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

On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

Expand Messages
  • Sándor Albert
    Dear Andrei I was a bit carried away, I admit. My post is potentially offensive and unrespectful towards a lot of people, who genuinely seek The Christ. So
    Message 1 of 21 , Apr 29, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Andrei

      I was a bit carried away, I admit. My post is potentially offensive
      and unrespectful towards a lot of people, who genuinely seek The
      Christ.
      So even if I feel that I am right, I behaved badly as my words might
      hurt others feelings, perhaps your feelings.

      So to explain my view, and in this way apologize if I crossed the
      line, let me elaborate on this further.

      I was not discussing the nature of The Christ's sacrifice, if it was
      murder or not. But I agree with everything you say on this matter. I
      am not saying the exo event is unimportant, but it wasn't just a
      death of a good man, because countless brave men and women sacrificed
      themselves throughout history in such a way, for others. So if we
      just see someone who gave his life for us, we miss the point.
      But I do not say remembering this sacrifice is worthless, not at
      all ... if someone is able really put HIM/HERSELF in the Saviours
      place, the resulting suffering, anxiety, and horror (I did not do
      this so I can't describe) might have a strong purifying, even
      redeeming effect (as sacrifices were done to redeem, right ?), like
      in the case of Saint Francis of Assisi. He was genuine. He had the
      stigmas. This is what it means to really put yourself in the Christ
      place, but how many of us are capable of it ? And is this really
      necessary ?
      Do we not have our own crosses, golgotha's and sufferings ? I do not
      condemn the practice of remembering the Calvarium, if that makes one
      better cope with whatever one faces. But the problem is that the
      traditional christian church overemphasises the human nature of The
      Christ, paying attention only what we, agonizing flesh and blood
      humans can comprehend from this event. This is part of what Steiner
      calls materialism applied to the Gospels.

      What you say on the the esoteric and exoteric, and the error of going
      right to the esoteric, and your conclusion about the genuinity and
      deepness of the experience and feeling between commoners
      and "initiates", is wrong, though.
      Why ?
      Because you identify the esoteric with thinking, and the commoner's
      experience with the "primeval feelings". You are right ebout that
      one's deepest feelings, and aspirations are in a way truer than the
      dead thinking of the scribes, but to identify esoterism with the
      speculative nature of dead thinking shows that you do not know yet
      what real esoterism is. Rudolf Steiner's teaching is dead thinking to
      a person who is only capable of that kind of thinking. Real esoterism
      is not a mental endeavour, even though the path to it must be paved
      for today's humanity with reason, logic and mental understanding.

      I am not skipping the exoteric. I regularly study The Bible, and I am
      open to the roman-catholic church what happens to be the closest form
      of organised christianity to me, to the level that I act in
      accordance with this tradition in my outer life. It is a good
      practice in humility, to call a priest younger than me, Father, even
      though The Christ taught we should not call anyone our father,
      because we have but one, our Heavenly Father. But as The Christ was
      baptised by John, even though He did not need that, so I baptise
      myself with roman catholic faith, for the sake of those who are not
      yet able to understand more.

      As your name is romanian, I guess that you have been brought up in
      the orthodox eastern traditition, what I value to the extent of the
      small view I had of it, seemingly a religion more inclined to
      mistery, and esoterism, than that of Rome. Because of this, I think I
      know where do you come from, but of course there is a lot of room
      left to fill in in this, so I look forward to our future
      communication.

      I also pray, in the traditional sense, and I do the basic exercises
      shown in How to Know Higher Worlds, while I am trying at my best to
      comply with the moral and emotional guidelines. There is but
      superficial or viewpoint difference between the Ten commandments,
      Steiner's guidelines, or Yama and Niyama of the yoga path, and this
      is exactly what strenghtens my belief in the universal spiritual
      laws, and the same truth's being available to any man on this planet.
      What I say, and post here are based on daily personal struggle,
      bearing my own cross (and God, it is heavy), and are guided by the
      warmth of my heart, my love and longing for truth, and the dire need
      of learning and apllying what I learn to the smallest details of my
      personal and social life. I had just enough suprasensorial
      experiences to ever put aside the lure of materialism (at least this
      life), but exactly because me being untrained and ignorant, these
      were very painful ones. My search is not that of interest, or mental
      curiosity, but a dire need of finding my way, understand my life, my
      karma, and guide myself in accordance with the divine plan. Even
      though I am not a saint, and I slip, I fall, I got depressed,
      cheated, and tricked daily, the signs of progress are there. If I had
      to die today, this moment, I'd go without regret - but it is not the
      time, It is my time to pay back some of the debt I accumulated. I say
      all this not to show off as probaly teher are many here who are much
      further on this path, but for you to see that I am not just playing
      with thoughts.
    • Albert Sándor
      Further on the humanization of The Christ: can we for sure know what it was for The Cosmic Ego, what The Christ is, the Mistery of Golgotha? The Christ Jesus
      Message 2 of 21 , Apr 29, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Further on the humanization of The Christ: can we for sure know what it was for The Cosmic Ego, what The Christ is, the Mistery of Golgotha?
        The Christ Jesus showed such courage, radical approach, and imposing presence in the three years of teaching that somehow it is hard for me to pity Him for what has happend to Him as a man. I respect Him, love Him, but to pity Him, feel sorry for Him, this seems arrogance in my eyes.
        The description of the struggle in Gethsemane si also distorted, in my and Steiner's opinion. The Christ was struggling to keep the human body togheter, and that is why He did pray, and sweating blood was not the sign of extreme emotinal anguish, but of this struggle to keep Jesus' body togheter for the Mistery can be performed.
        I cannot accept the view what says that The Chisrt was afraid, and lonely. Yes he was lonely as the disciples had fallen asleep - but he was frustrated to realize that even in this crucial moment, they were not able to comprehend what was prepared to them.
        How could He be lonley, as The Son of God, who saw His Father all the time ?
         
        So again, I am not fond of the suffering Christ ideology, it kind of feels perverted and seeing The Passion of Christ by Mr Gibson just made this more clear to me. It might have a strong effect on some people, who are so dull that they really need the blood and horror to shake them out of their ignorance.
         
        But maybe I am wrong and insensitive ,,, I don't know.
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:29 PM
        Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

        Dear Andrei

        I was a bit carried away, I admit. My post is potentially offensive
        and unrespectful towards a lot of people, who genuinely seek The
        Christ.
        So even if I feel that I am right, I behaved badly as my words might
        hurt others feelings, perhaps your feelings.

        So to explain my view, and in this way apologize if I crossed the
        line, let me elaborate on this further.

        I was not discussing the nature of The Christ's sacrifice, if it was
        murder or not. But I agree with everything you say on this matter. I
        am not saying the exo event is unimportant, but it wasn't just a
        death of a good man, because countless brave men and women sacrificed
        themselves throughout history in such a way, for others. So if we
        just see someone who gave his life for us, we miss the point.
        But I do not say remembering this sacrifice is worthless, not at
        all ... if someone is able really put HIM/HERSELF in the Saviours
        place, the resulting suffering, anxiety, and horror (I did not do
        this so I can't describe) might have a strong purifying, even
        redeeming effect (as sacrifices were done to redeem, right ?), like
        in the case of Saint Francis of Assisi. He was genuine. He had the
        stigmas. This is what it means to really put yourself in the Christ
        place, but how many of us are capable of it ? And is this really
        necessary ?
        Do we not have our own crosses, golgotha's and sufferings ? I do not
        condemn the practice of remembering the Calvarium, if that makes one
        better cope with whatever one faces. But the problem is that the
        traditional christian church overemphasises the human nature of The
        Christ, paying attention only what we, agonizing flesh and blood
        humans can comprehend from this event. This is part of what Steiner
        calls materialism applied to the Gospels.

        What you say on the the esoteric and exoteric, and the error of going
        right to the esoteric, and your conclusion about the genuinity and
        deepness of the experience and feeling between commoners
        and "initiates", is wrong, though.
        Why ?
        Because you identify the esoteric with thinking, and the commoner's
        experience with the "primeval feelings". You are right ebout that
        one's deepest feelings, and aspirations are in a way truer than the
        dead thinking of the scribes, but to identify esoterism with the
        speculative nature of dead thinking shows that you do not know yet
        what real esoterism is. Rudolf Steiner's teaching is dead thinking to
        a person who is only capable of that kind of thinking. Real esoterism
        is not a mental endeavour, even though the path to it must be paved
        for today's humanity with reason, logic and mental understanding.

        I am not skipping the exoteric. I regularly study The Bible, and I am
        open to the roman-catholic church what happens to be the closest form
        of organised christianity to me, to the level that I act in
        accordance with this tradition in my outer life. It is a good
        practice in humility, to call a priest younger than me, Father, even
        though The Christ taught we should not call anyone our father,
        because we have but one, our Heavenly Father. But as The Christ was
        baptised by John, even though He did not need that, so I baptise
        myself with roman catholic faith, for the sake of those who are not
        yet able to understand more.

        As your name is romanian, I guess that you have been brought up in
        the orthodox eastern traditition, what I value to the extent of the
        small view I had of it, seemingly a religion more inclined to
        mistery, and esoterism, than that of Rome. Because of this, I think I
        know where do you come from, but of course there is a lot of room
        left to fill in in this, so I look forward to our future
        communication.

        I also pray, in the traditional sense, and I do the basic exercises
        shown in How to Know Higher Worlds, while I am trying at my best to
        comply with the moral and emotional guidelines. There is but
        superficial or viewpoint difference between the Ten commandments,
        Steiner's guidelines, or Yama and Niyama of the yoga path, and this
        is exactly what strenghtens my belief in the universal spiritual
        laws, and the same truth's being available to any man on this planet.
        What I say, and post here are based on daily personal struggle,
        bearing my own cross (and God, it is heavy), and are guided by the
        warmth of my heart, my love and longing for truth, and the dire need
        of learning and apllying what I learn to the smallest details of my
        personal and social life. I had just enough suprasensorial
        experiences to ever put aside the lure of materialism (at least this
        life), but exactly because me being untrained and ignorant, these
        were very painful ones. My search is not that of interest, or mental
        curiosity, but a dire need of finding my way, understand my life, my
        karma, and guide myself in accordance with the divine plan. Even
        though I am not a saint, and I slip, I fall, I got depressed,
        cheated, and tricked daily, the signs of progress are there. If I had
        to die today, this moment, I'd go without regret - but it is not the
        time, It is my time to pay back some of the debt I accumulated. I say
        all this not to show off as probaly teher are many here who are much
        further on this path, but for you to see that I am not just playing
        with thoughts.

      • Andrei O.
        Dear Sandor, Dottie and all the group, All my sayings here are uttered with respect to all to whom I m talking to. No disregards or non-respect. I wish this be
        Message 3 of 21 , Apr 29, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Sandor, Dottie and all the group,

          All my sayings here are uttered with respect to all to whom I'm talking to. No disregards or non-respect. I wish this be received and "stamped" upon all my messages :)

          Well, Sandor, you really are a good example of what I actually wanted to say: thoughts not warmed by feelings come not to the reality / truth in its plentifulness. What I referred to when saying about the dryness of an "eso-" man - of course was not a generalization, but rather a sort of "very often...". Often you may see those knowing much in thoughts about very deep esotericism, but all the rest of their entity being absent in all these dry speculations. There is a good expression in English: "I feel it in my bones." Very good expression indeed! So, Sandor, I referred namely to those kind of "initiates" who are like a young fogs: big in heads and no developed rest of entity, that makes that head useless in time. We've mentioned, Sandor, about the sufferings you underwent through before approaching the elements of various spiritual sciences and practices. It might seem odious, but I say it's good - it's good because all your humanness was given a very good shake, which then made your thought be more heart-filled, so avoiding the drought thoughts. Uff, I hope I made myself clear...

