--- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, "ericwijnants" <ericwijnants@...> wrote:
>
> Frank,
>
> Take for example the books of Rodney Stark here:
>
> http://www.rodneystark.com
>
> A non-believer writing about Christianity.
>
> And you think (evidenced by what he wrote in his books) he doesn't know more
about Christianity then the average 'believing Christian'?

Yes, of course he knows more about the history of Christianity, the characters
involved, etc. Albert Schweitzer wrote a book called "The Quest for the
Historical Jesus". The last paragraph of which reads as follows:
"He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He
came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: "Follow thou
me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands.
And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal
Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass
through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in
their own experience Who He is."

This at the end of a 400 page book in which Schweitzer analyzes what was known
about the history of Jesus at the time - and he comes to the above conclusion.
Stark may have done a better or more complete job in his historical research,
but he doesn't come to the same conclusion (I assume not, haven't read him)
because he hasn't had the same experiences, hasn't gotten under Christianity's
skin. I was trying to say something similar about anthroposophy. A materialist
can have read every word Steiner and others wrote or said, but his conclusions
about the essence (a word destined to annoy here) of anthroposophy will
inevitably be distorted by his prejudices and lack of the necessary
*experience*.
Frank