
influence over the spiritual life of the population.
This sounds very unlikely to me.
I haven't found a confirmation of this story, but whether
it is true or not, it illustrates the course of Darwin's thoughts
and the attitude of the church.
Or it illustrates the mindset of anti-Darwinists.
It only illustrates Darwin's thoughts if it is a true story,
and I doubt it is.
Ernst Haeckel was a personal friend of Rudolf Steiner. They
discussed biological evolution, but Haeckel was not capable of
grasping the idea of the spirit behind this evolution. Still,
Steiner and Haeckel were always the best of friends with mutual
respect and admiration. But precisely because Haeckel could grasp
evolution only in the the physical-material sense, Steiner says
about the Christ Impulse in Darwinism: "Haeckel had no notion
of this, but Darwin was aware of many things..."
To say "Haeckel could only grasp evolution
only in the the physical-material sense" is to say Haeckel
could grasp Evolution. If Steiner finds spirituality in evolution
it is because he doesn't grasp it.
Darwinism has in many ways stagnated in the hands of his followers,
waiting to be awakened like a sleeping wolf.
Examples, please? The last couple decades
have seen great growth and changes in our understanding of evolution.
But if Steiner was right about spiritual
evolution, about the Christ Idea in the course of history, and
the true nature of Darwinism, the students in American public
schools may begin to ask some embarrassing New Age questions
- even with no help from Waldorf, anthroposophy, or New Age religion.
They may start asking about reincarnation in biology class, perhaps
also about Christ. And the public schools will have to start
disciplining and dismissing students for inappropriate behavior,
for violating the constitutional amendment for the separation
of church and state.
But then if he was wrong we won't. What exactly
is your point?
--Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 19:37:32 +0200
Michael Hirsch wrote:
I'd like to hear the end of this sentence.
It is all hypothesis without conclusion. I would have finished
the sentence with "...is badly mistaken." How did Steiner
finish it?
It was a teaser from the excerpt in the other
post, where you find: "Anyone
who understands the doctrines of Darwin and Haeckel and is himself
convinced that only as a Christian movement was the Darwinian
movement possible (Haeckel had no notion of this, but Darwin
was aware of many things) - anyone who realises this is led by
an absolutely consistent path to the idea of reincarnation."
<snip>
To say "Haeckel could only grasp evolution
only in the the physical-material sense" is to say Haeckel
could grasp Evolution. If Steiner finds spirituality in evolution
it is because he doesn't grasp it.
So only materialists understand evolution,
and atheists have a monolopy on the science of cosmogenesis.
Darwinism has in many ways stagnated in
the hands of his followers, waiting to be awakened like a sleeping
wolf.
Examples, please?
Your inability to appreciate that because
man is body soul, and spirit, the latter permeates all of nature
and is the active force behind its coming into existence, - is
a classic example of what I was getting at.
The last couple decades have seen great
growth and changes in our understanding of evolution.
Evolutionary theory is still very much confined
by the chains of materialism.
But if Steiner was right about spiritual
evolution, about the Christ Idea in the course of history, and
the true nature of Darwinism, the students in American public
schools may begin to ask some embarrassing New Age questions
- even with no help from Waldorf, anthroposophy, or New Age religion.
They may start asking about reincarnation in biology class, perhaps
also about Christ. And the public schools will have to start
disciplining and dismissing students for inappropriate behavior,
for violating the constitutional amendment for the separation
of church and state.
But then if he was wrong we won't. What
exactly is your point?
Because you can grasp evolution and I can't,
you know there are no spiritual elements in history. I was referring
to some "mumbo jumbo" that you cannot grasp. If you
understood what I meant, you would not grasp evolution if your
premise is correct.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Hirsch
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:14:12 -0400 (EDT)
Tarjei Straume writes:
Michael Hirsch wrote:
I'd like to hear the end of this sentence.
It is all hypothesis without conclusion. I would have finished
the sentence with "...is badly mistaken." How did Steiner
finish it?
It was a teaser from the excerpt in the
other post, where you find: "Anyone
who understands the doctrines of Darwin and Haeckel and is himself
convinced that only as a Christian movement was the Darwinianmovement
possible (Haeckel had no notion of this, but Darwin was aware
of many things) - anyone who realises this is led by an absolutely
consistent path to the idea of reincarnation."
I think any scientist who tries to grapple
with reincarnation has to figure out where the new spirits come
from. There are many more humans live in the 20th century than
in all previous centuries combined, I believe. Where did the
new spirits come from?
To say "Haeckel could only grasp evolution
only in the the physical-material sense" is to say Haeckel
could grasp Evolution. If Steiner finds spirituality in evolution
it is because he doesn't grasp it.
So only materialists understand evolution,
and atheists have a monolopy on the science of cosmogenesis.
No no. I said evolution is a material theory.
I have always assumed that spiritual people could understand
it, but only if they are also able to think materially. I've
been assuming that you spiritualists are _more_ capable than
us materialists. After all, I may deny the spiritual world for
lack of evidence (or I may not--I ain't telling) but surely you
don't deny the material world! Or do you (like, say, Bishop Berkeley)?
Darwinism has in many ways stagnated in
the hands of his followers, waiting to be awakened like a sleeping
wolf.
Examples, please?
Your inability to appreciate that because
man is body soul, and spirit, the latter permeates all of nature
and is the active force behind its coming into existence, - is
a classic example of what I was getting at.
But what does that have to do with the theory
evolution stagnating?
The last couple decades have seen great
growth and changes in our understanding of evolution.
Evolutionary theory is still very much
confined by the chains of materialism.
and always has been, so I don't think you
can call that stagnation. To say it has stagnated implies, I
think, that it once was different.
But if Steiner was right about spiritual
evolution, about the Christ Idea in the course of history, and
the true nature of Darwinism, the students in American public
schools may begin to ask some embarrassing New Age questions
- even with no help from Waldorf, anthroposophy, or New Age religion.
They may start asking about reincarnation in biology class, perhaps
also about Christ. And the public schools will have start disciplining
and dismissing students for inappropriate behavior, for violating
the constitutional amendment for the separation of church and
state.
But then if he was wrong we won't. What
exactly is your point?