          As for the church - we have to have a church, i.e. a Christian community. But the dogma hardens these community-body, making it less responsive to the real needs of real present humans. Of course, it's a matter of subjectivity: a good priest make his "church" a real one.
          I do agree with you about the "father" issue.
          I am not educated, i.e.e I didn't' passed through an orthodox Christian tradition, due to the Soviet times. But there are pluses in that too: thus I was able to see the thinks related to the spiritual with an unbiased/fresh look/attitude.

          Now about the most difficult thing: our attitude towards Jesus is so because we believe/know He is the Christ; be He not Christ, the feelings and attitude would be otherwise. I dared to rephrase some parts of your messages. Let us remember exactly what that Yeshua man was to us (?) when we just started to pay to him a special, particular attention, which then led to a believe and then to a knowledge interwoven with many other human aspects. Did we start from a MAN in flesh, or may be we waited for a vessel into whom to stream all our expectation, sometime intuitive or more clear one, regarding the MAN-model (Son of Man) or the human expression of some universal, cosmic intelligence. I am sure that trying to get to the spring that led to our present perception and sayings about Christ will develop a many-folded spring-flower, and the answer would be unequivocal. May I (respectfully) dare to say that one of the petals of that genesis-flower had that attitude towards Yeshua as a man giving his life for his friends and not only them. Even that - childish - attitude brought certain results that are present now in you soul. However, I don't want to be understood as emphasizing the most simplicity; I just would like all us to not neglect or ignore it.

          With respect

          Andrei




          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Sándor Albert <montek@...>
          To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:29:01 PM
          Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

          Dear Andrei

          I was a bit carried away, I admit. My post is potentially offensive
          and unrespectful towards a lot of people, who genuinely seek The
          Christ.
          So even if I feel that I am right, I behaved badly as my words might
          hurt others feelings, perhaps your feelings.

          So to explain my view, and in this way apologize if I crossed the
          line, let me elaborate on this further.

          I was not discussing the nature of The Christ's sacrifice, if it was
          murder or not. But I agree with everything you say on this matter. I
          am not saying the exo event is unimportant, but it wasn't just a
          death of a good man, because countless brave men and women sacrificed
          themselves throughout history in such a way, for others. So if we
          just see someone who gave his life for us, we miss the point.
          But I do not say remembering this sacrifice is worthless, not at
          all ... if someone is able really put HIM/HERSELF in the Saviours
          place, the resulting suffering, anxiety, and horror (I did not do
          this so I can't describe) might have a strong purifying, even
          redeeming effect (as sacrifices were done to redeem, right ?), like
          in the case of Saint Francis of Assisi. He was genuine. He had the
          stigmas. This is what it means to really put yourself in the Christ
          place, but how many of us are capable of it ? And is this really
          necessary ?
          Do we not have our own crosses, golgotha's and sufferings ? I do not
          condemn the practice of remembering the Calvarium, if that makes one
          better cope with whatever one faces. But the problem is that the
          traditional christian church overemphasises the human nature of The
          Christ, paying attention only what we, agonizing flesh and blood
          humans can comprehend from this event. This is part of what Steiner
          calls materialism applied to the Gospels.

          What you say on the the esoteric and exoteric, and the error of going
          right to the esoteric, and your conclusion about the genuinity and
          deepness of the experience and feeling between commoners
          and "initiates", is wrong, though.
          Why ?
          Because you identify the esoteric with thinking, and the commoner's
          experience with the "primeval feelings". You are right ebout that
          one's deepest feelings, and aspirations are in a way truer than the
          dead thinking of the scribes, but to identify esoterism with the
          speculative nature of dead thinking shows that you do not know yet
          what real esoterism is. Rudolf Steiner's teaching is dead thinking to
          a person who is only capable of that kind of thinking. Real esoterism
          is not a mental endeavour, even though the path to it must be paved
          for today's humanity with reason, logic and mental understanding.

          I am not skipping the exoteric. I regularly study The Bible, and I am
          open to the roman-catholic church what happens to be the closest form
          of organised christianity to me, to the level that I act in
          accordance with this tradition in my outer life. It is a good
          practice in humility, to call a priest younger than me, Father, even
          though The Christ taught we should not call anyone our father,
          because we have but one, our Heavenly Father. But as The Christ was
          baptised by John, even though He did not need that, so I baptise
          myself with roman catholic faith, for the sake of those who are not
          yet able to understand more.

          As your name is romanian, I guess that you have been brought up in
          the orthodox eastern traditition, what I value to the extent of the
          small view I had of it, seemingly a religion more inclined to
          mistery, and esoterism, than that of Rome. Because of this, I think I
          know where do you come from, but of course there is a lot of room
          left to fill in in this, so I look forward to our future
          communication.

          I also pray, in the traditional sense, and I do the basic exercises
          shown in How to Know Higher Worlds, while I am trying at my best to
          comply with the moral and emotional guidelines. There is but
          superficial or viewpoint difference between the Ten commandments,
          Steiner's guidelines, or Yama and Niyama of the yoga path, and this
          is exactly what strenghtens my belief in the universal spiritual
          laws, and the same truth's being available to any man on this planet.
          What I say, and post here are based on daily personal struggle,
          bearing my own cross (and God, it is heavy), and are guided by the
          warmth of my heart, my love and longing for truth, and the dire need
          of learning and apllying what I learn to the smallest details of my
          personal and social life. I had just enough suprasensorial
          experiences to ever put aside the lure of materialism (at least this
          life), but exactly because me being untrained and ignorant, these
          were very painful ones. My search is not that of interest, or mental
          curiosity, but a dire need of finding my way, understand my life, my
          karma, and guide myself in accordance with the divine plan. Even
          though I am not a saint, and I slip, I fall, I got depressed,
          cheated, and tricked daily, the signs of progress are there. If I had
          to die today, this moment, I'd go without regret - but it is not the
          time, It is my time to pay back some of the debt I accumulated. I say
          all this not to show off as probaly teher are many here who are much
          further on this path, but for you to see that I am not just playing
          with thoughts.




          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
        • Andrei O.
          Dear Sandor, I don t remember who, but someone from this area, said that in that Golgotha related events the most surprising or wondering is not the (sic!)
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 29, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Sandor,

            I don't remember who, but someone from this area, said that in that Golgotha related events the most surprising or wondering is not the (sic!) Resurrection, but the Death of the Son of God.
            It proves that the Son of God mastered what other high spiritual heavenly beings didn't: He manage to become Son of Man. Without that His mission would be completed. So, if his manship was real, so real had to be his human sufferings.
            Just an additional human detail of Yeshua: his tears when he heard about Lazarus sickness and then death.
            The other humans are to be escaped by a great Human, in whom humanness is interwoven with God's senior creative power.

            Andrei


            ----- Original Message ----
            From: Albert Sándor <montek@...>
            To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:59:02 PM
            Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

            Further on the humanization of The Christ: can we for sure know what it was for The Cosmic Ego, what The Christ is, the Mistery of Golgotha?
            The Christ Jesus showed such courage, radical approach, and imposing presence in the three years of teaching that somehow it is hard for me to pity Him for what has happend to Him as a man. I respect Him, love Him, but to pity Him, feel sorry for Him, this seems arrogance in my eyes.
            The description of the struggle in Gethsemane si also distorted, in my and Steiner's opinion. The Christ was struggling to keep the human body togheter, and that is why He did pray, and sweating blood was not the sign of extreme emotinal anguish, but of this struggle to keep Jesus' body togheter for the Mistery can be performed.
            I cannot accept the view what says that The Chisrt was afraid, and lonely. Yes he was lonely as the disciples had fallen asleep - but he was frustrated to realize that even in this crucial moment, they were not able to comprehend what was prepared to them.
            How could He be lonley, as The Son of God, who saw His Father all the time ?
             
            So again, I am not fond of the suffering Christ ideology, it kind of feels perverted and seeing The Passion of Christ by Mr Gibson just made this more clear to me. It might have a strong effect on some people, who are so dull that they really need the blood and horror to shake them out of their ignorance.
             
            But maybe I am wrong and insensitive ,,, I don't know.
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:29 PM
            Subject: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

            Dear Andrei

            I was a bit carried away, I admit. My post is potentially offensive
            and unrespectful towards a lot of people, who genuinely seek The
            Christ.
            So even if I feel that I am right, I behaved badly as my words might
            hurt others feelings, perhaps your feelings.

            So to explain my view, and in this way apologize if I crossed the
            line, let me elaborate on this further.

            I was not discussing the nature of The Christ's sacrifice, if it was
            murder or not. But I agree with everything you say on this matter. I
            am not saying the exo event is unimportant, but it wasn't just a
            death of a good man, because countless brave men and women sacrificed
            themselves throughout history in such a way, for others. So if we
            just see someone who gave his life for us, we miss the point.
            But I do not say remembering this sacrifice is worthless, not at
            all ... if someone is able really put HIM/HERSELF in the Saviours
            place, the resulting suffering, anxiety, and horror (I did not do
            this so I can't describe) might have a strong purifying, even
            redeeming effect (as sacrifices were done to redeem, right ?), like
            in the case of Saint Francis of Assisi. He was genuine. He had the
            stigmas. This is what it means to really put yourself in the Christ
            place, but how many of us are capable of it ? And is this really
            necessary ?
            Do we not have our own crosses, golgotha's and sufferings ? I do not
            condemn the practice of remembering the Calvarium, if that makes one
            better cope with whatever one faces. But the problem is that the
            traditional christian church overemphasises the human nature of The
            Christ, paying attention only what we, agonizing flesh and blood
            humans can comprehend from this event. This is part of what Steiner
            calls materialism applied to the Gospels.

            What you say on the the esoteric and exoteric, and the error of going
            right to the esoteric, and your conclusion about the genuinity and
            deepness of the experience and feeling between commoners
            and "initiates", is wrong, though.
            Why ?
            Because you identify the esoteric with thinking, and the commoner's
            experience with the "primeval feelings". You are right ebout that
            one's deepest feelings, and aspirations are in a way truer than the
            dead thinking of the scribes, but to identify esoterism with the
            speculative nature of dead thinking shows that you do not know yet
            what real esoterism is. Rudolf Steiner's teaching is dead thinking to
            a person who is only capable of that kind of thinking. Real esoterism
            is not a mental endeavour, even though the path to it must be paved
            for today's humanity with reason, logic and mental understanding.

            I am not skipping the exoteric. I regularly study The Bible, and I am
            open to the roman-catholic church what happens to be the closest form
            of organised christianity to me, to the level that I act in
            accordance with this tradition in my outer life. It is a good
            practice in humility, to call a priest younger than me, Father, even
            though The Christ taught we should not call anyone our father,
            because we have but one, our Heavenly Father. But as The Christ was
            baptised by John, even though He did not need that, so I baptise
            myself with roman catholic faith, for the sake of those who are not
            yet able to understand more.

            As your name is romanian, I guess that you have been brought up in
            the orthodox eastern traditition, what I value to the extent of the
            small view I had of it, seemingly a religion more inclined to
            mistery, and esoterism, than that of Rome. Because of this, I think I
            know where do you come from, but of course there is a lot of room
            left to fill in in this, so I look forward to our future
            communication.

