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

Re: Spiritual Science from a slightly different angle.

Expand Messages
  • Deborah
    I say: I am an anthroposophist, therefore the paths my thoughts follow are always the right ones and always enlightened. It follows logically: Other people
    Message 1 of 104 , Sep 4, 2006
      I say: "I am an anthroposophist, therefore the paths my thoughts
      follow are always the right ones and always enlightened."

      It follows logically: "Other people are not anthroposophists,
      therefore their thoughts are probably wrong most of the time and not

      Just saying that one is an anthroposophist does nothing at all.
      Doing the work might get you there (wherever there is).

      I can read anthroposophical materials over and over and over again,
      but derive the wrong sort of thoughts from the materials and end up
      acting luciferic or ahrimanic or just plain old-fashioned stupid.

      It is quite possible to derive some great enlightenment from other
      sources than anthroposophy.

      All that said, I think you are not entirely wrong, Mike T., just
      suffering from an excess of broad generalizations.


      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Mike T"
      <leosun_75@...> wrote:
      > Thanks Franky,
      > I think amongst Anthroposophists one doesn't need to beat about
      the bush.
      > You're either with it, or you don't really get it - in simplistic
      > Anthroposophy, because it is the truth, has stood the test of
      time. Most
      > other thought systems are shadow copies of Anthroposophy, or
      ancient relics
      > of wisdom, or mere delitante and crass (such as Swaggert
      Teleevangelist), or
      > downright as you say, inspired by fallen beings - such as Islam -
      > some on this list would say was inspired by GabriEL, however
      actually was
      > the shadow there-of, a fallen being).
      > Yes I don't want to debate the futile or stupid. What is is.
      > Again thanks for your post.
      > Mike T
      > >From: "eurythmy" <eurythmy@...>
      > >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > >To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
      > >Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Spiritual Science from a
      > >different angle.
      > >Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 09:36:08 +0100
      > >
      > >Dear Mike,
      > >May be I see what you mean with Anthroposophy given by
      hierarchies. Are you
      > >referring to Michael?
      > >For a lot of Gurus etc they can well be inspired by Lucifer and
      > >which are both high ranked in Hierarchies,are they higher than
      > >It all reminds me of children in the play ground: my father has
      this job,
      > >or that car and the other child answers but my father has that
      one it
      > >better?
      > >I think it is all a matter of individual choice, individual
      > >With the way each one implements its own choice he/she will
      ensure what is
      > >enduring and will become the reality.
      > >Some hierarchies are manipulating, influencing us; some are
      waiting for our
      > >deeds , feelings and thoughts.
      > >regards
      > >Franky
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: Mike T
      > > To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
      > > Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 7:51 AM
      > > Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Spiritual Science from a
      > >different angle.
      > >
      > >
      > > Hi Dottie,
      > > Sorry, I disagree; Anthroposophy as I wrote first up a year or
      so back,
      > >is
      > > the university of spiritual matters and was given to us
      through Steiner
      > >by
      > > the Heirarchies. Why try and reduce it down to the other
      > >thought
      > > systems that continue to manifest and cloud that which the
      > >world
      > > earnestly wants mankind to wake up to. My meaning was clear
      but Tarjei
      > >as
      > > always wants to tear everything down word by word (hardly
      Goetheist) and
      > > lose sight of the real meaning. I could go on, but I'm not
      interested to
      > > discuss these matters with someone of Tarjeis ilk is not of
      good faith.
      > > Cheers,
      > > M
      > >
      > >
      > > Recent Activity
      > > a.. 2New Members
      > > Visit Your Group
      > > Yahoo! Avatars
      > > Create a Face
      > >
      > > Show your style in
      > >
      > > Messenger & more.
      > >
      > > Ads on Yahoo!
      > > Learn more now.
      > >
      > > Reach customers
      > >
      > > searching for you.
      > >
      > > Yahoo! 360°
      > > Get Started
      > >
      > > Create your page
      > >
      > > Share your life
      > > .
      > >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > 1000s of Sexy Singles online now at Lavalife. Click here
      > http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%
    • oealan
      ... I am not sure if I want to read on :( :( Love Adrian ... Hello Adrian. Personally, between translations and the time period, I wouldn t put any merit to
      Message 104 of 104 , Sep 13, 2006
        >>> Having children `at our disposal for demonstration'!!!!!

        I am not sure if I want to read on :( :(

        Love Adrian


        Hello Adrian. Personally, between translations and the time period, I
        wouldn't put any merit to the words "at our disposal". Could be as
        well you're simply not interested in reading on, which is fine of

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