17987Re: Anthroposophical Adult Education
- Dec 4, 2008S: "In fact, it wasn't that long ago that you yourself branded me
Mephistopheles in the flesh"
I looked it over, and noticed that I FIRST wrote 'a servant of Satan",
and then made a connection between your 'stated words' and
Mephistopheles manner of speaking.
I most certainly did not APPOINT you as the embodiment of Satan.
You see Steve, I find it very difficult to take you on - your very
nature seems to create, with the greatest of ease, an effect of
'spiritual abuse' not only on me, but on others as well.
I've been trying to pin point exactly how your approach manages this
effect, but I find that your innate trickery just expands itself,
the more I close in on YOU.
That I was so expressive in that post which you brought up from the
past, illustrates the amplitude of my resistence to your soul's nature,
my own rising up against what effect which your soul has, not only on
me, but on others happenning on this list, as well.
That's all for now. C.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Stephen Hale" <sardisian01@...>
> --- In email@example.com, "carol" organicethics@
> > S: « You're lashing out again, Carol. »
> > No I'm not, I'm trying to clear up a Luciferic mistake which I saw,
> > directly before me, on this Anthroposophy discussion site.
> > S: « Using 'wiki' to the fullest measure of your unbridled
> > and judgment-making skill. »which
> > Look, it's one of the things which came up when I searched the
> topic in
> > question and it furnished at least one important indication
> > I used - the other info are from non-wiki sites.soul-spiritual
> > « Just how does that look and feel to the collective
> > fabric that strives to work so well in human relationships? »soul-spiritual
> > Sorry, I find your logic a little off on this question- so I'll cut
> > up in sections, if you don't mind ?
> > «Just how does that look and feel to the collective
> > fabric ?»the
> > It looks like a brotherly (Michealmic) effort to scoop someone out
> > certain dangers which an overly Luciferic soul disposition exposes
> > to and the dangers being : serving Ahrimanic forces, both on
> > persoal and collective levels.so
> > S: «...the collective soul-spiritual fabric that strives to work
> > well in human relationships»you
> > Steve, INDIVIDUAL souls strive to work well in human relationships,
> > the collective soul/spiritual fabric comprises the
> connective 'fibres'
> > linking all souls together.
> > Everyone finds themselves acting, one way or another, within the
> > collective soul/spiritual fabric - it's just that it's location is
> on a
> > much more rarefied spiritual plane than our collective outward one -
> > because of it's rarefied spiritual caracteristic, is also has the
> > quality of drawing into it the activities and intentions of Beings
> > the Higher Hierarchies as well.
> > S: «Do you ever attempt to apply healing etheric forces, or are
> > just overly sensitive and reactive?»where
> > I don't really feel that it's my «place» to decide when and
> > I should «apply» healing etheric forces. I let my more remote
> > spiritual self take full charge of this matter.
> > I stick to the domain of thought images/forces and hope that
> > through them, I'm able to transmit somewhat of the Christic LIGHT
> > principal.
> > S: « ...or are you just overly sensitive and reactive? For
> > generally solve nothing. »
> > I understand that you feel 'injustice' has been dished to you
> through my
> > post. However, I also feel that it is you who is reactive and overly
> > sensitive (not objective in the spiritual science sense) in order to
> > safeguard the reasoning behind your choice to develop your
> > destiny through this organisation.
> > I don't find the MRA organisation is condusive to the aspirations of
> > Anthroposophy - I find that it's underlying logic and
> > for existence weighs in, too strongly, on materialistic
> perception and
> > aspirations.
> > Sorry, Carol.
> Carol, MRA was from the beginning, very conducive to anthroposophical
> initiatives, then it became IOC around 2000. This has led to the
> very same disappointments that we see here with the CFS vs. the GAS
> in the further progression of time and the undermining of original
> goals and aims for a future wherein the principles of the philosophy
> of freedom hold good for all.
> I truly do think you label me very erroneously as being materialistic
> in nature and being, and motive and outcome. We have been
> discoursing for over two years now on this list, and you give very
> little leeway outside of your own, apparently very cloistered,
> In my opinion, you waffle very easily between luciferic and ahrimanic
> influences, and their possession of one's soul. Please note: this is
> a very elementary and rather sophomoric tendency seen in american
> anthropops especially. In fact, it wasn't that long ago that you
> yourself branded me Mephistopheles in the flesh, which means that
> Ahriman's third millennium incarnation has taken place in yours truly.
> Remembers this one, Carol?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>