            I also pray, in the traditional sense, and I do the basic exercises
            shown in How to Know Higher Worlds, while I am trying at my best to
            comply with the moral and emotional guidelines. There is but
            superficial or viewpoint difference between the Ten commandments,
            Steiner's guidelines, or Yama and Niyama of the yoga path, and this
            is exactly what strenghtens my belief in the universal spiritual
            laws, and the same truth's being available to any man on this planet.
            What I say, and post here are based on daily personal struggle,
            bearing my own cross (and God, it is heavy), and are guided by the
            warmth of my heart, my love and longing for truth, and the dire need
            of learning and apllying what I learn to the smallest details of my
            personal and social life. I had just enough suprasensorial
            experiences to ever put aside the lure of materialism (at least this
            life), but exactly because me being untrained and ignorant, these
            were very painful ones. My search is not that of interest, or mental
            curiosity, but a dire need of finding my way, understand my life, my
            karma, and guide myself in accordance with the divine plan. Even
            though I am not a saint, and I slip, I fall, I got depressed,
            cheated, and tricked daily, the signs of progress are there. If I had
            to die today, this moment, I'd go without regret - but it is not the
            time, It is my time to pay back some of the debt I accumulated. I say
            all this not to show off as probaly teher are many here who are much
            further on this path, but for you to see that I am not just playing
            with thoughts.




            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
          • dottie zold
            Andrei, I want to offer up that suffering is not really suffering from a higher level of understanding. One may feel physical pain, yes, however I have to say
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 29, 2008
            • 0 Attachment

              Andrei, I want to offer up that suffering is not really suffering from a higher level of understanding. One may feel physical pain, yes, however I have to say my thoughts are of an anquish, a suffering for what man had allowed himself to become. So I guess I want to understand what you mean by 'suffering'?

               

              I experience Rudolf Steiner suffering as not enough of his students could rise to hear/understand what he was imparting unto them towards their lifting themselves up in a real and tangible manner towards initiation. Yes there was a want, but not a real knowledge of how to really find the objective manner needed to meet what he was offering from an initiatic level. Or so I understand.

               

              So although I suffer, I know it is unto the learning. And if I can know that and experience that, how much more could the Christ Jesus? So please clarify what you mean by suffering when you have time. I think that is where you use the term 'murder' as it seems to imply a physical suffering of the body. But I think it was a different kind of suffering he experienced but one that was full of knowledge. And for Jesus we had the Zarathustra being indwelling. This being then reincarnated immediately, creating for itself a new set of bodies so to speak. I do not know this for myself so I can't speak of that from experience. If I have to consider Rudolf Steiner's words on this and Sergei Prokofieff's I have to say that it implies a different understanding of suffering then one would naturally, from a physical world standpoint, employ.

               

              All good things,

              Dottie

              --- On Tue, 4/29/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...> wrote:

              From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...>
              Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
              To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 11:37 AM

              Dear Sandor,

              I don't remember who, but someone from this area, said that in that Golgotha related events the most surprising or wondering is not the (sic!) Resurrection, but the Death of the Son of God.
              It proves that the Son of God mastered what other high spiritual heavenly beings didn't: He manage to become Son of Man. Without that His mission would be completed. So, if his manship was real, so real had to be his human sufferings.
              Just an additional human detail of Yeshua: his tears when he heard about Lazarus sickness and then death.
              The other humans are to be escaped by a great Human, in whom humanness is interwoven with God's senior creative power.

              Andrei


              ----- Original Message ----
              From: Albert Sándor <montek@...>
              To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:59:02 PM
              Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

              Further on the humanization of The Christ: can we for sure know what it was for The Cosmic Ego, what The Christ is, the Mistery of Golgotha?
              The Christ Jesus showed such courage, radical approach, and imposing presence in the three years of teaching that somehow it is hard for me to pity Him for what has happend to Him as a man. I respect Him, love Him, but to pity Him, feel sorry for Him, this seems arrogance in my eyes.
              The description of the struggle in Gethsemane si also distorted, in my and Steiner's opinion. The Christ was struggling to keep the human body togheter, and that is why He did pray, and sweating blood was not the sign of extreme emotinal anguish, but of this struggle to keep Jesus' body togheter for the Mistery can be performed.
              I cannot accept the view what says that The Chisrt was afraid, and lonely. Yes he was lonely as the disciples had fallen asleep - but he was frustrated to realize that even in this crucial moment, they were not able to comprehend what was prepared to them.
              How could He be lonley, as The Son of God, who saw His Father all the time ?
               
              So again, I am not fond of the suffering Christ ideology, it kind of feels perverted and seeing The Passion of Christ by Mr Gibson just made this more clear to me. It might have a strong effect on some people, who are so dull that they really need the blood and horror to shake them out of their ignorance.
               
              But maybe I am wrong and insensitive ,,, I don't know.
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:29 PM
              Subject: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

              Dear Andrei

              I was a bit carried away, I admit. My post is potentially offensive
              and unrespectful towards a lot of people, who genuinely seek The
              Christ.
              So even if I feel that I am right, I behaved badly as my words might
              hurt others feelings, perhaps your feelings.

              So to explain my view, and in this way apologize if I crossed the
              line, let me elaborate on this further.

              I was not discussing the nature of The Christ's sacrifice, if it was
              murder or not. But I agree with everything you say on this matter. I
              am not saying the exo event is unimportant, but it wasn't just a
              death of a good man, because countless brave men and women sacrificed
              themselves throughout history in such a way, for others. So if we
              just see someone who gave his life for us, we miss the point.
              But I do not say remembering this sacrifice is worthless, not at
              all ... if someone is able really put HIM/HERSELF in the Saviours
              place, the resulting suffering, anxiety, and horror (I did not do
              this so I can't describe) might have a strong purifying, even
              redeeming effect (as sacrifices were done to redeem, right ?), like
              in the case of Saint Francis of Assisi. He was genuine. He had the
              stigmas. This is what it means to really put yourself in the Christ
              place, but how many of us are capable of it ? And is this really
              necessary ?
              Do we not have our own crosses, golgotha's and sufferings ? I do not
              condemn the practice of remembering the Calvarium, if that makes one
              better cope with whatever one faces. But the problem is that the
              traditional christian church overemphasises the human nature of The
              Christ, paying attention only what we, agonizing flesh and blood
              humans can comprehend from this event. This is part of what Steiner
              calls materialism applied to the Gospels.

              What you say on the the esoteric and exoteric, and the error of going
              right to the esoteric, and your conclusion about the genuinity and
              deepness of the experience and feeling between commoners
              and "initiates", is wrong, though.
              Why ?
              Because you identify the esoteric with thinking, and the commoner's
              experience with the "primeval feelings". You are right ebout that
              one's deepest feelings, and aspirations are in a way truer than the
              dead thinking of the scribes, but to identify esoterism with the
              speculative nature of dead thinking shows that you do not know yet
              what real esoterism is. Rudolf Steiner's teaching is dead thinking to
              a person who is only capable of that kind of thinking. Real esoterism
              is not a mental endeavour, even though the path to it must be paved
              for today's humanity with reason, logic and mental understanding.

              I am not skipping the exoteric. I regularly study The Bible, and I am
              open to the roman-catholic church what happens to be the closest form
              of organised christianity to me, to the level that I act in
              accordance with this tradition in my outer life. It is a good
              practice in humility, to call a priest younger than me, Father, even
              though The Christ taught we should not call anyone our father,
              because we have but one, our Heavenly Father. But as The Christ was
              baptised by John, even though He did not need that, so I baptise
              myself with roman catholic faith, for the sake of those who are not
              yet able to understand more.

              As your name is romanian, I guess that you have been brought up in
              the orthodox eastern traditition, what I value to the extent of the
              small view I had of it, seemingly a religion more inclined to
              mistery, and esoterism, than that of Rome. Because of this, I think I
              know where do you come from, but of course there is a lot of room
              left to fill in in this, so I look forward to our future
              communication.

              I also pray, in the traditional sense, and I do the basic exercises
              shown in How to Know Higher Worlds, while I am trying at my best to
              comply with the moral and emotional guidelines. There is but
              superficial or viewpoint difference between the Ten commandments,
              Steiner's guidelines, or Yama and Niyama of the yoga path, and this
              is exactly what strenghtens my belief in the universal spiritual
              laws, and the same truth's being available to any man on this planet.
              What I say, and post here are based on daily personal struggle,
              bearing my own cross (and God, it is heavy), and are guided by the
              warmth of my heart, my love and longing for truth, and the dire need
              of learning and apllying what I learn to the smallest details of my
              personal and social life. I had just enough suprasensorial
              experiences to ever put aside the lure of materialism (at least this
              life), but exactly because me being untrained and ignorant, these
              were very painful ones. My search is not that of interest, or mental
              curiosity, but a dire need of finding my way, understand my life, my
              karma, and guide myself in accordance with the divine plan. Even
              though I am not a saint, and I slip, I fall, I got depressed,
              cheated, and tricked daily, the signs of progress are there. If I had
              to die today, this moment, I'd go without regret - but it is not the
              time, It is my time to pay back some of the debt I accumulated. I say
              all this not to show off as probaly teher are many here who are much
              further on this path, but for you to see that I am not just playing
              with thoughts.




              Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


              Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
            • dottie zold
              Sweating blood. Now that implies a real inner anguish suffering that I can understand. I can understand and it is a very real thing involving our actual blood.
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 29, 2008
              • 0 Attachment

                Sweating blood. Now that implies a real inner anguish suffering that I can understand. I can understand and it is a very real thing involving our actual blood. And I imagine that has something to do also with the etherization of the blood as well. When something reaches down so far as to change, alter, the flow, the actual heartthinking out of this type of anquish experienced by the Christ we can see unto whatfor this 'suffering' is about. It can not be understated in any case.

                 

                An actual whole new body was created due to this type of suffering that is one unto the world but not of the physical natural kind we have in our mind. This does not mean by any point that He was not human. In fact He was all too human in the sense that this type of anquish worked up to such an extent He would sweat blood. That's incredible. Without this sweating of blood, where would we be right now?

                 

                All good things,

                dottie

                --- On Tue, 4/29/08, dottie zold <dottie_z@...> wrote:

                From: dottie zold <dottie_z@...>
                Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 5:36 PM

                Andrei, I want to offer up that suffering is not really suffering from a higher level of understanding. One may feel physical pain, yes, however I have to say my thoughts are of an anquish, a suffering for what man had allowed himself to become. So I guess I want to understand what you mean by 'suffering'?

                 

                I experience Rudolf Steiner suffering as not enough of his students could rise to hear/understand what he was imparting unto them towards their lifting themselves up in a real and tangible manner towards initiation. Yes there was a want, but not a real knowledge of how to really find the objective manner needed to meet what he was offering from an initiatic level. Or so I understand.

                 

                So although I suffer, I know it is unto the learning. And if I can know that and experience that, how much more could the Christ Jesus? So please clarify what you mean by suffering when you have time. I think that is where you use the term 'murder' as it seems to imply a physical suffering of the body. But I think it was a different kind of suffering he experienced but one that was full of knowledge. And for Jesus we had the Zarathustra being indwelling. This being then reincarnated immediately, creating for itself a new set of bodies so to speak. I do not know this for myself so I can't speak of that from experience. If I have to consider Rudolf Steiner's words on this and Sergei Prokofieff's I have to say that it implies a different understanding of suffering then one would naturally, from a physical world standpoint, employ.

