- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "gaelman58"
> <gaelman58@> wrote:familiarity
> > Keith: You strike me as an intelligent guy...given your
> > with Steiner and whatnot, what is it in the radio interview andthe
> > web pages that you find "very interesting"?...regards, G.mysticism.
> For a couple of reasons:
> 1. The history of the use of the word "Lucifer".
> 2. The potential connections of the term with Celtic/British
> 3. The symbolic meanings of Lucifer: Is Lucifer a being or a
> or both, especially in comparison to Steiner's treatment of thethis
> Lucifer concept.
> 4. The occult cultural origins of the word Lucifer, such as the
> practice of the Egyptian god cults.
> I feel pretty certain that the Michael Tsarion knows his stuff in
> regard.Keith: A bit of context before the question: What I understand of
Anthroposophy I accept as true, that is, I believe it. That would
not be so if I had not studied Steiner's epistomological works.
Those works are experiential. The reader ends up "knowing". As to
the spiritual events related by Steiner I can only say I believe
them to be true. I can't say I know them to be true. What I don't
understand of his work I have no opinion.
For me, there is no inherent clash between Spiritual Science and
Catholicism. The former is a path of knowledge the latter is a
religion. Those that can't see that are generally ideologues of
some sort or another...in any event, when I approach any spiritual
consideration in my reading, I approach it out of an
Anthroposophical context...that is, the context I believe to be true.
Given that context, I don't see how a man could conclude that
Michael Tsarion "knows his stuff". It seems to me that without the
Anthroposophical context, a person could end up believing
anything...that's one pole...or nothing...that's the other pole.
What is it then, that convinces you that the man "knows his stuff"?