Because you can grasp evolution and I can't,
you know there are no spiritual elements in history. I was referring
to some "mumbo jumbo" that you cannot grasp. If you
understood what I meant, you would not grasp evolution if your
premise is correct.
Good golly, I said evolution was a material
science. I never said history was. And I certainly didn't say
that you couldn't grasp evolution.
More confused than ever,
--Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 20:47:54 -0700
The word 'evolution' implies improvement and
improvement demands a criteria. The question, then, is who or
what decides on the criteria.
If you are a materialist, then the criteria
for improvement changes with the environment, and what is beneficial
in one primordial goo is detrimental in another. You can extrapolate
from this result at your own peril.
The 'evolutionary' construct is not beholden
to the material world, and I do not see why the fitness of ideas
would not be subject to these very same (abstracted) forces dictating
biological survival. In fact, I think the psychological study
of memes is a fine example of an immaterial application of evolutionary
theory.
e
Michael Hirsch wrote:
No no. I said evolution is a material theory.
I have always assumed that spiritual people could understand
it, but only if they are also able to think materially.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Sabsay
Subject: Ezra and Evolution
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:52:52 -0700
Oh, please Ezra,
The word 'evolution' implies improvement
and improvement demands a criteria. The question, then, is who
or what decides on the criteria.
The word evolution implies change, nothing
more. The rest is rant.
If you are a materialist, then the criteria
for improvement changes with the environment, and what is beneficial
in one primordial goo is detrimental in another. You can extrapolate
from this result at your own peril.
Peril? I am not put in peril by understanding
how things work.
The 'evolutionary' construct is not beholden
to the material world,
Ezra, again the fuzziness of either your education,
or your thinking has led you to choose the word "beholden".
Nobody made this assertion. The word that fits here really is
"restricted".
and I do not see why the fitness of ideas
would not be subject to these very same (abstracted) forces dictating
biological survival.
Nobody said they weren't. But remember that
local adaptation can also become counter-productive for longterm
survival. Thus, while belief in a set of warm and fuzzy, but
patently false, concepts such as "the heart is not a pump"
does bind believers into a mutually beneficial group, they and
their children will not contribute any cardiac surgeons to the
world. In the short run, this doesn't affect the world, since
the rest of the us will continue to train surgeons.
In fact, I think the psychological study
of memes is a fine example of an immaterial application of evolutionary
theory.
So what, this does not imply that mentation
is not a material process, nor does it mean that the success
of St. Rudi's followers validates the accuracy of Rudi's ideas.
Michael Hirsch wrote:
No no. I said evolution is a material theory.
I have always assumed that spiritual people could understand
it, but only if they are also able to think materially.
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable
resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ezra Beeman
Subject: Re: Ezra (S J Gould) and Evolution
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 01:11:54 -0700
My so called rant is loosely borrowed from
'Ever Since Darwin' by S. J. Gould. I also happen to agree with
him.
e
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
Oh, please Ezra,
The word 'evolution' implies improvement
and improvement demands a criteria. The question, then, is who
or what decides on the criteria.
The word evolution implies change, nothing more. The rest is
rant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: redon
Subject: Ezra and Evolution
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 04:51:48 -0500
From: Daniel Sabsay <[email protected]>
Subject: Ezra and Evolution
Oh, please Ezra,
The word 'evolution' implies improvement
and improvement demands a criteria. The question, then, is who
or what decides on the criteria.
The word evolution implies change, nothing
more. The rest is rant.
Evolution \Ev`o*lu"tion\, n. [L. evolutio
an unrolling: cf. F. ['e]volution evolution. See Evolve.]
1. The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence,
in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a
flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.
2. A series of things unrolled or unfolded.
``The whole evolution of ages.'' --Dr. H. More.
3. (Geom.) The formation of an involute by
unwrapping a thread from a curve as an evolute. --Hutton.
4. (Arith. & Alg.) The extraction of roots;
-- the reverse of involution.
5. (Mil. & Naval) A prescribed movement
of a body of troops, or a vessel or fleet; any movement designed
to effect a new arrangement or disposition; a maneuver. Those
evolutions are best which can be executed with the greatest celerity,
compatible with regularity. --Campbell.
6. (Biol.) (a) A general name for the history
of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological
and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual
unfolding of successive phases of growth or development. (b)
That theory of generation which supposes the germ to pre["e]xist
in the parent, and its parts to be developed, but not actually
formed, by the procreative act; -- opposed to epigenesis.
7. (Metaph.) That series of changes under
natural law which involves continuous progress from the homogeneous
to the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single and simple
to the diverse and manifold in quality or function. The pocess
is by some limited to organic beings; by others it is applied
to the inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain
the existence and growth of institutions, manners, language,
civilization, and every product of human activity. The agencies
and laws of the process are variously explained by different
philosophrs.
Evolution is to me series with development.
--Gladstone.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:02:49 +1200
Tarjei Straume writes:
Michael Kopp wroteØ
But I've spent about eight years of my life working on it, Tarjei,
which is how long ago I started to look at enrolling my kids
in an alternative to the public school system they were then
in.
And Tarjei Straume replied:
If your nonsense about uniform anthroposophical
conformity is the result of eight years of research, your lack
of objectivity must have interfered with your work.
KOPP:
This "if...then" syllogism is illogical.
In the first place, you haven't provided any evidence that my
conclusion is "nonsense".
MK:
But, please, can you tell me where the
alternative sects of the Anthroposphical Society are located?
What are there names? Who are their leaders?
TS:
This would be better commented by someone
on eht list who is a current member of the Anthroposophical Society,
KOPP:
Okay, I'll readdress the question to Stephen
Tonkin, who is a current member. How about it, Stephen?
TS:
but to the best of my knowledge, the organization
in question does not have any sects. It has administrative branches,
because all it does is distribute newsletters, coordinate contacts,
and arrange theater events and things like that.
KOPP:
I think, Tarjei, that you have just proved
my point. No sects, no visible, organised schisms, equals solidarity
and uniformity of dogma and action, if not the "monolithic"
edifice SWA apologists are always accusing critics of positing.
MK:
Or is there another offshoot of Anthroposophy
that has formed a new society by another name, because it has
rejected Steiner's teaching?
