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

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Ridiculous alright

Expand Messages
  • Frank Smith
    ... I wrote: OK, McGee, when I started this thread, I was only ... Mc Ghee wrote: (snip) Now, your presentation regarding ... If you read again what I wrote
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 23, 2007
      --- gaelman58 <gaelman58@...> wrote:

      I wrote: > OK, McGee, when I started this thread, I
      was only
      > > pulling your hair a bit, saying you should apply
      > the
      > > same sane logic you used on the 9/11 conspiracies
      > to
      > > the doctine of papal infallibility - not expecting
      > an
      > > adhom rant from Bradgord. However, regarding
      > Tarjei's
      > > infant's in hell, this was indeed the Catholic
      > > viewpoint for a long time, although it should be
      > > *unbaptized* infants; in particular St. Augustine
      > was
      > > guildy of this gaff. The problem for Church
      > theology
      > > is that they have traditionally insisted that
      > baptism
      > > is required for salvation, so if you aint baptized
      > > there's no place else to go except down; until
      > someone
      > > thought up "limbo" - where pre-Christian pagans,
      > who
      > > weren't really guilty of being unbaptized since
      > the
      > > ritual didn't exist, were supposed to wait, so it
      > > became an obvious cop out to explain what happens
      > to
      > > unbaptized infants, a place where they would
      > > experience eternal happiness, but not the sublime
      > > happiness of heaven, to which they don't have the
      > > required membership card. Of course the whole
      > thing is
      > > just silly, as is so much more Catholic
      > mumbo-jumbo;
      > > the only reasonable explanation for this riddle is
      > > reincarnation, which the Christian churches
      > continue
      > > to deny and/or ignore. An interesting question is
      > why
      > > so many intelligent people accept such the church
      > > mumbo-jumbo and reactionarianism. I think it's
      > because
      > > the RC church still has the mass ritual - which
      > the
      > > Protestants dropped - and that's powerful enough
      > to
      > > dampen thinking.

      Mc Ghee wrote:> (snip) Now, your presentation
      > the Church
      > "teaching" on limbo is no less untrue than Tarjie's
      > statement. For,
      > in fact, there is no doctrinal position in the
      > Catholic theology
      > having to do with limbo...and you implied there was.

      If you read again what I wrote you'll see that I
      didn't say anything about "doctrine" or dogma in
      relation to limbo. I purposely avoided it ;-) However,
      limbo was the common and accepted position of the
      Catholic Church for a long time, preached from the
      pulpits - until apparently they decided it was too
      ridiculous to maintain any longer (this recently, I

      > Hell, even
      > Wikipedia didn't make that gaff...where, may I ask
      > without rancor, are
      > you guys getting this stuff?

      I got it from direct experience - not in limbo, but in
      St. Thomas Aquinas parish, Flatlands, Brooklyn. (We
      had a good basketball team though, the Celtics - with
      green uniforms, very shanty Irish, y'know.)

      > As for your reference to Catholic mumbo-jumbo: That
      > really strikes me
      > as odd coming from a seasoned Anthroposphist. For
      > isn't that charge
      > leveled repeatedly against Anthroposophy as well as
      > any form of
      > spiritual view by the "intelligent" many of whom
      > delight in
      > denigration and ridicule...and isn't it also true
      > that the Society
      > itself has been accused of "reactionarianism" by its
      > opponents...to
      > wit: The Critics nonsense about racism and fascism.

      O dear - I won't accuse you of something so
      sophisticated as sophistry, but of changing the
      subject, yes. What has that to do with limbo? I admit
      to the existance of antroposophical mumbo-jumbo, fe,
      the acceptance as fact that R.S. was previously
      incarnated as St. Tommy and Aristotle.
      > I'll try to illustrate my point with an imagined
      > (although not
      > far-fetched) scenario: Senor Smith is called upon
      > to give a
      > presentation of the essential elements of
      > Anthroposophy to a
      > cross-section of the Argentine population most of
      > whom are thoroughly
      > conversant with modern modes of thought. Scattered
      > throughout are a
      > number of skeptics and wags. In the question and
      > answer period one of
      > the latter rises with a snide smile and a rhetorical
      > question...he's
      > read a smattering of Steiner( say, Guardian Angels,
      > lecture six).
      > "Senor Smith, I read that angels don't perceive the
      > mineral world (tee
      > hee), that precious stones are their sense organs
      > (chuckle, chuckle),
      > I read that they feel with chalcedony and see with
      > chrysolite (snort,
      > snort), do you really believe this (toothy
      > grin)?...all this with a
      > murmuring of amusement throughout the audience.

      Easily answered: first of all, I never heard that
      stuff, but will check it out. Secondly: whether or not
      angels perceive the mineral world or not is beyond my
      perceptive abilities. In other words - I don't know,
      so neither believe nor disbelieve it. The main
      question, the one we should be pondering instead, is
      whether angels exist at all. In anthroposophy they do.
      I am willing to take that as a working hypothesis, but
      as no dogma is involved, as is the case in certain
      organizations, you can take it or leave it. Back when
      their existence was generally accepted, people
      wondered about their attributes: How many would fit on
      the head of a pin? I don't know that either. Next

      > I believe you get my point, Frank. But if there's
      > some obvious
      > disconnect in my analogy...tell me what it
      > is....regards, McGhee
      The disconnect is that anthroposophy is not a church
      with a hierarchy, the head of which claims
      infalliblity so that it's clergy and faithful are
      bound to defend all its mumbo-jumbo under fear of "the
      pains of hell".


      Frank Thomas Smith

      Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
      Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.