                 

                All good things,

                Dottie

                --- On Tue, 4/29/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...> wrote:

                From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...>
                Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 11:37 AM

                Dear Sandor,

                I don't remember who, but someone from this area, said that in that Golgotha related events the most surprising or wondering is not the (sic!) Resurrection, but the Death of the Son of God.
                It proves that the Son of God mastered what other high spiritual heavenly beings didn't: He manage to become Son of Man. Without that His mission would be completed. So, if his manship was real, so real had to be his human sufferings.
                Just an additional human detail of Yeshua: his tears when he heard about Lazarus sickness and then death.
                The other humans are to be escaped by a great Human, in whom humanness is interwoven with God's senior creative power.

                Andrei


                ----- Original Message ----
                From: Albert Sándor <montek@...>
                To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:59:02 PM
                Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                Further on the humanization of The Christ: can we for sure know what it was for The Cosmic Ego, what The Christ is, the Mistery of Golgotha?
                The Christ Jesus showed such courage, radical approach, and imposing presence in the three years of teaching that somehow it is hard for me to pity Him for what has happend to Him as a man. I respect Him, love Him, but to pity Him, feel sorry for Him, this seems arrogance in my eyes.
                The description of the struggle in Gethsemane si also distorted, in my and Steiner's opinion. The Christ was struggling to keep the human body togheter, and that is why He did pray, and sweating blood was not the sign of extreme emotinal anguish, but of this struggle to keep Jesus' body togheter for the Mistery can be performed.
                I cannot accept the view what says that The Chisrt was afraid, and lonely. Yes he was lonely as the disciples had fallen asleep - but he was frustrated to realize that even in this crucial moment, they were not able to comprehend what was prepared to them.
                How could He be lonley, as The Son of God, who saw His Father all the time ?
                 
                So again, I am not fond of the suffering Christ ideology, it kind of feels perverted and seeing The Passion of Christ by Mr Gibson just made this more clear to me. It might have a strong effect on some people, who are so dull that they really need the blood and horror to shake them out of their ignorance.
                 
                But maybe I am wrong and insensitive ,,, I don't know.
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:29 PM
                Subject: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                Dear Andrei

                I was a bit carried away, I admit. My post is potentially offensive
                and unrespectful towards a lot of people, who genuinely seek The
                Christ.
                So even if I feel that I am right, I behaved badly as my words might
                hurt others feelings, perhaps your feelings.

                So to explain my view, and in this way apologize if I crossed the
                line, let me elaborate on this further.

                I was not discussing the nature of The Christ's sacrifice, if it was
                murder or not. But I agree with everything you say on this matter. I
                am not saying the exo event is unimportant, but it wasn't just a
                death of a good man, because countless brave men and women sacrificed
                themselves throughout history in such a way, for others. So if we
                just see someone who gave his life for us, we miss the point.
                But I do not say remembering this sacrifice is worthless, not at
                all ... if someone is able really put HIM/HERSELF in the Saviours
                place, the resulting suffering, anxiety, and horror (I did not do
                this so I can't describe) might have a strong purifying, even
                redeeming effect (as sacrifices were done to redeem, right ?), like
                in the case of Saint Francis of Assisi. He was genuine. He had the
                stigmas. This is what it means to really put yourself in the Christ
                place, but how many of us are capable of it ? And is this really
                necessary ?
                Do we not have our own crosses, golgotha's and sufferings ? I do not
                condemn the practice of remembering the Calvarium, if that makes one
                better cope with whatever one faces. But the problem is that the
                traditional christian church overemphasises the human nature of The
                Christ, paying attention only what we, agonizing flesh and blood
                humans can comprehend from this event. This is part of what Steiner
                calls materialism applied to the Gospels.

                What you say on the the esoteric and exoteric, and the error of going
                right to the esoteric, and your conclusion about the genuinity and
                deepness of the experience and feeling between commoners
                and "initiates", is wrong, though.
                Why ?
                Because you identify the esoteric with thinking, and the commoner's
                experience with the "primeval feelings". You are right ebout that
                one's deepest feelings, and aspirations are in a way truer than the
                dead thinking of the scribes, but to identify esoterism with the
                speculative nature of dead thinking shows that you do not know yet
                what real esoterism is. Rudolf Steiner's teaching is dead thinking to
                a person who is only capable of that kind of thinking. Real esoterism
                is not a mental endeavour, even though the path to it must be paved
                for today's humanity with reason, logic and mental understanding.

                I am not skipping the exoteric. I regularly study The Bible, and I am
                open to the roman-catholic church what happens to be the closest form
                of organised christianity to me, to the level that I act in
                accordance with this tradition in my outer life. It is a good
                practice in humility, to call a priest younger than me, Father, even
                though The Christ taught we should not call anyone our father,
                because we have but one, our Heavenly Father. But as The Christ was
                baptised by John, even though He did not need that, so I baptise
                myself with roman catholic faith, for the sake of those who are not
                yet able to understand more.

                As your name is romanian, I guess that you have been brought up in
                the orthodox eastern traditition, what I value to the extent of the
                small view I had of it, seemingly a religion more inclined to
                mistery, and esoterism, than that of Rome. Because of this, I think I
                know where do you come from, but of course there is a lot of room
                left to fill in in this, so I look forward to our future
                communication.

                I also pray, in the traditional sense, and I do the basic exercises
                shown in How to Know Higher Worlds, while I am trying at my best to
                comply with the moral and emotional guidelines. There is but
                superficial or viewpoint difference between the Ten commandments,
                Steiner's guidelines, or Yama and Niyama of the yoga path, and this
                is exactly what strenghtens my belief in the universal spiritual
                laws, and the same truth's being available to any man on this planet.
                What I say, and post here are based on daily personal struggle,
                bearing my own cross (and God, it is heavy), and are guided by the
                warmth of my heart, my love and longing for truth, and the dire need
                of learning and apllying what I learn to the smallest details of my
                personal and social life. I had just enough suprasensorial
                experiences to ever put aside the lure of materialism (at least this
                life), but exactly because me being untrained and ignorant, these
                were very painful ones. My search is not that of interest, or mental
                curiosity, but a dire need of finding my way, understand my life, my
                karma, and guide myself in accordance with the divine plan. Even
                though I am not a saint, and I slip, I fall, I got depressed,
                cheated, and tricked daily, the signs of progress are there. If I had
                to die today, this moment, I'd go without regret - but it is not the
                time, It is my time to pay back some of the debt I accumulated. I say
                all this not to show off as probaly teher are many here who are much
                further on this path, but for you to see that I am not just playing
                with thoughts.




                Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
              • dottie zold
                Sandor, I agree with you about the feeling of pity. I have often felt myself feeling sorry for someone very close to me at one point in my life. I then began
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 29, 2008
                • 0 Attachment

                  Sandor, I agree with you about the feeling of pity. I have often felt myself feeling sorry for someone very close to me at one point in my life. I then began to realize I was demeaning that person's path. I was not honoring what he needed to go through. I was not honoring the warrior in him that was digging to get it in all manners. And I could no longer deny his great impact on my life in learning how to stand and shake in my boots.

                   

                  I think the thoughts on loneliness are kinda inline with mine although I do know that the angels don't get the idea of 'loneliness'. They don't get it. So maybe it is true this loneliness of Christ in the aspect that the last few He had to walk it alone. Almost like a forgetting of sorts as the body began to give way.

                   

                  All good things and thanks,

                  Dottie

                  --- On Tue, 4/29/08, Albert Sándor <montek@...> wrote:

                  From: Albert Sándor <montek@...>
                  Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                  To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 10:59 AM

                  Further on the humanization of The Christ: can we for sure know what it was for The Cosmic Ego, what The Christ is, the Mistery of Golgotha?
                  The Christ Jesus showed such courage, radical approach, and imposing presence in the three years of teaching that somehow it is hard for me to pity Him for what has happend to Him as a man. I respect Him, love Him, but to pity Him, feel sorry for Him, this seems arrogance in my eyes.
                  The description of the struggle in Gethsemane si also distorted, in my and Steiner's opinion. The Christ was struggling to keep the human body togheter, and that is why He did pray, and sweating blood was not the sign of extreme emotinal anguish, but of this struggle to keep Jesus' body togheter for the Mistery can be performed.
                  I cannot accept the view what says that The Chisrt was afraid, and lonely. Yes he was lonely as the disciples had fallen asleep - but he was frustrated to realize that even in this crucial moment, they were not able to comprehend what was prepared to them.
                  How could He be lonley, as The Son of God, who saw His Father all the time ?
                   
                  So again, I am not fond of the suffering Christ ideology, it kind of feels perverted and seeing The Passion of Christ by Mr Gibson just made this more clear to me. It might have a strong effect on some people, who are so dull that they really need the blood and horror to shake them out of their ignorance.
                   
                  But maybe I am wrong and insensitive ,,, I don't know.
                   
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:29 PM
                  Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                  Dear Andrei

                  I was a bit carried away, I admit. My post is potentially offensive
                  and unrespectful towards a lot of people, who genuinely seek The
                  Christ.
                  So even if I feel that I am right, I behaved badly as my words might
                  hurt others feelings, perhaps your feelings.

                  So to explain my view, and in this way apologize if I crossed the
                  line, let me elaborate on this further.

                  I was not discussing the nature of The Christ's sacrifice, if it was
                  murder or not. But I agree with everything you say on this matter. I
                  am not saying the exo event is unimportant, but it wasn't just a
                  death of a good man, because countless brave men and women sacrificed
                  themselves throughout history in such a way, for others. So if we
                  just see someone who gave his life for us, we miss the point.
                  But I do not say remembering this sacrifice is worthless, not at
                  all ... if someone is able really put HIM/HERSELF in the Saviours
                  place, the resulting suffering, anxiety, and horror (I did not do
                  this so I can't describe) might have a strong purifying, even
                  redeeming effect (as sacrifices were done to redeem, right ?), like
                  in the case of Saint Francis of Assisi. He was genuine. He had the
                  stigmas. This is what it means to really put yourself in the Christ
                  place, but how many of us are capable of it ? And is this really
                  necessary ?
                  Do we not have our own crosses, golgotha's and sufferings ? I do not
                  condemn the practice of remembering the Calvarium, if that makes one
                  better cope with whatever one faces. But the problem is that the
                  traditional christian church overemphasises the human nature of The
                  Christ, paying attention only what we, agonizing flesh and blood
                  humans can comprehend from this event. This is part of what Steiner
                  calls materialism applied to the Gospels.

                  What you say on the the esoteric and exoteric, and the error of going
                  right to the esoteric, and your conclusion about the genuinity and
                  deepness of the experience and feeling between commoners
                  and "initiates", is wrong, though.
                  Why ?
                  Because you identify the esoteric with thinking, and the commoner's
                  experience with the "primeval feelings". You are right ebout that
                  one's deepest feelings, and aspirations are in a way truer than the
                  dead thinking of the scribes, but to identify esoterism with the
                  speculative nature of dead thinking shows that you do not know yet
                  what real esoterism is. Rudolf Steiner's teaching is dead thinking to
                  a person who is only capable of that kind of thinking. Real esoterism
                  is not a mental endeavour, even though the path to it must be paved
                  for today's humanity with reason, logic and mental understanding.

                  I am not skipping the exoteric. I regularly study The Bible, and I am
                  open to the roman-catholic church what happens to be the closest form
                  of organised christianity to me, to the level that I act in
                  accordance with this tradition in my outer life. It is a good
                  practice in humility, to call a priest younger than me, Father, even
                  though The Christ taught we should not call anyone our father,
                  because we have but one, our Heavenly Father. But as The Christ was
                  baptised by John, even though He did not need that, so I baptise
                  myself with roman catholic faith, for the sake of those who are not
                  yet able to understand more.