TS:
If a group or an organization rejects Steiner's
teachings, it has no interest in anthroposophy.
KOPP:
This is like saying that reform Judaism, or
evangelical Christianity, just to cite two examples, have no
interest in their gods or scriptures.
And who are you to tell such rejecters (or
questioners) of Steiner's teachings that they are excommunicated?
When did you become "Anthro-pope"?
MK:
Can you tell me, please, where is the discussion
list on the internet for "Anthroposophical Science"
which rejects Goethean Science as its basis, and instead chooses
"materialistic science" to the exclusion of all other
spiritual mumbo jumbo?
TS:
What do you need that kind of nonsense
for?
KOPP:
Because people like Stephen Tonkin, who IS
a current member of the Anthroposophical Society (and a rational
scientist as well -- sometimes <G>) say things like:
KOPP:
You're obviously still too much under the influence of "materialistic"
science, and need to study much harder, and embrace much more
determinedly, the only thing which proves Anthroposophy: "spiritual"
science.
But, as you say, it's unlikely that "spiritual science"
will produce a definition of Anthroposophy as clear as those
that science provides for our understanding of the Universe.
TONKIN:
You misunderstand me
(I think) -- what I seek is a "materialistic" science
definition of religion.
KOPP:
If critics are right, and Anthroposophy is
a religion (Tonkin, unlike you, seems to be willing to approach
the idea a little less dogmatically and a little more ... rationally)
then surely the (materialistic) scientific examination of Anthroposophy
and its realm is reasonable?
(I think the [materialist] science jury is
already in on this one: if it claims to be spiritual, then it's
a religion, because it deals only in beliefs which are not in
physical evidence.)
MK:
Can you tell me where there is a Waldorf
school that has, for instance, eschewed -- nay, banned -- Goethean
phenomenology and the "four elements" in the teaching
of science? That might have been a school to which I could have
sent my children, because it would have indicated a certain rationality
which is missing in every other
Ask the teachers. I know very little about
schools.
KOPP:
No, I asked you. Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical
schools are a primary activity of SWA practice world-wide. As
an Anthroposophical apologist, you _should_ know the answer.
Your answer is typical of SWA apologists: "I dunno; go ask
Joe".
All right, Robert Flannery and Stephen Tonkin
are the two most visible SWA teachers here: how about it, guys?
Can YOU answer my question (and enlighten Tarjei, so he'll know
what he should know, and be able to answer the question next
time he's asked)?
MK:
From the look of the availble evidence
on the Internet and in my neck of the woods (which has a national
Anthroposophical Society which is associated with the Federation
of Rudolf Steiner Schools in New Zealand, which is the body which
runs the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical teachers' training
seminary, and is involved in the financing of SWA school in this
country, and their pedagogy) there is no such schism anywhere
in the world that meets the definition of the word.
TS:
The schism you are looking for would involve
a party very hostile to anthroposophy itself. You are looking
for a branch of anthroposophy that harmonizes with your anti-spiritual
views. Good luck with your search.
KOPP:
No, I'm trying to get you, or any other SWA
apologist, to tell me why critics shouldn't think you've all
proved the critical point of view: no sects, no visible, organised
schisms, equals solidarity and uniformity of dogma and action,
if not the "monolithic" edifice SWA apologists are
always accusing critics of positing.
MK:
Sure, you Anthropops _love_ internecine
warfare among yourselves, and some even become apostates. But
none of the apostates has formed an alternative sect, that I'm
aware of. You'd think that such an event would be big enough
news to be made known on a discussion list like this one, in
the 3-1/2 years I've been here. Can you point me at one, please,
Tarjei?
TS:
Schisms can exist within a movement or
an organization without forming all kinds of separate sects.
But all the internal disputes would be mumbo jumbo to you anyway,
so there is no wonder that your conclusions were so uninformed.
KOPP:
But at least I could scientifically, rationally
discuss those differrent brands of mumbo jumbo.
MK:
It's certainly the case that studying _Anthroposophy_
as a subject is very difficult for a person who is a lifetime
skeptic, and who has no desire to give up that trait just to
understand, from the point of view of an apprentice or whatever,
which is the only way Anthroposophists believe it can be studied,
what looks from the outside like mumbo jumbo.
TS:
And that is what it will always look like
to you - mumbo jumbo and nothing else.
KOPP:
Well, help me out here, Tarjei. Say something
about it that is comprehensible to the ordinary layman and either
explains the mumbo jumbo, or translates it into ordinary experience,
or is at least not paradoxical or self-contradictory, as much
of your writing about it (it not the thing itself) has been.
MK:
I was not popular at the few study group
meetings I attended at our former Steiner school (but then, I'm
not popular with a lot of people of whom I ask blunt questions,
such as the Anthroposophists and their apologists on this list).
TS:
An anthroposophical study group consists
of people who are genuinely drawn to anthroposophy and who wish
to learn from it. If someone in such a group keeps attacking
and scorning it, he or she is slowing down those who desire to
learn and grow.
MK:
No, I didn't attack or scorn anything when
I was in the discussion groups. All I did was ask questions based
on my previous 40 years of understanding of the Universe. But
part of learning is critical, skeptical challenging of the thing
one is trying to understand.
You are saying that one can only be a part
of such a "circle" if one is not there to learn by
challenge, but to "*desire* to learn and grow". To
me that is a perfect example of what I see as cult mentality:
"don't question, just accept; go out into the wilderness
and examine yourself, and you will come to the answer; you will
know you have arrived at the answer because you will then see
the light that we have seen".
Thank you, Tarjei, for the confirmation that
the critics are right about SWA's "cult-like" nature.
MK:
However, as a journalist and observer of
human affairs, I think it is possible to get some idea of the
nature of Anthroposophy as a practice of people who run schools
and try to inject their philosophy into existing public schools.
TS:
I agree in theory, but the bitter venom
that taints every word you write about Anthroposophy makes it
very difficult for the objective reader to discern that idea.
KOPP:
Bitter venom? I've admitted I'm angry about
my and my kids' experiences with a duplicitous, weird school.
And what has MY attitude got to do with YOUR
and other apologists' ability to explain the nature of SWA? You
are saying that my criticism and very pointed questioning is
"bitter venom", and it interferes with the understanding
you would otherwise be able to give to the rest of the readers
who are more "objective" than I am, who would otherwise
be able to see your points?
