Re: Gulags for Anthros?
Thanks, but no thanks for the bashing;
For your information dear miss, Anthroposophy exists as a spiritual impulse. It reflects the sublte spiritual element of which we are all subject, and which is now being presented to living souls to be understood out in the open.
Anthros are individuals who whole heartedly wish to develop (refine) their soul capacities in order to 'consciously' understand and live their destinies as direct subjects of this emerging spiritual impulse. They wish to live as deeply as possible, with as much consciousness as possible, as subjects to it's penetrating Truth. They wish to harmonize the most contemporary form of human freedom within themselves. All this, in the first place.
Is this a problem?
Would you prefer that we all conform to unrestraiined sexual and base animal intincts in the first place? And afterwards, FOLLOW THE LEADER?
And only then, turn to Anthroposophy?
It simply doesn't work like that.
And whether you like it or not, various souls with developed backgrounds from previous incarnations, are also instrumental in the advancement of this new spiritual impulse without having this fact enter their consciousness.
Oh, but oh, how these wounds feel like those of the beloved Christ...
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, khanabados <blue_star_in@...> wrote:
> Quoting Robert Mason robertsmason_99@...:
> The influence of world consciousness.
> > To Val, who wrote:
> > >>I'm afraid I am further confused by the terms
> > light and semi-occultism which are entirely new
> > to me,<<
> > [Robert had written: ". . . . light occultisms
> > or semi-occultisms such as Anthroposophy . .
> > .."]
> > Robert writes now:
> > Perhaps my choice of words was awkward. I
> > meant "light occultism" as opposed to "dark
> > occultisms" such as that of the anti-
> > evolutionary supra-political power occultists.
> > I may have been nodding a little, forgetting
> > the basic Anthro understanding of the Golden
> > Mean:
> It must be very comforting for many to belong to the cosy comfy "anthro" group. Like one size fits all. all anthros are like..?
> Now thats a delusion if I ever heard one.
> And where do we get the idea that the golden mean is an anthro understanding as if it idoes not exist outside anthroposophy - not belonging to any group or sect myself of course so I am not implying another group or sect.
> the Christic balance between the "dark"
> > Ahrimanic and the "light" Luciferic.
> > I was suggesting the qualifier *semi* for
> > reasons such as I stated in the little semantic
> > discussion that followed: One might say that,
> > strictly, Anthroposophy is not an "occultism"
> > since the given "doctrine" is not physically
> > hidden; still one might say that it is
> > "occultic" since it reveals much that was
> > formerly hidden physically and since it flows
> > from and leads to the worlds beyond the Veil.
> > Maybe I would have done better to have written:
> > "the Christian occultism or semi-occultism of
> > Anthroposophy"?
> > Robert writes now:
> > I'm a little surprised that you seem to be
> > plugged into the Waldorf movement and still
> > don't have a "clue" about this. -- The
> > "enemies of Anthroposophy" are first of all the
> > spiritual Adversaries. On earth their minions
> > have been working against Anthroposophy almost
> > since Steiner first opened his mouth. As Marie
> > Steiner said of RS:
> > "How could he escape being hated with all the
> > demonic power of which Hell is capable? . . .
> Well again why do you think it is only anthroposophists that experience this? Terribly odd type of thinking I do assure you.
> Is it egocentric?
> > ". . . .
> > They hissed with hate and blocked his forward way.
> > His work they shattered even as he wrought it.
> > They raged with venom and with flame . . . .
> > "He did what once Prometheus expiated
> > What gave to Socrates the poisoned cup-
> > The pardoning of Barabbas was less vile-
> > A deed whose expiation is the cross.
> > We demons cannot suffer such a thing.
> > We harry, hunt, pursue who dares such deeds
> > With all those souls who give themselves to us,
> > With all those forces which obey our will.
> > For ours are the turning-points of time
> > And ours this humanity which lies,
> > Without their God, in weakness, vice, and error.
> > We never yield the booty we have won
> > But tear to pieces him who dares to touch it. .
> > .. ."
> > Robert continues:
> > In the present, as it seems to me, these
> > enemies work in two ways: through infiltration
> > and subversion from within, and by attacks from
> > without through slander, distortion, lawsuits --
> > which, as the little blurb in my original
> > post shows, seem to be building toward legal
> > repression. The WC seems, as far as I see, to
> > be part, but not the whole, of the "outer"
> > complex of (earthly, human) enemies.
> Do you think "anthroposophists " like yourself are beyond
> Because I think that appears to be the concensus of the attitude of anthroposophist (online at any rate) towards any one who hasn't got the word tattoed on their forehead and witha I swear by Rudolf Steiner is infallible as a signature byline.
> And again, that blurb in my original post
> > was one example of such activity. I also have
> > the impression that "outer" attacks against
> > Anthroposophy in the Netherlands brought forth
> > a few years ago that infamous Anthro report on
> > Steiner's allegedly "discriminatory" statements. o
> And again something so very peculiar , anthros appear to believe that they are the only ones that are attacked. Do a search on the internet under anything any person any organisation you are likely to find they are somewhere being attacked and discredited.
> And yes it can cause some discussion but perhaps not in the ration that it does to "anthros" or some anthros, not all anthros are eaual would be my first rule of law although it may be terribly comfortable to be inclusive into the theory.
> > For another example, you can see here:
> > "A study shows that Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925),
> > the founder of anthroposophy, was an active
> > opponent of anti-Semitism (1). The study
> > contradicts allegations, made especially since
> > a broadcast in Germany (Report Mainz) in
> > February (2000), about Waldorf schools and
> > their founder. The allegations about Steiner
> > are based on a lack of overview and an
> > understanding of his views."
> Wow How many people do you actually expect to understand you and how many people do you expect to understand Steiner.
> Again this allacy of everybody is equal and at the same place and we must all be doing the same thing and behaving in the same way with the same thoughts uniform.
> > I did a little more Googling around, and it
> > wasn't hard to find examples of attacks against
> > Anthroposophy and some responses to them.
> > E.g.:
> No its hardly surprising either!
> > http://www.skepticreport.com/newage/steiner.htm
> > *SkepticReport* "The Racial Teachings of Rudolf Steiner"
> > http://skepdic.com/steiner.html
> > http://www.defendingsteiner.com/sitemap.php
> > http://uncletaz.com/steinerrace.html
> > http://www.thebee.se/comments/plans1.html#PLANS
> > http://www.openwaldorf.com/criticism.html
> > http://www.waldorfanswers.org/OnSalonArticle.html
> > "On a libelous article in Salon on Waldorf education"
> > -- And I don't think all of the attacks were
> > coming from Europe. I don't know about
> > *SkepticReport*, but I think *Salon* is
> > American. -- The enemies of Anthroposophy are
> > busy.
> > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos
> > new Car Finder tool.
> > http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/
> Free pop3 email with a spam filter.
- --- In email@example.com, Robert Mason
> I don't object to the mere fact that my view isI'm sorry you feel that way.-Val
> being challenged; I was inviting a discussion.
> But so far you haven't shown me anything that
> convinces me that your "challenge" is well-
> founded in this case. And now it seems to me
> that our discussion has reached an impasse, a
> dead end; you're not saying anything really
> new. So I don't see any point in my