                  As your name is romanian, I guess that you have been brought up in
                  the orthodox eastern traditition, what I value to the extent of the
                  small view I had of it, seemingly a religion more inclined to
                  mistery, and esoterism, than that of Rome. Because of this, I think I
                  know where do you come from, but of course there is a lot of room
                  left to fill in in this, so I look forward to our future
                  communication.

                  I also pray, in the traditional sense, and I do the basic exercises
                  shown in How to Know Higher Worlds, while I am trying at my best to
                  comply with the moral and emotional guidelines. There is but
                  superficial or viewpoint difference between the Ten commandments,
                  Steiner's guidelines, or Yama and Niyama of the yoga path, and this
                  is exactly what strenghtens my belief in the universal spiritual
                  laws, and the same truth's being available to any man on this planet.
                  What I say, and post here are based on daily personal struggle,
                  bearing my own cross (and God, it is heavy), and are guided by the
                  warmth of my heart, my love and longing for truth, and the dire need
                  of learning and apllying what I learn to the smallest details of my
                  personal and social life. I had just enough suprasensorial
                  experiences to ever put aside the lure of materialism (at least this
                  life), but exactly because me being untrained and ignorant, these
                  were very painful ones. My search is not that of interest, or mental
                  curiosity, but a dire need of finding my way, understand my life, my
                  karma, and guide myself in accordance with the divine plan. Even
                  though I am not a saint, and I slip, I fall, I got depressed,
                  cheated, and tricked daily, the signs of progress are there. If I had
                  to die today, this moment, I'd go without regret - but it is not the
                  time, It is my time to pay back some of the debt I accumulated. I say
                  all this not to show off as probaly teher are many here who are much
                  further on this path, but for you to see that I am not just playing
                  with thoughts.



                  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                • dottie zold
                  Dear Andrei, Sandor, and Friends, Well, I was just laying down and it occurred to me in my suffering:) whoa boy am I suffering but its a good suffering, one
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 29, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Dear Andrei, Sandor, and Friends,

                     

                    Well, I was just laying down and it occurred to me in my suffering:) whoa boy am I suffering but its a good suffering, one that offers gifts once I pierce through to what the lesson is trying to teach me or show me or cause me to remember.

                     

                    Anyhow, my thought is, well my first thought, I am so having an old dottie night here it seems, my first thought is 'are we talking about the Christ suffering, or the one who bore the Christ'? Now, my second question is 'if the Nathan Jesus fully left the sheaths, and if so did this Being then reunite fully with Zarathustra'? And then my third question or thought is 'why was it that it was Zarathustra that united with the Nathan child', and then can it be that Zarathustra, as he was the one who experienced the Christ descending in various incarnations, can it be that who he really was experiencing was the Nathan child, the one who would bare the Christ, who was working with the Sophian forces each time this Nathan child came closer to the earth'?

                     

                    Now what relationship do these two have in common? What is the relationship between Zarathustra and the Nathan child, the one who was held back from the Fall? I have touched upon this a few years back but I was not able to keep the lineage straight. But I am finding it interesting to think upon how it was that the Christ being and the Nathan Child were perceived as one in a sense by Zarathustra. For it was the Nathan child who truly rang out and fortold the world, during the Lemurian and Atlantean times, and then during our time, that the Christ was descending. It was this Being, working with the Sophian forces throughout our history, who was the spiritual representative of what John the Baptist was here: the one unable to tie the shoe laces of the one to come. She, the Nathan child, preparing the way, and he, the Baptist, preparing the way.

                     

                    All good things,

                    Dottie



                    Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                  • dottie zold
                    Now the other question on my mind is is it that these two being, Zarathustra and the Nathan child, united, was what allowed Zarathustra to fully create new
                    Message 9 of 21 , Apr 29, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Now the other question on my mind is 'is it that these two being, Zarathustra and the Nathan child, united, was what allowed Zarathustra to fully create new sheaths within which to operate? Was it because of the uniting with the Nathan child, that he was able to do this?

                       

                      All good things,

                      Dottie

                      --- On Tue, 4/29/08, dottie zold <dottie_z@...> wrote:

                      From: dottie zold <dottie_z@...>
                      Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                      To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 10:49 PM

                      Dear Andrei, Sandor, and Friends,

                       

                      Well, I was just laying down and it occurred to me in my suffering:) whoa boy am I suffering but its a good suffering, one that offers gifts once I pierce through to what the lesson is trying to teach me or show me or cause me to remember.

                       

                      Anyhow, my thought is, well my first thought, I am so having an old dottie night here it seems, my first thought is 'are we talking about the Christ suffering, or the one who bore the Christ'? Now, my second question is 'if the Nathan Jesus fully left the sheaths, and if so did this Being then reunite fully with Zarathustra'? And then my third question or thought is 'why was it that it was Zarathustra that united with the Nathan child', and then can it be that Zarathustra, as he was the one who experienced the Christ descending in various incarnations, can it be that who he really was experiencing was the Nathan child, the one who would bare the Christ, who was working with the Sophian forces each time this Nathan child came closer to the earth'?

                       

                      Now what relationship do these two have in common? What is the relationship between Zarathustra and the Nathan child, the one who was held back from the Fall? I have touched upon this a few years back but I was not able to keep the lineage straight. But I am finding it interesting to think upon how it was that the Christ being and the Nathan Child were perceived as one in a sense by Zarathustra. For it was the Nathan child who truly rang out and fortold the world, during the Lemurian and Atlantean times, and then during our time, that the Christ was descending. It was this Being, working with the Sophian forces throughout our history, who was the spiritual representative of what John the Baptist was here: the one unable to tie the shoe laces of the one to come. She, the Nathan child, preparing the way, and he, the Baptist, preparing the way.

                       

                      All good things,

                      Dottie



                      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                    • Andrei O.
                      Dear Dottie, Right to the point: Suffering is pain, be it physical or moral. It might imply sorrow, grief, desolation. It may need the ability to wait, to
                      Message 10 of 21 , Apr 30, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Dottie,

                        Right to the point:
                        Suffering is pain, be it physical or moral. It might imply sorrow, grief, desolation. It may need the ability to wait, to endure, to have the patience.
                        At the same time, the knowledge involves suffering, or at least the suffering coming from com-passion.
                        of course, Steiner also was desolated, since his expectations were not fulfilled; the "fruits' (brought about by the people whom he rendered the "How to know the higher worlds") were far from his expectations.

                        As to the Jesus of Nazareth, the topic is more sensible...
                        The pure soul, bearing the influence of Krishna, Buddha... being born in a boy, so as to implant the roots of wisdom, love, purity and readiness of sacrifice. 12 years this process has to be ongoing. Then, closer to his teenage, the Zarathustra I took possession of that boy-man, the I who before that was dwelling and living as another boy, perhaps a little bit more mature (it might be several years difference). That another boy dies, so does his father. Soon his present mother dies too and the both families unite. Years and years the boy is living without any awareness of his greatness. This understanding, through various ways, gets clearer the closer he gets to his age of 30. Then he becomes ready to offer himself and all he possesses - his entity as such - to the One Who's destiny and task is to bear and wave / lift the sin of men. This One was God, cause only the one who created man is able to bear and lift the man's erroneous development, cause only the Creator loves the creature so much, and only He has that power. At the same time his mother is rejuvenated due to the implication of the another mother, whose boy died at his teenage. The One dwells in the the human entity so prepared for three years. First being less attached to his humanity / manship, then more and more. In time, he become God and Man - equally. In time he masters all that is a human entity. He goes deeper, and now his whole body is kept together by his will. The time's just ripe for  the final point of his earth mission.... Blood pours into the Earth, He gets into / becomes the aura of Earth. He paves the way (as first bearer and walker) for the rest of humanity for follow the road of escape, of right development. This path / way might seem not very easy or just sometime, but... the matter is that the Path is not invented, the Path is He himslef, and He is such as He is, not other.

                        Sensible (or sensitive) topic...

                        With all my respect,

                        Andrei



                        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                      • dottie zold
                        Hi Andrei, I wonder that he had expectations rather than hope. I tend to think of him as one being without those kinds of expections in a way. I hear you about
                        Message 11 of 21 , Apr 30, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Hi Andrei,

                           

                          I wonder that he had expectations rather than hope. I tend to think of him as one being without those kinds of expections in a way.

                           

                          I hear you about pain, I think I just think of it differently.

                           

                          I am not so sure you are right in the thought of why this Being was a boy. However that's all good. I tend to think of the Being as what is termed the  'sister soul' of Adam and so I tend to think of the neccessity of this Being comeing forth as male in the physical body.

                           

                          When you say 'this one was God' what do you mean by that? Do you mean God as in the sense as the One or  rather as 'a God'? And I am feeling like there is a little confusion as to who was the child's mother who died etc. although maybe its just the way it is written down. Unless I misunderstand that the mother who is left is actually the step mother and her child it is that has died, the Zarathustra child, but whom now lives within the Nathan child. I am also feeling like you are speaking as if there were only one child who gave up the sheaths instead of two. Why is this? What do you think has occurred or is it just the way you are writing it down?

                           

                          OKay, hold on here for a second. Okay, are you Catholic? Because I am sensing, and I was sensing it earlier, a thought towards this need for 'pain' to be involved and now that only God could heal what He had created: and so then Christ is God to you, so the Jews did kill God to you? I take no issue with you if you think that, only with the ideas. In any case I do not mean to be offensive rather I like to have things clear in front of me. What is your religious tradition if you don't mind answering. I was brought up Catholic however I tended to ignore the adults and only concentrate on the artistic element and the words of Jesus alone. I seemed to not want to do anything else other than cut out these little words and pictures of him and then mold them into the wood works. I somehow breesed through these days of classes without learning any of their rituals or their handsigns:) etc. I am always amazed by my Catholic friends as to their detail of knowing just when to say 'and also to you' etc. Amazed that I somehow missed all of this. Although thankful now or I woulda been a nun in this lifetime within that damn church and then possibly have been, later on, kicked out for insubordination:))))))

                           

                          I think it would be cool to have an open dialogue about these things and debate them from a level where nothing is hidden to the best of our ability and to keep it on the ideas and not the personal.

                           

                          All good things and thanks,

                          Dottie

                          --- On Wed, 4/30/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...> wrote:

                          From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...>
                          Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                          To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 1:39 PM

                          Dear Dottie,

                          Right to the point:
                          Suffering is pain, be it physical or moral. It might imply sorrow, grief, desolation. It may need the ability to wait, to endure, to have the patience.
                          At the same time, the knowledge involves suffering, or at least the suffering coming from com-passion.
                          of course, Steiner also was desolated, since his expectations were not fulfilled; the "fruits' (brought about by the people whom he rendered the "How to know the higher worlds") were far from his expectations.

                          As to the Jesus of Nazareth, the topic is more sensible...
                          The pure soul, bearing the influence of Krishna, Buddha... being born in a boy, so as to implant the roots of wisdom, love, purity and readiness of sacrifice. 12 years this process has to be ongoing. Then, closer to his teenage, the Zarathustra I took possession of that boy-man, the I who before that was dwelling and living as another boy, perhaps a little bit more mature (it might be several years difference). That another boy dies, so does his father. Soon his present mother dies too and the both families unite. Years and years the boy is living without any awareness of his greatness. This understanding, through various ways, gets clearer the closer he gets to his age of 30. Then he becomes ready to offer himself and all he possesses - his entity as such - to the One Who's destiny and task is to bear and wave / lift the sin of men. This One was God, cause only the one who created man is able to bear and lift the man's erroneous development, cause only the Creator loves the creature so much, and only He has that power. At the same time his mother is rejuvenated due to the implication of the another mother, whose boy died at his teenage. The One dwells in the the human entity so prepared for three years. First being less attached to his humanity / manship, then more and more. In time, he become God and Man - equally. In time he masters all that is a human entity. He goes deeper, and now his whole body is kept together by his will. The time's just ripe for  the final point of his earth mission.... Blood pours into the Earth, He gets into / becomes the aura of Earth. He paves the way (as first bearer and walker) for the rest of humanity for follow the road of escape, of right development. This path / way might seem not very easy or just sometime, but... the matter is that the Path is not invented, the Path is He himslef, and He is such as He is, not other.