But you are involved in other threads of discussion
with people who could not remotely be considered to have my "bitter,
venomous" attitude, and you don't seem to be able to get
any further with them than with me. How do I cause that? Do you
really mean I upset your equanimity so much that you can't discourse
with others, even though I'm not involved in those other discussions?
That sounds like what you said about Anthroposophical
study groups: unless one is totally humble and self-abnegating,
one cannot come to the truth. I think you expect the same thing
on this list -- and when you don't get it, you can't cope.
MK:
As a parent who spent five years getting
children into and out of a Steiner school -- a difficult process
as I have described here previously -- and a fairly intelligent
person who has tried to follow the discourse between better critics
than myself and a variety of Anthropops and apologists here,
and reading the quotes from Steiner and his followers _from both
sides_, I think I have a pretty good idea of what I was duped
by and then shunned when I learnt its weirdness.
TS:
I would say that anyone who swallows all
your posts to this list without question, would be as least as
duped by you as you were by the Waldorf school.
KOPP:
Ditto, in spades, for your posts. At least
I write plainly and clearly.
MK:
If I have not invesgitated Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophy to a degree which you find acceptable, Tarjei,
then I apologise for wasting your time all these months of trying
to get you to speak plainly.
TS:
Haven't I been plain and straight forward?
Haven't I answered all questions asked me as best I could?
KOPP:
Yes, I think you've acted in good faith [no
pun intended, pun-cop Robert Flannery].
Yes, I think you've done your best to answer
questions.
I could be churlish and make an ad hominem
QED.
But I think it's likely that the problem,
dear Tarjei, is not in you, but in your stars [pun intended,
pun-cop Robert Flannery].
In other words, neither Steiner nor anyone
else since has been able to clearly explicate his philsophy in
rational terms for non-predisposed non-believers.
That certainly sounds like a cult, if not
an esoteric (hidden meaning) religion.
MK:
However, I don't think I will let an Anthroposophy
apologist (or an "anarchosophist", for that matter)
determine for me or others whether I have experienced enough,
or learned enough, to make judgements about SWA.
TS:
Fine, but that entails that your judgements
will be regarded as spurious.
KOPP:
Only by "Anthro-popes" like yourself.
Thank you for yet again reinforcing the apparent arrogance of
the believer in Anthroposophy.
MK:
I may not know what I'm talking about,
from your point of view. From my point of view, if you DO know
what you're talking about, you don't make it very comprehensible
in the language I grew up with.
Perhaps you want me to learn another, special, Anthroposophical
language, like you seem to believe exists in terms of Anthroposophical
logic, as you posted recently: "In the first place, comprehension
of divine-spiritual truth requires a higher logic, an extra-rational
logic".
Every other religion, every other subject I have ever studied,
has been comprehensible in terms of the language (and that means
the thought processes, because the two are inseparable) I was
taught.
TS:
If anthroposophy is mumbo jumbo to you
because you find the language hard to comprehend, that's fine.
It's your hostility I'm getting at, and how this hostility appears
to affect your judgements. Almost everything you write about
anthroposophy is spiced with polemics.
KOPP:
Well, thanks for the qualifier. I am usually
painted pure black. (You should see my kids' "black-and-white-polarity-year"
drawings of me!)
And "spiced" is wonderful: I didn't
know I was so tasty!
But I think that almost everything you (and
the other Anthroposophical apologists, as with Robert Flannery's
characterization of me as a "bully") write about critics
and their criticism, is tainted (not "spiced") with
polemics.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposophical
Influence?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 06:20:39 +0100
Ezra Beeman wrote:
The word 'evolution' implies improvement
Why? I agree that "Darwinian (or neo-Darwinian)
evolution" probably implies improvement, in the sense that
the evolved product is better suited to its environment, but
unqualified "evolution" need not.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposophical
Influence?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 06:25:13 +0100
Michael Kopp wrote:
MK:
But, please, can you tell me where the
alternative sects of the Anthroposphical Society are located?
What are there names? Who are their leaders?
TS:
This would be better commented by someone
on eht list who is a current member of the Anthroposophical Society,
KOPP:
Okay, I'll readdress the question to Stephen
Tonkin, who is a current member. How about it, Stephen?
I am unaware of any.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Inf...
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:46:16 EDT
In einer eMail vom 14.04.99 03:26:11 (MEZ)
- Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
Michael Hirsch:
I think any scientist who tries to grapple
with reincarnation has to figure out where the new spirits come
from. There are many more humans live in the 20th century than
in all previous centuries combined, I believe. Where did the
new spirits come from?
Logistically there are two possible answers.
1. The time between incarnations is much shorter
now than it used to be.
2. There are souls who are only now starting
to incarnate.
I believe the answer combines both these extremes
It mustn't be forgotten that the population
was greater at times in prehistory, when the great civilisations
were in full swing. I am unaware of any figures, even from Steiner.
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yael Resnick
Subject: where new souls come from
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:56:46 -0500
(Sorry, I don't know who had this exchange...)
I think any scientist who tries to grapple
with reincarnation has to figure out where the new spirits come
from. There are many more humans live in the 20th century than
in all previous centuries combined, I believe. Where did the
new spirits come from?
Logistically there are two possible answers.
1. The time between incarnations is much shorter now than it
used to be.
2. There are souls who are only now starting to incarnate.
Chassidus addresses this question, so just
to add my two multicultural cents:
According to Chassidus/Kabbalah, there are
a certain number of "root-souls," which can subdivide
and become part of several people in later cycles. People living
today share these root-souls. Also, as in #2 above, not all souls
have necessarily incarnated yet. According to Jewish tradition
(I don't know if this is a Midrash - legend - or Kabbalah, or
what), once all souls come down into bodies, Moshiach will come.
For what it's worth.
