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


Expand Messages
  • gaelman58
    ... familiarity ... the ... mysticism. ... principle ... this ... Keith: A bit of context before the question: What I understand of Anthroposophy I accept as
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 25, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
      > <gaelman58@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Keith: You strike me as an intelligent guy...given your
      > > with Steiner and whatnot, what is it in the radio interview and
      > > web pages that you find "very interesting"?...regards, G.
      > 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 the
      > 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.
      > Regards,
      > Keith

      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"?

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