                          Sensible (or sensitive) topic...

                          With all my respect,

                          Andrei



                          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                        • Andrei O.
                          Hi, everyone ! That subjects of boys changing the I-s etc. is a sensible one and i am not the one to have answers on Yeshua s life. For the time being, I
                          Message 12 of 21 , May 1, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi, everyone !

                            That subjects of boys changing the I-s etc. is a sensible one and i am not the one to have answers on Yeshua's life. For the time being, I incline to think that it was as described in my previous message. My language possible failed me. But I would like to repeat all these, because certainly I won't do it better then before. Should improve my English.
                            Was the Christ God? Yes, if we accept the trinity as god.
                            Did Hebrew and Romans kill god? No, because it is impossible.
                            Church? I grew up as atheist. That is the culture that was inculcated to me, that is how I was educated. The church where I go when I want to go - the Christian orthodox one. I also attended several protestant gatherings. I've mentioned it before: the church, i.e. the community of Christ, is a necessary thing. How it is carrying out it's key-priority task - that's another think. However, I am sure the things with the church will change into better, because everything in church depends on men (priests), and men CAN change.
                            I would say that I, persons like me, those who lived in soviet period, on soviet area, have a certain mentality or vision - we usually do not go often to the church, and the church has no deep influence on our world-vision.
                            As for the pain, suffering, I am not fun of the feelings at all. But it happens, because any man should be able of co-living, co-feeling wit others, with different layers and sides of existence. We may feel pain or suffering due to the compassion we educate in us; compassion, i.e. feelings the same as others do, being able to understand better others, trying to put yourselves in others shoes, opening your heart etc.
                            However, I am not fun at all of these feelings of grieve. Actually I do not like these kind of feelings. If these feelings are coming not from compassion, but due to the life itself (i.e. these are your own feelings), then the overwhelming of these kinds of grieve feelings in day-by-day life it has an destroyable impact on the society.

                            Andrei



                            ----- Original Message ----
                            From: dottie zold <dottie_z@...>
                            To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2008 6:36:16 AM
                            Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                            Hi Andrei,

                             

                            I wonder that he had expectations rather than hope. I tend to think of him as one being without those kinds of expections in a way.

                             

                            I hear you about pain, I think I just think of it differently.

                             

                            I am not so sure you are right in the thought of why this Being was a boy. However that's all good. I tend to think of the Being as what is termed the  'sister soul' of Adam and so I tend to think of the neccessity of this Being comeing forth as male in the physical body.

                             

                            When you say 'this one was God' what do you mean by that? Do you mean God as in the sense as the One or  rather as 'a God'? And I am feeling like there is a little confusion as to who was the child's mother who died etc. although maybe its just the way it is written down. Unless I misunderstand that the mother who is left is actually the step mother and her child it is that has died, the Zarathustra child, but whom now lives within the Nathan child. I am also feeling like you are speaking as if there were only one child who gave up the sheaths instead of two. Why is this? What do you think has occurred or is it just the way you are writing it down?

                             

                            OKay, hold on here for a second. Okay, are you Catholic? Because I am sensing, and I was sensing it earlier, a thought towards this need for 'pain' to be involved and now that only God could heal what He had created: and so then Christ is God to you, so the Jews did kill God to you? I take no issue with you if you think that, only with the ideas. In any case I do not mean to be offensive rather I like to have things clear in front of me. What is your religious tradition if you don't mind answering. I was brought up Catholic however I tended to ignore the adults and only concentrate on the artistic element and the words of Jesus alone. I seemed to not want to do anything else other than cut out these little words and pictures of him and then mold them into the wood works. I somehow breesed through these days of classes without learning any of their rituals or their handsigns:) etc. I am always amazed by my Catholic friends as to their detail of knowing just when to say 'and also to you' etc. Amazed that I somehow missed all of this. Although thankful now or I woulda been a nun in this lifetime within that damn church and then possibly have been, later on, kicked out for insubordination: ))))))

                             

                            I think it would be cool to have an open dialogue about these things and debate them from a level where nothing is hidden to the best of our ability and to keep it on the ideas and not the personal.

                             

                            All good things and thanks,

                            Dottie

                            --- On Wed, 4/30/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                            From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                            Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                            To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                            Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 1:39 PM

                            Dear Dottie,

                            Right to the point:
                            Suffering is pain, be it physical or moral. It might imply sorrow, grief, desolation. It may need the ability to wait, to endure, to have the patience.
                            At the same time, the knowledge involves suffering, or at least the suffering coming from com-passion.
                            of course, Steiner also was desolated, since his expectations were not fulfilled; the "fruits' (brought about by the people whom he rendered the "How to know the higher worlds") were far from his expectations.

                            As to the Jesus of Nazareth, the topic is more sensible...
                            The pure soul, bearing the influence of Krishna, Buddha... being born in a boy, so as to implant the roots of wisdom, love, purity and readiness of sacrifice. 12 years this process has to be ongoing. Then, closer to his teenage, the Zarathustra I took possession of that boy-man, the I who before that was dwelling and living as another boy, perhaps a little bit more mature (it might be several years difference). That another boy dies, so does his father. Soon his present mother dies too and the both families unite. Years and years the boy is living without any awareness of his greatness. This understanding, through various ways, gets clearer the closer he gets to his age of 30. Then he becomes ready to offer himself and all he possesses - his entity as such - to the One Who's destiny and task is to bear and wave / lift the sin of men. This One was God, cause only the one who created man is able to bear and lift the man's erroneous development, cause only the Creator loves the creature so much, and only He has that power. At the same time his mother is rejuvenated due to the implication of the another mother, whose boy died at his teenage. The One dwells in the the human entity so prepared for three years. First being less attached to his humanity / manship, then more and more. In time, he become God and Man - equally. In time he masters all that is a human entity. He goes deeper, and now his whole body is kept together by his will. The time's just ripe for  the final point of his earth mission.... Blood pours into the Earth, He gets into / becomes the aura of Earth. He paves the way (as first bearer and walker) for the rest of humanity for follow the road of escape, of right development. This path / way might seem not very easy or just sometime, but... the matter is that the Path is not invented, the Path is He himslef, and He is such as He is, not other.

                            Sensible (or sensitive) topic...

                            With all my respect,

                            Andrei



                            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                          • Andrei O.
                            Just to mention that But I would like to repeat all these actually should be read as But I would NOT like to repeat all these . Andrei ... From: Andrei O.
                            Message 13 of 21 , May 1, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Just to mention that "But I would like to repeat all these" actually should be read as "But I would NOT like to repeat all these".
                              Andrei


                              ----- Original Message ----
                              From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...>
                              To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Friday, May 2, 2008 7:29:43 AM
                              Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                              Hi, everyone !

                              That subjects of boys changing the I-s etc. is a sensible one and i am not the one to have answers on Yeshua's life. For the time being, I incline to think that it was as described in my previous message. My language possible failed me. , because certainly I won't do it better then before. Should improve my English.
                              Was the Christ God? Yes, if we accept the trinity as god.
                              Did Hebrew and Romans kill god? No, because it is impossible.
                              Church? I grew up as atheist. That is the culture that was inculcated to me, that is how I was educated. The church where I go when I want to go - the Christian orthodox one. I also attended several protestant gatherings. I've mentioned it before: the church, i.e. the community of Christ, is a necessary thing. How it is carrying out it's key-priority task - that's another think. However, I am sure the things with the church will change into better, because everything in church depends on men (priests), and men CAN change.
                              I would say that I, persons like me, those who lived in soviet period, on soviet area, have a certain mentality or vision - we usually do not go often to the church, and the church has no deep influence on our world-vision.
                              As for the pain, suffering, I am not fun of the feelings at all. But it happens, because any man should be able of co-living, co-feeling wit others, with different layers and sides of existence. We may feel pain or suffering due to the compassion we educate in us; compassion, i.e. feelings the same as others do, being able to understand better others, trying to put yourselves in others shoes, opening your heart etc.
                              However, I am not fun at all of these feelings of grieve. Actually I do not like these kind of feelings. If these feelings are coming not from compassion, but due to the life itself (i.e. these are your own feelings), then the overwhelming of these kinds of grieve feelings in day-by-day life it has an destroyable impact on the society.

                              Andrei



                              ----- Original Message ----
                              From: dottie zold <dottie_z@yahoo. com>
                              To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                              Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2008 6:36:16 AM
                              Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                              Hi Andrei,

                               

                              I wonder that he had expectations rather than hope. I tend to think of him as one being without those kinds of expections in a way.

                               

                              I hear you about pain, I think I just think of it differently.

                               

                              I am not so sure you are right in the thought of why this Being was a boy. However that's all good. I tend to think of the Being as what is termed the  'sister soul' of Adam and so I tend to think of the neccessity of this Being comeing forth as male in the physical body.

                               

                              When you say 'this one was God' what do you mean by that? Do you mean God as in the sense as the One or  rather as 'a God'? And I am feeling like there is a little confusion as to who was the child's mother who died etc. although maybe its just the way it is written down. Unless I misunderstand that the mother who is left is actually the step mother and her child it is that has died, the Zarathustra child, but whom now lives within the Nathan child. I am also feeling like you are speaking as if there were only one child who gave up the sheaths instead of two. Why is this? What do you think has occurred or is it just the way you are writing it down?

                               

                              OKay, hold on here for a second. Okay, are you Catholic? Because I am sensing, and I was sensing it earlier, a thought towards this need for 'pain' to be involved and now that only God could heal what He had created: and so then Christ is God to you, so the Jews did kill God to you? I take no issue with you if you think that, only with the ideas. In any case I do not mean to be offensive rather I like to have things clear in front of me. What is your religious tradition if you don't mind answering. I was brought up Catholic however I tended to ignore the adults and only concentrate on the artistic element and the words of Jesus alone. I seemed to not want to do anything else other than cut out these little words and pictures of him and then mold them into the wood works. I somehow breesed through these days of classes without learning any of their rituals or their handsigns:) etc. I am always amazed by my Catholic friends as to their detail of knowing just when to say 'and also to you' etc. Amazed that I somehow missed all of this. Although thankful now or I woulda been a nun in this lifetime within that damn church and then possibly have been, later on, kicked out for insubordination: ))))))

                               

                              I think it would be cool to have an open dialogue about these things and debate them from a level where nothing is hidden to the best of our ability and to keep it on the ideas and not the personal.

                               

                              All good things and thanks,

                              Dottie

                              --- On Wed, 4/30/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                              From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                              Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                              To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                              Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 1:39 PM

                              Dear Dottie,

                              Right to the point:
                              Suffering is pain, be it physical or moral. It might imply sorrow, grief, desolation. It may need the ability to wait, to endure, to have the patience.
                              At the same time, the knowledge involves suffering, or at least the suffering coming from com-passion.
                              of course, Steiner also was desolated, since his expectations were not fulfilled; the "fruits' (brought about by the people whom he rendered the "How to know the higher worlds") were far from his expectations.