Yael
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish
Parenting
173 Speedwell Ave., Suite 127, Morristown, NJ 07960
The only magazine dedicated to a holistic
Jewish perspective on childraising and health!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Waldorf Science
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 21:07:16 -0400
MK:
Can you tell me where there is a Waldorf
school that has, for instance, eschewed -- nay, banned -- Goethean
phenomenology and the "four elements" in the teaching
of science? That might have been a school to which I could have
sent my children, because it would have indicated a certain rationality
which is missing in every other
<snip>
All right, Robert Flannery and Stephen
Tonkin are the two most visible SWA teachers here: how about
it, guys? Can YOU answer my question (and enlighten Tarjei, so
he'll know what he should know, and be able to answer the question
next time he's asked)?
I don't really feel qualified to answer this
question, because I don't have enough experience with a nationwide
sample to write with real authority. What follows is incomplete.
I hope additional responses flesh it out. If David Mitchell is
still on the list, he could say a lot more about conditions in
the U.S.
Most waldorf schools in this country are young
(less than twenty years old). As such, they've probably been
working with the upper grades of the elementary school for ten
years or less, and don't even have a high school curriculum.
They could be characterized as having an "immature"
program in the sciences.
There is just no way that I could characterize
such a situation as some kind of monolith. In some waldorf schools,
the science blocks might look like a phenomenological program
where observation and deduction are emphasized. Or, it might
look like the public school program down the road. It might be
some kind of a hybrid. It might even include the teaching of
pseudoscience.
Goethean, or phenomenological, science is
something most waldorf class teachers don't understand. It wasn't
part of their teacher training, if they have teacher training
at all. Guidelines are only just beginning to emerge for a coherent
and unified program of phenomenological science.
I attended a week-long seminar last summer
on the topic of teaching phenomenological science in the lower
school. A manual will be published any day now which represents
the syllabus of that conference. This book, or something very
much like this book, will probably serve as the model for science
work in the lower school for many decades to come. I'll provide
details once it is actually available.
So, there is no "establishment"
science bloc within waldorf circles to rail against, as yet.
Phenomenological studies are certainly ascendant, but they do
not represent the majority position at this time. In other words,
I don't think it's been in general use long enough to be repudiated.
As far as the "four elements" business
is concerned, that's a red herring, to my view. You can call
it miseducation, if you like. Introducing the concept of the
four elements is not meant to supplant the periodic table. It
could serve as a simplified historical introduction to classification
in chemistry, and lead to more formal and "scientific"
systems of organization.
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf Science
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 06:16:04 +0100
Robert Flannery wrote:
As far as the "four elements"
business is concerned,
Equivalent to the four states of matter: Solid,
liquid, gas, plasma. (The latter in teh physicists, not haematologists,
sense.)
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Waldorf Science
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 04:58:22 EDT
In einer eMail vom 15.04.99 04:30:34 (MEZ)
- Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
Robert Flannery:
Robert Flannery writes:
Goethean, or phenomenological, science is something most waldorf
class teachers don't understand. It wasn't part of their teacher
training, if they have teacher training at all. Guidelines are
only just beginning to emerge for a coherent and unified program
of phenomenological science.
I beg to differ Robert, but maybe things in
Germany are different. There are one or two authors besides Roy
Wilkinson who describe beautifully what Waldorf Science:
M v Mackenson
G Ott
Baravalle
Julius
Thor Keller
to name but a few.
I am not saying that I agree with everything
that they write, but as with Roy Wilkinson they give food for
thought. BTW they are better than Roy IMHO!
There are Lehrplankommissionen (curriculum
commissions?) examining the syllabus indications and providing
thoughts for 1999 main-lessons. The classic is naturally the
Steam-engine and Telephone in Class 9 Physics!!
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 17:23:05 +0200
Michael Hirsch wrote:
I think any scientist who tries to grapple with reincarnation
has to figure out where the new spirits come from. There are
many more humans live in the 20th century than in all previous
centuries combined, I believe. Where did the new spirits come
from?
I have been pondering that riddle for many
years, and it has also been discussed and explored on several
anthroposophical lists. It is a question not only for anthroposophists,
but also for hindus, Buddhists, theosophists, and New Age. The
number of people who are convinced of the truthfulness of reincarnation
is on the increase in the West, so the question will undoubtedly
be explored a lot further in the years to come.
Many anthropophists have a ready answer to
your question. I don't.
To say "Haeckel could only grasp evolution
only in the the physical-material sense" is to say Haeckel
could grasp Evolution. If Steiner finds spirituality in evolution
it is because he doesn't grasp it.
So only materialists understand evolution,
and atheists have a monolopy on the science of cosmogenesis.
No no. I said evolution is a material theory.
If that is your only definition of evolution,
we are in disagreement just like on the definition of science.
Evolution involves all of existence and all of nature. If it
were confined to matter, there would be no spiritual growth or
metamorphosis.
I have always assumed that spiritual people
could understand it, but only if they are also able to think
materially. I've been assuming that you spiritualists are _more_
capable than us materialists.
I'm sure there are spiritual people who don't
understand the material aspect of existence and natural science.
Spiritualists subscribe to a dualistic, not monistic, world view,
and they are practitioners of mediumship and the like, Anthroposophists
are not, and have never been, spiritualists, but some theosophists
have incorporated elements of spiritualism, which originated
in the 1840's.
After all, I may deny the spiritual world
for lack of evidence (or I may not--I ain't telling) but surely
you don't deny the material world! Or do you (like, say, Bishop
Berkeley)?
I am not familiar with Bishop Berkely. Anthroposophists
have never denied the material world. Denial of the material
world can be found in traditional Hinduism, where it is maya,
illusion. From an anthroposophical perspective, there is a half-truth
in this. The world of the senses is illusory, but we need these
illusions. We need to treat them as real in the full consciousness
of their deceptive character. Hence the expression "clairvoyance,"
which means seeing clearly the real world behind the material.
Darwinism has in many ways stagnated in
the hands of his followers, waiting to be awakened like a sleeping
wolf.
Examples, please?
Your inability to appreciate that because
man is body soul, and spirit, the latter permeates all of nature
and is the active force behind its coming into existence, - is
a classic example of what I was getting at.
But what does that have to do with the
theory evolution stagnating?
I have the impression that the theory of evolution
in its stagnated, materialistic form concurs with your views.
The last couple decades have seen great
growth and changes in our understanding of evolution.
Evolutionary theory is still very much
confined by the chains of materialism.
and always has been, so I don't think you
can call that stagnation. To say it has stagnated implies, I
think, that it once was different.
