Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Spiritual Science from a slightly different angle.
- Mike T wrote:
>I think amongst Anthroposophists one doesn't need to beat about the bush.Say it as it is, blunt and outspoken - I kinda like that.
>You're either with it, or you don't really get it - in simplistic terms.Bush talkin' war on terror.
>Anthroposophy, because it is the truth, has stood the test of time.Swaggart talkin' Bible. It was good enough for grandma, so it's good
enough for me. The Bible has been tested by time; Anthroposophy is
too young for that.
Wait a minute, is Anthroposophy a religion, or is it a science-based
epistemology free from all dogma?
>Most other thought systems are shadow copies of Anthroposophy, orWhat is your source on this, that Islam was not inspired by Gabriel
>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 - (which some on this list would say
>was inspired by GabriEL, however actually was the shadow there-of, a
but a fallen Being? Do you have a reference and a quote from the
Doctor or something?
>Yes I don't want to debate the futile or stupid.You don't have to debate me, Mike, but I have a humble wish for some
enlightenment about Islam, where I may have been misguided.
>What is is.And what ain't ain't. Something a guru would say, and then add, "Now
you see it, now you don't."
>>> Having children `at our disposal for demonstration'!!!!!I am not sure if I want to read on :( :(
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