                              As to the Jesus of Nazareth, the topic is more sensible...
                              The pure soul, bearing the influence of Krishna, Buddha... being born in a boy, so as to implant the roots of wisdom, love, purity and readiness of sacrifice. 12 years this process has to be ongoing. Then, closer to his teenage, the Zarathustra I took possession of that boy-man, the I who before that was dwelling and living as another boy, perhaps a little bit more mature (it might be several years difference). That another boy dies, so does his father. Soon his present mother dies too and the both families unite. Years and years the boy is living without any awareness of his greatness. This understanding, through various ways, gets clearer the closer he gets to his age of 30. Then he becomes ready to offer himself and all he possesses - his entity as such - to the One Who's destiny and task is to bear and wave / lift the sin of men. This One was God, cause only the one who created man is able to bear and lift the man's erroneous development, cause only the Creator loves the creature so much, and only He has that power. At the same time his mother is rejuvenated due to the implication of the another mother, whose boy died at his teenage. The One dwells in the the human entity so prepared for three years. First being less attached to his humanity / manship, then more and more. In time, he become God and Man - equally. In time he masters all that is a human entity. He goes deeper, and now his whole body is kept together by his will. The time's just ripe for  the final point of his earth mission.... Blood pours into the Earth, He gets into / becomes the aura of Earth. He paves the way (as first bearer and walker) for the rest of humanity for follow the road of escape, of right development. This path / way might seem not very easy or just sometime, but... the matter is that the Path is not invented, the Path is He himslef, and He is such as He is, not other.

                              Sensible (or sensitive) topic...

                              With all my respect,

                              Andrei



                              Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                              Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                              Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.



                              Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                            • dottie zold
                              Hi Andrei and Friends, Church is an interesting thing for me. I think a time has passed for this idea of church in the old manner. I do want to say that I know
                              Message 14 of 21 , May 3, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment

                                Hi Andrei and Friends,

                                 

                                Church is an interesting thing for me. I think a time has passed for this idea of church in the old manner. I do want to say that I know it still serves people in a very big way. My hope  is that it would be able to serve in a way that freedom can sit in the room. It is my experience that freedom does not sit in the room from the pulpit where a man is looked at as having the answers versus inspiring answers and questions. It's already a given and things are mostly put onto how we are sinners and not on the mystery, only in relations to our sins. That's a very big issue I think facing us and the future. And the church as I see it and experience its people, its not okay to move further into the mystery as its already been stated. Now all that's left is to look into one's life and see how we can stop sinning. It does serve and at the same time I think its time to grow up further than that point.

                                 

                                We have been incarnating over and over and we can not continue to hear the same old words, the same old wine in new wineskins. Something has got to give. We can trust that we are now grown and we are now at a  really crucial point since Golgotha. The church seems to be stuck in an old groove that does not really serve in the manner it can serve where questions are posed that have us thinking on things as the mystery of our lives of our world.

                                 

                                I don't think it is going to change Andrei. Although things may change it seems it is going to be kept trying to keep itself alive through its parishioners need of them. But they don';t realize that they themselves have to grow. The mystery is lost. Isis is lost. And she can't be the old Isis, she is the new Isis. And this new Isis requires that we are grown.

                                 

                                All good things and thanks,

                                Dottie

                                --- On Thu, 5/1/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...> wrote:

                                From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...>
                                Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 9:29 PM

                                Hi, everyone !

                                That subjects of boys changing the I-s etc. is a sensible one and i am not the one to have answers on Yeshua's life. For the time being, I incline to think that it was as described in my previous message. My language possible failed me. But I would like to repeat all these, because certainly I won't do it better then before. Should improve my English.
                                Was the Christ God? Yes, if we accept the trinity as god.
                                Did Hebrew and Romans kill god? No, because it is impossible.
                                Church? I grew up as atheist. That is the culture that was inculcated to me, that is how I was educated. The church where I go when I want to go - the Christian orthodox one. I also attended several protestant gatherings. I've mentioned it before: the church, i.e. the community of Christ, is a necessary thing. How it is carrying out it's key-priority task - that's another think. However, I am sure the things with the church will change into better, because everything in church depends on men (priests), and men CAN change.
                                I would say that I, persons like me, those who lived in soviet period, on soviet area, have a certain mentality or vision - we usually do not go often to the church, and the church has no deep influence on our world-vision.
                                As for the pain, suffering, I am not fun of the feelings at all. But it happens, because any man should be able of co-living, co-feeling wit others, with different layers and sides of existence. We may feel pain or suffering due to the compassion we educate in us; compassion, i.e. feelings the same as others do, being able to understand better others, trying to put yourselves in others shoes, opening your heart etc.
                                However, I am not fun at all of these feelings of grieve. Actually I do not like these kind of feelings. If these feelings are coming not from compassion, but due to the life itself (i.e. these are your own feelings), then the overwhelming of these kinds of grieve feelings in day-by-day life it has an destroyable impact on the society.

                                Andrei



                                ----- Original Message ----
                                From: dottie zold <dottie_z@...>
                                To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2008 6:36:16 AM
                                Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                Hi Andrei,

                                 

                                I wonder that he had expectations rather than hope. I tend to think of him as one being without those kinds of expections in a way.

                                 

                                I hear you about pain, I think I just think of it differently.

                                 

                                I am not so sure you are right in the thought of why this Being was a boy. However that's all good. I tend to think of the Being as what is termed the  'sister soul' of Adam and so I tend to think of the neccessity of this Being comeing forth as male in the physical body.

                                 

                                When you say 'this one was God' what do you mean by that? Do you mean God as in the sense as the One or  rather as 'a God'? And I am feeling like there is a little confusion as to who was the child's mother who died etc. although maybe its just the way it is written down. Unless I misunderstand that the mother who is left is actually the step mother and her child it is that has died, the Zarathustra child, but whom now lives within the Nathan child. I am also feeling like you are speaking as if there were only one child who gave up the sheaths instead of two. Why is this? What do you think has occurred or is it just the way you are writing it down?

                                 

                                OKay, hold on here for a second. Okay, are you Catholic? Because I am sensing, and I was sensing it earlier, a thought towards this need for 'pain' to be involved and now that only God could heal what He had created: and so then Christ is God to you, so the Jews did kill God to you? I take no issue with you if you think that, only with the ideas. In any case I do not mean to be offensive rather I like to have things clear in front of me. What is your religious tradition if you don't mind answering. I was brought up Catholic however I tended to ignore the adults and only concentrate on the artistic element and the words of Jesus alone. I seemed to not want to do anything else other than cut out these little words and pictures of him and then mold them into the wood works. I somehow breesed through these days of classes without learning any of their rituals or their handsigns:) etc. I am always amazed by my Catholic friends as to their detail of knowing just when to say 'and also to you' etc. Amazed that I somehow missed all of this. Although thankful now or I woulda been a nun in this lifetime within that damn church and then possibly have been, later on, kicked out for insubordination: ))))))

                                 

                                I think it would be cool to have an open dialogue about these things and debate them from a level where nothing is hidden to the best of our ability and to keep it on the ideas and not the personal.

                                 

                                All good things and thanks,

                                Dottie

                                --- On Wed, 4/30/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 1:39 PM

                                Dear Dottie,

                                Right to the point:
                                Suffering is pain, be it physical or moral. It might imply sorrow, grief, desolation. It may need the ability to wait, to endure, to have the patience.
                                At the same time, the knowledge involves suffering, or at least the suffering coming from com-passion.
                                of course, Steiner also was desolated, since his expectations were not fulfilled; the "fruits' (brought about by the people whom he rendered the "How to know the higher worlds") were far from his expectations.

                                As to the Jesus of Nazareth, the topic is more sensible...
                                The pure soul, bearing the influence of Krishna, Buddha... being born in a boy, so as to implant the roots of wisdom, love, purity and readiness of sacrifice. 12 years this process has to be ongoing. Then, closer to his teenage, the Zarathustra I took possession of that boy-man, the I who before that was dwelling and living as another boy, perhaps a little bit more mature (it might be several years difference). That another boy dies, so does his father. Soon his present mother dies too and the both families unite. Years and years the boy is living without any awareness of his greatness. This understanding, through various ways, gets clearer the closer he gets to his age of 30. Then he becomes ready to offer himself and all he possesses - his entity as such - to the One Who's destiny and task is to bear and wave / lift the sin of men. This One was God, cause only the one who created man is able to bear and lift the man's erroneous development, cause only the Creator loves the creature so much, and only He has that power. At the same time his mother is rejuvenated due to the implication of the another mother, whose boy died at his teenage. The One dwells in the the human entity so prepared for three years. First being less attached to his humanity / manship, then more and more. In time, he become God and Man - equally. In time he masters all that is a human entity. He goes deeper, and now his whole body is kept together by his will. The time's just ripe for  the final point of his earth mission.... Blood pours into the Earth, He gets into / becomes the aura of Earth. He paves the way (as first bearer and walker) for the rest of humanity for follow the road of escape, of right development. This path / way might seem not very easy or just sometime, but... the matter is that the Path is not invented, the Path is He himslef, and He is such as He is, not other.

                                Sensible (or sensitive) topic...

                                With all my respect,

                                Andrei



                                Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                              • dottie zold
                                Hi Andrei, The I s are a sensitive issue. And I think its a good question to ponder but also to hear other points of view as well so we can see what we all
                                Message 15 of 21 , May 3, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment

                                  Hi Andrei,

                                   

                                  The I's are a sensitive issue. And I think its a good question to ponder but also to hear other points of view as well so we can see what we all have been thinking on. I'll think on it some more:)

                                   

                                  All good things,

                                  Dottie

                                  --- On Thu, 5/1/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...> wrote:

                                  From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...>
                                  Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                  To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                  Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 10:30 PM

                                  Just to mention that "But I would like to repeat all these" actually should be read as "But I would NOT like to repeat all these".
                                  Andrei


                                  ----- Original Message ----
                                  From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...>
                                  To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Friday, May 2, 2008 7:29:43 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                  Hi, everyone !

                                  That subjects of boys changing the I-s etc. is a sensible one and i am not the one to have answers on Yeshua's life. For the time being, I incline to think that it was as described in my previous message. My language possible failed me. , because certainly I won't do it better then before. Should improve my English.
                                  Was the Christ God? Yes, if we accept the trinity as god.
                                  Did Hebrew and Romans kill god? No, because it is impossible.
                                  Church? I grew up as atheist. That is the culture that was inculcated to me, that is how I was educated. The church where I go when I want to go - the Christian orthodox one. I also attended several protestant gatherings. I've mentioned it before: the church, i.e. the community of Christ, is a necessary thing. How it is carrying out it's key-priority task - that's another think. However, I am sure the things with the church will change into better, because everything in church depends on men (priests), and men CAN change.
                                  I would say that I, persons like me, those who lived in soviet period, on soviet area, have a certain mentality or vision - we usually do not go often to the church, and the church has no deep influence on our world-vision.
                                  As for the pain, suffering, I am not fun of the feelings at all. But it happens, because any man should be able of co-living, co-feeling wit others, with different layers and sides of existence. We may feel pain or suffering due to the compassion we educate in us; compassion, i.e. feelings the same as others do, being able to understand better others, trying to put yourselves in others shoes, opening your heart etc.
                                  However, I am not fun at all of these feelings of grieve. Actually I do not like these kind of feelings. If these feelings are coming not from compassion, but due to the life itself (i.e. these are your own feelings), then the overwhelming of these kinds of grieve feelings in day-by-day life it has an destroyable impact on the society.

                                  Andrei



                                  ----- Original Message ----
                                  From: dottie zold <dottie_z@yahoo. com>
                                  To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                  Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2008 6:36:16 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                  Hi Andrei,

                                   

                                  I wonder that he had expectations rather than hope. I tend to think of him as one being without those kinds of expections in a way.