Semantics, semantics. When I have to check
the dictionary for a word I have already used in a post, it is
always due to nit-picking like this. My old 1976 Webster says:
stagnant: not flowing in
a current of stream, motionless
What I mean by stagnation here is like getting
stuck in a rut or a ditch with a vehicle, the wheels spinning
without moving it any further. It's the ditch of materialism.
I'm checking my Collins Thesaurus for synonyms
to "stagnate":
decay, decline, deteriorate, fester, go to seed, idle, languish,
lie fallow, rot, rust, stand still, vegetate.
The limitations imposed by materialist-fundamentalist
Darwinism has also been discussed lately. The concept of natural
selection and survival of the fittest, for instance, may have
been inspired in part by the competitive capitalist society Darwin
knew, and the ill treatment of natives on the Western hemisphere
by the Europeans that he witnessed. But Charles Darwin was a
genius and probably the most influential scientist of all. He
was a progressive, self-critical thinker, and "Origin of
the Species" is a very well written book.
Good golly,
Miss Molly
I said evolution was a material science.
I never said history was.
History is the outcome of evolution and the
expression of evolutionary forces. A materialistic approach to
evolution entalis an equally materialistic approach to history.
And I certainly didn't say that you couldn't
grasp evolution.
Michael, you wrote:
"To say "Haeckel
could only grasp evolution only in the the physical-material
sense" is to say Haeckel could grasp Evolution. If Steiner
finds spirituality in evolution it is because he doesn't grasp
it."
Because I also find spirituality in evolution,
I don't grasp evolution according to you.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influen...
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:28:44 EDT
Michael Kopp asks (of Tarjei, then Stephen)
But, please, can you tell me where the
alternative sects of the Anthroposphical Society are located?
What are there names? Who are their leaders?
I have also no idea what you are referring
to
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:56:59 +0200
I wrote:
If your nonsense about uniform anthroposophical
conformity is the result of eight years of research, your lack
of objectivity must have interfered with your work.
Michael Kopp wrote:
This "if...then" syllogism is
illogical. In the first place, you haven't provided any evidence
that my conclusion is "nonsense".
If it was not nonsense, all anthroposophists
would think alike and hold the same opinions about Steiner and
and anthroposophy and WE. They dont. The only thing they have
in common is the recogniton of Steiner as a bona fide clairvoyant
spiritual researcher, of anthroposophically oriented spiritual
science as a legitimate science.
<snip>
And who are you to tell such rejecters
(or questioners) of Steiner's teachings that they are excommunicated?
When did you become "Anthro-pope"?
I have not proposed "excommunication"
of anyone from anything. My point was that if someone starts
an organization that by definition is not anthroposophical, they
would probably call it something other than anthroposophy. Again,
it boils down to semantics and definitions. You have your own
definitions of anthroposophy and excommunication and sects and
so on. That's fine with me, but when I explain something, I use
my own frames of reference.
<snip>
Can you tell me where there is a Waldorf
school that has, for instance, eschewed -- nay, banned -- Goethean
phenomenology and the "four elements" in the teaching
of science? That might have been a school to which I could have
sent my children, because it would have indicated a certain rationality
which is missing in every other
Ask the teachers. I know very little about
schools.
KOPP:
No, I asked you.
But I cannot tell you where there is a school
that fits your above description. (That answers your question,
doesn't it?)
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools
are a primary activity of SWA practice world-wide. As an Anthroposophical
apologist, you _should_ know the answer. Your answer is typical
of SWA apologists: "I dunno; go ask Joe".
If I asked you a question about a subject
where your knowledge was limited, wouldn't you suggest that I
asked someone more knowledgeable? Is this a "typical SWA
apologist" response? Bullshit.
No, I'm trying to get you, or any other
SWA apologist, to tell me why critics shouldn't think you've
all proved the critical point of view: no sects, no visible,
organised schisms, equals solidarity and uniformity of dogma
and action, if not the "monolithic" edifice SWA apologists
are always accusing critics of positing.
I have no intention of telling critics what
to think, or to try to persuade them to think differently. But
you have not answered another question of mine, Michael: You
said I should look over my shoulder to guard myself against some
threat from the Goethanum in Dornach, which is somehow more dangerous
than the Penagon. I asked you how the Goethanum could be dangerous
to me, and I would also like to know in what manner. You are
not responding to this.
MK:
Sure, you Anthropops _love_ internecine
warfare among yourselves, and some even become apostates. But
none of the apostates has formed an alternative sect, that I'm
aware of. You'd think that such an event would be big enough
news to be made known on a discussion list like this one, in
the 3-1/2 years I've been here. Can you point me at one, please,
Tarjei?
TS:
Schisms can exist within a movement or
an organization without forming all kinds of separate sects.
But all the internal disputes would be mumbo jumbo to you anyway,
so there is no wonder that your conclusions were so uninformed.
KOPP:
But at least I could scientifically, rationally
discuss those differrent brands of mumbo jumbo.
What you mean by "scientific" and
"rational" is tantamount to a materialistic, atheistic
frame of reference. Unless you are able and/or willing to discuss
spiritual-scientific issues on their own terms, your cannot contribute
to a discussion of them, except among those who share your world
view and your lack of comprehension.
<snip>
Well, help me out here, Tarjei. Say something
about it that is comprehensible to the ordinary layman and either
explains the mumbo jumbo, or translates it into ordinary experience,
or is at least not paradoxical or self-contradictory, as much
of your writing about it (it not the thing itself) has been.
We've been through this before, Michael. Anthroposophical
literature IS comprehensible to the ordinary layman, provided
that he or she is prepared to make the necessary effort in reading
comprehension. But if this layman insists upon a frame of reference
void of spirit and refuses to understand an approach to science
that includes spirit, it will always remain incomprehensible
mumbo jumbo to him or her.
MK:
I was not popular at the few study group
meetings I attended at our former Steiner school (but then, I'm
not popular with a lot of people of whom I ask blunt questions,
such as the Anthroposophists and their apologists on this list).
TS:
An anthroposophical study group consists
of people who are genuinely drawn to anthroposophy and who wish
to learn from it. If someone in such a group keeps attacking
and scorning it, he or she is slowing down those who desire to
learn and grow.
