Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"superstition-based institutions"

Expand Messages
  • holderlin66
    Brush fires and being caught in the cross fire of powerful cultural anomalies, we all better take a minute to understand the conflict of belief and insight
    Message 1 of 196 , Apr 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Brush fires and being caught in the cross fire of powerful cultural
      anomalies, we all better take a minute to understand the conflict of
      belief and insight that the WC has against Waldorf Education and
      Spiritual Science. Most of us grasp this, but lets look at how
      powerful the issue is, instead of how emotionally charged you got in
      the battle. It is better to be informed of the whole cultural matrix
      than carping, feeling the flames of how egotistical it was to have
      been in a little tiny skirmish at the WC...And you come back and
      say, look at my battle scars, wasn't I brave? Spiritual Science is
      not petty just because of the strength of discernment of universal
      clear thought that can be seen everywhere.

      We rather aren't always brave at all, rather bathing in semi-
      exercises in egotistical squabbling. But behind these conflicts
      stands a formidable cross cultural issue that strikes at the heart
      of the conflict of Knowledge and the Michael School culture.

      Again, lets rephrase this, all over the country and the world there
      is this amazing striking conflict of really what can be termed,
      superstition-based institutions, which as a trend in society, stands
      in disbelief that perhaps a sincere Initiate could have even existed
      that could have given some insight into the deeper issues of
      humanity. After all aren't we all equal, there can't be exceptional
      cases, or are higher beings just advanced stages of the human
      family? What allowed Christ to enter into the Human realm? What in
      fact is our understanding of god, in the natural growth and vision
      of a human being who also naturally has stepped into the higher
      education of humanity, called Initiation?

      We are in a vast formidable conflict. Oh it isn't as tiny as it
      appears at the WC but it is loaded with the vicious cynicism of
      denial, it is extremely bitter and our understanding of this bitter
      conflict is far better served, by viewing the whole gamut in which
      Michael School Intelligence is being met within a vast, vast
      framework of inbred, Mephisto and Ahriman evoked cynicism and utter
      ignorance... But the roots of the greater issue is this.

      "superstition-based institutions"


      "The creationism vs. evolution debate also illuminates this
      intolerance. Christians insist that their creation myth represent
      the creationist side. But there are many creationist myths, many of
      which predated both Christianity and Judaism. If evidence is not
      needed, why exclude any superstitions? As Sam Harris notes in The
      End of Faith, "there is no more evidence to justify a belief in the
      literal existence of Yahweh and Satan than there was to keep Zeus
      perched upon his mountain throne or Poseidon churning the seas."

      The impact of moving towards "superstition-based institutions" would
      be highly controversial, quite educational, and on the whole
      exceedingly salutary. Consider the impact on the audience if we
      switched the interchangeable terms in President George W. Bush's
      following statement, posted on a federal web site:

      I believe in the power of superstition in people's lives. Our
      government should not fear programs that exist because a church or a
      synagogue or a mosque has decided to start one. We should not
      discriminate against programs based upon superstition in America. We
      should enable them to access federal money, because superstition-
      based programs can change people's lives, and America will be better
      off for it.
      Fanatics and Zealots Destroying the Liberty of Thought

      In her magnificent book, Freethinkers, Susan Jacoby describes the
      230-year-old battle in the United States between reason and
      superstition. She discusses the post-Civil War period in which the
      battle may have been most evenly matched.

      Robert Green Ingersoll, possibly the best known American in the post
      Civil War era and the nation's foremost orator, traveled around the
      country arguing about the harm that comes from self-congratulatory,
      aggressive and assertive organized religions.

      He explained why the word God does not appear in the U.S.
      Constitution. The founding fathers "knew that the recognition of a
      Deity would be seized upon by fanatics and zealots as a pretext for
      destroying the liberty of thought. They knew the terrible history of
      the church too well to place in her keeping, or in the keeping of
      her God, the sacred rights of man."

      Ingersoll believed that reason, not faith, could and should be the
      basis for modern morality. "Our civilization is not Christian. It
      does not come from the skies. It is not a result of 'inspiration,'"
      he insisted. "It is the child of invention, of discovery, of applied
      knowledge -- that is to say, of science. When man becomes great and
      grand enough to admit that all have equal rights; when thought is
      untrammeled; when worship shall consist in doing useful things; when
      religion means the discharge of obligations to our fellow-men, then,
      and not until then, will the world be civilized."
    • Tarjei Straume
      ... Close to the topic? (forwarding to Dial-a-joke; this has to be a winner.) You re extremely ignorant and uninformed: http://www.paam.net/aem.htm
      Message 196 of 196 , Apr 11, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        At 15:43 11.04.2005, Pete wrote:

        >--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume wrote:
        > > At 07:13 11.04.2005, Pete wrote to Dottie:
        > >
        > > >I am correct in pointing out how you have tried to lump
        > > >medicine in with holistic medicine to make your point.
        > > >medicine may seem holistic to you, but holistic medicine is not
        > > >Anthroposophical medicine, neither is Reiki, neither is
        >accupuncture, or
        > > >chiropractic or other holistic medicines that ARE accepted
        > > >today. Anthroposophical medicine is, perhaps, trying to ride on the
        > > >coattails of other successful and accepted holistic approaches, but
        >it is
        > > >failing basically because it doesn't work.
        > >
        > > Anthroposophically extended medicine is practiced by trained, licenced
        > > physicians just like any other specialized medical field.
        >Anthroposophically "extended" medicine? Sorry, I'm too close to this
        >topic to take what you say seriously. Peddle this on someone else Tarjei.

        Close to the topic? (forwarding to Dial-a-joke; this has to be a winner.)

        You're extremely ignorant and uninformed:






      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.