MK:
No, I didn't attack or scorn anything when
I was in the discussion groups. All I did was ask questions based
on my previous 40 years of understanding of the Universe. But
part of learning is critical, skeptical challenging of the thing
one is trying to understand.
You are saying that one can only be a part of such a "circle"
if one is not there to learn by challenge, but to "*desire*
to learn and grow".
That is not what I am saying. The condition
for participating in any study group is determined by the group
itself. The anthropopsophical study group I once participated
in consisted of anthroposophists.
To me that is a perfect example of what
I see as cult mentality: "don't question, just accept;
That was not true of the group I was a part
of. There was a lot of questioning going on. This does not mean
that questioning must include your kind of questions to be called
questioning.
go out into the wilderness and examine
yourself, and you will come to the answer; you will know you
have arrived at the answer because you will then see the light
that we have seen".
Nonsense. You are describing something from
a circle I have never met. It's New Age all right, but it's not
anthroposophy.
<snip>
I agree in theory, but the bitter venom
that taints every word you write about Anthroposophy makes it
very difficult for the objective reader to discern that idea.
KOPP:
Bitter venom? I've admitted I'm angry about
my and my kids' experiences with a duplicitous, weird school.
My point exactly. It's an anger you're taking
out on all of anthroposophy world wide and on everyone associated
with it. Unless you can detach yourself from such feelings, or
suspend them for a while, your descriptions and your judgements
are never objective.
And what has MY attitude got to do with
YOUR and other apologists' ability to explain the nature of SWA?
You are saying that my criticism and very pointed questioning
is "bitter venom", and it interferes with the understanding
you would otherwise be able to give to the rest of the readers
who are more "objective" than I am, who would otherwise
be able to see your points?
I did not say that your feelings interfere
with the understanding I would otherwise be able to give to the
rest of the readers for the simple reason that I cannot give
understanding to anyone. If I could, people from all over the
world would line up to see me. But I appreciate that you regard
me as a guru and a saint in my own right. Come to Uncle Taz and
let him grant you the gift of understanding. I kinda like that.
Those who are able to see any given point
are those capable of silencing their inner selves and their critical
attitudes while reading or listening. In order to exercise critical
thinking, we must first be able to listen uncritically, then
analyze the information received, and then exercising judgement.
There is a tendency on a list like this to pre-judge posts from
people we are in disagreement with, or to form our critical opinions
while the content is being absorbed.
But you are involved in other threads of
discussion with people who could not remotely be considered to
have my "bitter, venomous" attitude, and you don't
seem to be able to get any further with them than with me. How
do I cause that? Do you really mean I upset your equanimity so
much that you can't discourse with others, even though I'm not
involved in those other discussions?
I have not said that you have caused irreconcilable
differences of opinion that occur in other threads between myself
and other people
That sounds like what you said about Anthroposophical
study groups: unless one is totally humble and self-abnegating,
one cannot come to the truth. I think you expect the same thing
on this list -- and when you don't get it, you can't cope.
I have not said that one has to be totally
humble and self-negating to come to the truth or to participate
in anthroposophical study groups. That is Michael Kopp speaking.
<snip>
But I think that almost everything you
(and the other Anthroposophical apologists, as with Robert Flannery's
characterization of me as a "bully") write about critics
and their criticism, is tainted (not "spiced") with
polemics.
I also used the word "tainted" earlier.
The spice does not necessarily penetrate the substance or change
it -- it merely suppresses the original flavor, or some of it.
Which reminds me of a story about Albert Einstein.
He once invited a lot of people to dinner. They were all candidates
to be his co-workers and assistents in scientific research. He
picked the men who tasted their food before salting it. Those
who salted their food before tasting it, had pre-judged it.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yael Resnick
Subject: critical thinking
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:56:55 -0500
Tarjei posted:
Those who are able to see any given point
are those capable of silencing their inner selves and their critical
attitudes while reading or listening. In order to exercise critical
thinking, we must first be able to listen uncritically, then
analyze the information received, and then exercising judgement.
There is a tendency on a list like this to pre-judge posts from
people we are in disagreement with, or to form our critical opinions
while the content is being absorbed.
Interesting, and I agree. We've all had the
experience of talking to someone whose mind is entirely on formulating
his responses and not on what is being said to him. It is very
unsatisfying talking to such a person; there's no listening happening.
In Chassidus it is taught that in order to
receive (knowledge, blessings, wisdom, etc.) one must make oneself
a vessel -- that is, make oneself *into* a vessel. The analogy
is made to two buckets put out in the rain, one empty and one
already full. Rain is a symbol of blessings from above. The empty
bucket will fill with rain; the full one may gain only a few
new drops. (Being "empty" doesn't mean completely nullifying
oneself, however, since one's "self" is the vessel
-- the bucket, not the water. But it does mean putting oneself
aside in a humble way in order to be able to receive input --
for later analysis, of course.)
This seems quite similar to what Tarjei was
saying.
Yael
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish
Parenting
173 Speedwell Ave., Suite 127, Morristown, NJ 07960
The only magazine dedicated to a holistic
Jewish perspective on
childraising and health!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Luke Schelly"
Subject: RE:Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 13:41:46 -0400
Stephen Tonkin posted
... Perhaps the solution to this conundrum
lies in the fact that being an anthroposophist does not require
a belief in anything (although I grant that I cannot imagine
an anthropop who does not believe in the existence of a spiritual
reality -- but it is not *required* -- this, IMHO, is one of
the distinctions between anthroposophy and religion).
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
Stephen or anybody
It is my understanding that the only people
who are "anthroposohists" are those people who are
members of the Anthroposophical Society. Every one else is some
version of "interested in the topic of anthroposophy"
(whatever that can be). I think the only thing that a person
must do to be a member of the society is accept that there is
a place in Dornach, Swizterland called the Goetheanum where people
are engaged in the study of spiritual science. Is this correct
(or something like this)?
The reason I ask for this clarification is
that I read alot of "anthroposophists this and that..."
But beyond this one or few clear shared touchstones "anthroposophists"
as a group are nothing else. Everything from that distinction
on is a variety of individualism.
Sorry if this post shows up long after this
discussion. I am trying to catch up with this wordy bunch.
Luke
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei
Straume
Subject: RE:Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:02:29 +0200
Luke wrote:
It is my understanding that the only people
who are "anthroposohists" are those people who are
members of the Anthroposophical Society. Every one else is some
version of "interested in the topic of anthroposophy"
(whatever that can be). I think the only thing that a person
must do to be a member of the society is accept that there is
a place in Dornach, Swizterland called the Goetheanum where people
are engaged in the study of spiritual science. Is this correct
(or something like this)?
An anthroposophist is any person who accepts
that Rudolf Steiner was a bona fide clairvoyant researcher, and
that anthroposophically oriented spiritual science is a legitimate
field of research.
The reason I ask for this clarification is that I read alot of
"anthroposophists this and that..." But beyond this
one or few clear shared touchstones "anthroposophists"
as a group are nothing else. Everything from that distinction
on is a variety of individualism.
The Anthroposophical Movement, which consists
of all anthroposophists and their influence on world culture,
is indeed comprised of a variety of individualism.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
[This
braindead discussion continues]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthropo
sophical Inf...
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 15:09:29 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce
I think any scientist who tries to grapple
with reincarnation has to figure out where the new spirits come
from. There are many more humans live in the 20th century than
in all previous centuries combined, I believe. Where did the
new spirits come from?
Logistically there are two possible answers.
1. The time between incarnations is much
shorter now than it used to be.
2. There are souls who are only now starting to incarnate.
Your logic is interesting.
It's sort of like a library with inventory
stored in the back room. We never see the books in storage until
the librarian puts them on the shelves. As a book deteriorates
over time and "dies," it's sent back to the back room
where it's rehabilitated before it's brought back on the shelves
again.
We don't know how many books are in the back
room, because we're not allowed in there to peek.
I'll give you another possibility for speculation,
which I just thought of.... I tend to be on Carl Sagan's side
in believing that there is a high likelihood that there is other
intelligent life in the universe. There may be souls who have
previously incarnated elsewhere in the universe, and for whatever
reason they cannot reincarnate on their original home planet
(nuclear war, environmental desolation) or perhaps they have
a choice in the matter. So the number of souls who can potentially
reincarnate here is in a state of flux.
So much for speculation. Though I admit the
possibility of reincarnation, it's not something I believe in.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthropo
sophical Inf...
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 22:11:22 +0100
Tolz, Robert wrote:
I'll give you another possibility for speculation,
which I just thought of.... I tend to be on Carl Sagan's side
in believing that there is a high likelihood that there is other
intelligent life in the universe.
Other? <g>
There may be souls who have previously
incarnated elsewhere in the universe, and for whatever reason
they cannot reincarnate on their original home planet (nuclear
war, environmental desolation) or perhaps they have a choice
in the matter. So the number of souls who can potentially reincarnate
here is in a state of flux.
So much for speculation. Though I admit the possibility of reincarnation,
it's not something I believe in.
My own opinion, FWIW, is that it is a dead-end
trying to apply natural- world logic and laws to spiritual matters.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influen...
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:17:15 EDT
In einer eMail vom 14.04.99 19:49:31 (MEZ)
- Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
Luke Schelly:
It is my understanding that the only people
who are "anthroposohists" are those people who are
members of the Anthroposophical Society. Every one else is some
version of "interested in the topic of anthroposophy"
(whatever that can be). I think the only thing that a person
must do to be a member of the society is accept that there is
a place in Dornach, Swizterland called the Goetheanum where people
are engaged in the study of spiritual science. Is this correct
(or something like this)?
Something like that, yes! But I reckon there
are lots of other organisations where "members" are
not necessarily card-carrying. I honestly do not know whether
Religions qualify, but sports certainly do: I am a tennis-player,
but I do not have a card to say so. I am a scientist - maybe
if all scientists had to carry a membership card then we would
be able to decide whether Steiner really was a card carrying
scientist or not. I am a teacher..... when I go abroad with a
class I carry a card to prove it!
Bruce
[This
braindead discussion continues]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthropo
sophical Inf...
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 02:34:22 -0700
"[T]he idea that the
population of the earth increases is just superstition on the
part of modern science, which always makes its calculations from
data to suit itself."
[Steiner, Rudolf. The Evolution of the
Earth and Man and the Influence of
the Stars: 14 Lectures to the Workmen. (1924) Trans. Gladys Hahn.
Hudson,
NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1987. p 68]
-Dan Dugan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Inf...
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:01:04 EDT
In einer eMail vom 15.04.99 19:35:33 (MEZ)
- Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
Dan Dugan:
"[T]he idea that
the population of the earth increases is just superstition on
the part of modern science, which always makes its calculations
from data to suit itself."
Thanks Dan - you are a wealth of information!
I had been trying to track that down for ages! Do you have an
extremely good data-base?
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Inf...
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 00:14:01 +1200
In einer eMail vom 15.04.99 19:35:33 (MEZ)
- Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt Dan Dugan:
"[T]he idea that
the population of the earth increases is just superstition on
the part of modern science, which always makes its calculations
from data to suit itself."
Thanks Dan - you are a wealth of information!
I had been trying to track that down for ages! Do you have an
extremely good data-base?
Bruce
He IS the data base. He's read just about
every word Steiner ever wrote or spoke.
MK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposop
hical Inf...
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 09:42:45 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp
Thanks Dan - you are a wealth of information!
I had been trying to track that down for ages! Do you have an
extremely good data-base?
Bruce
[KOPP]
He IS the data base. He's read just about
every word Steiner ever wrote or spoke.
So I guess that either (1) your assertion
is incorrect that anybody who studies Steiner invariably is drawn
into anthroposophy or (2) Dan got a vaccination in advance. :-)
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Inf...
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 17:02:59 -0400
Thanks Dan - you are a wealth of information!
I had been trying to track that down for ages! Do you have an
extremely good data-base?
Bruce
He IS the data base. He's read just about
every word Steiner ever wrote or spoke.
Not even close--last August, Dan showed me
his shelf of Steiner that represented his coverage: he's only
read about 5-10% of the available material in English (which
is still more than nearly everyone else on this list, including
me).
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"