                                   

                                  I hear you about pain, I think I just think of it differently.

                                   

                                  I am not so sure you are right in the thought of why this Being was a boy. However that's all good. I tend to think of the Being as what is termed the  'sister soul' of Adam and so I tend to think of the neccessity of this Being comeing forth as male in the physical body.

                                   

                                  When you say 'this one was God' what do you mean by that? Do you mean God as in the sense as the One or  rather as 'a God'? And I am feeling like there is a little confusion as to who was the child's mother who died etc. although maybe its just the way it is written down. Unless I misunderstand that the mother who is left is actually the step mother and her child it is that has died, the Zarathustra child, but whom now lives within the Nathan child. I am also feeling like you are speaking as if there were only one child who gave up the sheaths instead of two. Why is this? What do you think has occurred or is it just the way you are writing it down?

                                   

                                  OKay, hold on here for a second. Okay, are you Catholic? Because I am sensing, and I was sensing it earlier, a thought towards this need for 'pain' to be involved and now that only God could heal what He had created: and so then Christ is God to you, so the Jews did kill God to you? I take no issue with you if you think that, only with the ideas. In any case I do not mean to be offensive rather I like to have things clear in front of me. What is your religious tradition if you don't mind answering. I was brought up Catholic however I tended to ignore the adults and only concentrate on the artistic element and the words of Jesus alone. I seemed to not want to do anything else other than cut out these little words and pictures of him and then mold them into the wood works. I somehow breesed through these days of classes without learning any of their rituals or their handsigns:) etc. I am always amazed by my Catholic friends as to their detail of knowing just when to say 'and also to you' etc. Amazed that I somehow missed all of this. Although thankful now or I woulda been a nun in this lifetime within that damn church and then possibly have been, later on, kicked out for insubordination: ))))))

                                   

                                  I think it would be cool to have an open dialogue about these things and debate them from a level where nothing is hidden to the best of our ability and to keep it on the ideas and not the personal.

                                   

                                  All good things and thanks,

                                  Dottie

                                  --- On Wed, 4/30/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                  From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                  Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                  To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                  Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 1:39 PM

                                  Dear Dottie,

                                  Right to the point:
                                  Suffering is pain, be it physical or moral. It might imply sorrow, grief, desolation. It may need the ability to wait, to endure, to have the patience.
                                  At the same time, the knowledge involves suffering, or at least the suffering coming from com-passion.
                                  of course, Steiner also was desolated, since his expectations were not fulfilled; the "fruits' (brought about by the people whom he rendered the "How to know the higher worlds") were far from his expectations.

                                  As to the Jesus of Nazareth, the topic is more sensible...
                                  The pure soul, bearing the influence of Krishna, Buddha... being born in a boy, so as to implant the roots of wisdom, love, purity and readiness of sacrifice. 12 years this process has to be ongoing. Then, closer to his teenage, the Zarathustra I took possession of that boy-man, the I who before that was dwelling and living as another boy, perhaps a little bit more mature (it might be several years difference). That another boy dies, so does his father. Soon his present mother dies too and the both families unite. Years and years the boy is living without any awareness of his greatness. This understanding, through various ways, gets clearer the closer he gets to his age of 30. Then he becomes ready to offer himself and all he possesses - his entity as such - to the One Who's destiny and task is to bear and wave / lift the sin of men. This One was God, cause only the one who created man is able to bear and lift the man's erroneous development, cause only the Creator loves the creature so much, and only He has that power. At the same time his mother is rejuvenated due to the implication of the another mother, whose boy died at his teenage. The One dwells in the the human entity so prepared for three years. First being less attached to his humanity / manship, then more and more. In time, he become God and Man - equally. In time he masters all that is a human entity. He goes deeper, and now his whole body is kept together by his will. The time's just ripe for  the final point of his earth mission.... Blood pours into the Earth, He gets into / becomes the aura of Earth. He paves the way (as first bearer and walker) for the rest of humanity for follow the road of escape, of right development. This path / way might seem not very easy or just sometime, but... the matter is that the Path is not invented, the Path is He himslef, and He is such as He is, not other.

                                  Sensible (or sensitive) topic...

                                  With all my respect,

                                  Andrei



                                  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.



                                  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                                • Andrei O.
                                  Dear all, Dottie, Sandor, To start with, may I mention that whatever I say here has not at all the purpose to impose any opinion on anyone. It is rather a
                                  Message 16 of 21 , May 3, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear all,
                                    Dottie, Sandor,

                                    To start with, may I mention that whatever I say here has not at all the purpose to impose any opinion on anyone. It is rather a co-participation in discussing the subjects.

                                    So, the church. Who's making the church as it is? Men. Why more inspired, more inspired men are not quite present in the church as priests? Why this glue of Christians is now a useless body, a sterile womb? Thus, to believe or not in the future of church implies to believe or not that the man of real faith and compassion for  the others will or will not come in the church/basilica/community.

                                    The focus in the churches is, in my opinion, put on the liberation - on liberation/salvation more then on "you are sinners". As for the mysteries, they are present in the religious services, even if not understood fully by those who are making them. We have, thus, the services on baptism, Eucharist etc, and most priest are accepting that these procedures are mysteries/divine secrets, but effective ones. This lack of understanding leads to that so high respect and observance of the doctrine and non-openness to the questions. This lack of understanding and live contact with spiritual world, mixed sometime with lack of compassion with the people the priests live with - all these leads to indoctrination; and indoctrination does not, ex definitio, like questions and doubts. I still wander how the priests themselves succeed to avoid questioning themselves.

                                    However, this body is still useful for many people. And again, the new people may change the church, for church is made of people. If church will not meet the needs of people, it will transform itself into an useless relict.

                                    With all respect,

                                    Andrei



                                    ----- Original Message ----
                                    From: dottie zold <dottie_z@...>
                                    To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2008 8:45:54 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                    Hi Andrei and Friends,

                                     

                                    Church is an interesting thing for me. I think a time has passed for this idea of church in the old manner. I do want to say that I know it still serves people in a very big way. My hope  is that it would be able to serve in a way that freedom can sit in the room. It is my experience that freedom does not sit in the room from the pulpit where a man is looked at as having the answers versus inspiring answers and questions. It's already a given and things are mostly put onto how we are sinners and not on the mystery, only in relations to our sins. That's a very big issue I think facing us and the future. And the church as I see it and experience its people, its not okay to move further into the mystery as its already been stated. Now all that's left is to look into one's life and see how we can stop sinning. It does serve and at the same time I think its time to grow up further than that point.

                                     

                                    We have been incarnating over and over and we can not continue to hear the same old words, the same old wine in new wineskins. Something has got to give. We can trust that we are now grown and we are now at a  really crucial point since Golgotha. The church seems to be stuck in an old groove that does not really serve in the manner it can serve where questions are posed that have us thinking on things as the mystery of our lives of our world.

                                     

                                    I don't think it is going to change Andrei. Although things may change it seems it is going to be kept trying to keep itself alive through its parishioners need of them. But they don';t realize that they themselves have to grow. The mystery is lost. Isis is lost. And she can't be the old Isis, she is the new Isis. And this new Isis requires that we are grown.

                                     

                                    All good things and thanks,

                                    Dottie

                                    --- On Thu, 5/1/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                    From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                    Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                    To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                    Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 9:29 PM

                                    Hi, everyone !

                                    That subjects of boys changing the I-s etc. is a sensible one and i am not the one to have answers on Yeshua's life. For the time being, I incline to think that it was as described in my previous message. My language possible failed me. But I would like to repeat all these, because certainly I won't do it better then before. Should improve my English.
                                    Was the Christ God? Yes, if we accept the trinity as god.
                                    Did Hebrew and Romans kill god? No, because it is impossible.
                                    Church? I grew up as atheist. That is the culture that was inculcated to me, that is how I was educated. The church where I go when I want to go - the Christian orthodox one. I also attended several protestant gatherings. I've mentioned it before: the church, i.e. the community of Christ, is a necessary thing. How it is carrying out it's key-priority task - that's another think. However, I am sure the things with the church will change into better, because everything in church depends on men (priests), and men CAN change.
                                    I would say that I, persons like me, those who lived in soviet period, on soviet area, have a certain mentality or vision - we usually do not go often to the church, and the church has no deep influence on our world-vision.
                                    As for the pain, suffering, I am not fun of the feelings at all. But it happens, because any man should be able of co-living, co-feeling wit others, with different layers and sides of existence. We may feel pain or suffering due to the compassion we educate in us; compassion, i.e. feelings the same as others do, being able to understand better others, trying to put yourselves in others shoes, opening your heart etc.
                                    However, I am not fun at all of these feelings of grieve. Actually I do not like these kind of feelings. If these feelings are coming not from compassion, but due to the life itself (i.e. these are your own feelings), then the overwhelming of these kinds of grieve feelings in day-by-day life it has an destroyable impact on the society.

                                    Andrei



                                    ----- Original Message ----
                                    From: dottie zold <dottie_z@yahoo. com>
                                    To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                    Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2008 6:36:16 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                    Hi Andrei,

                                     

                                    I wonder that he had expectations rather than hope. I tend to think of him as one being without those kinds of expections in a way.

                                     

                                    I hear you about pain, I think I just think of it differently.

                                     

                                    I am not so sure you are right in the thought of why this Being was a boy. However that's all good. I tend to think of the Being as what is termed the  'sister soul' of Adam and so I tend to think of the neccessity of this Being comeing forth as male in the physical body.

                                     

                                    When you say 'this one was God' what do you mean by that? Do you mean God as in the sense as the One or  rather as 'a God'? And I am feeling like there is a little confusion as to who was the child's mother who died etc. although maybe its just the way it is written down. Unless I misunderstand that the mother who is left is actually the step mother and her child it is that has died, the Zarathustra child, but whom now lives within the Nathan child. I am also feeling like you are speaking as if there were only one child who gave up the sheaths instead of two. Why is this? What do you think has occurred or is it just the way you are writing it down?

                                     

                                    OKay, hold on here for a second. Okay, are you Catholic? Because I am sensing, and I was sensing it earlier, a thought towards this need for 'pain' to be involved and now that only God could heal what He had created: and so then Christ is God to you, so the Jews did kill God to you? I take no issue with you if you think that, only with the ideas. In any case I do not mean to be offensive rather I like to have things clear in front of me. What is your religious tradition if you don't mind answering. I was brought up Catholic however I tended to ignore the adults and only concentrate on the artistic element and the words of Jesus alone. I seemed to not want to do anything else other than cut out these little words and pictures of him and then mold them into the wood works. I somehow breesed through these days of classes without learning any of their rituals or their handsigns:) etc. I am always amazed by my Catholic friends as to their detail of knowing just when to say 'and also to you' etc. Amazed that I somehow missed all of this. Although thankful now or I woulda been a nun in this lifetime within that damn church and then possibly have been, later on, kicked out for insubordination: ))))))

                                     

                                    I think it would be cool to have an open dialogue about these things and debate them from a level where nothing is hidden to the best of our ability and to keep it on the ideas and not the personal.

                                     

                                    All good things and thanks,

                                    Dottie

                                    --- On Wed, 4/30/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                    From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                    Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                    To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                    Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 1:39 PM

                                    Dear Dottie,

                                    Right to the point:
                                    Suffering is pain, be it physical or moral. It might imply sorrow, grief, desolation. It may need the ability to wait, to endure, to have the patience.
                                    At the same time, the knowledge involves suffering, or at least the suffering coming from com-passion.
                                    of course, Steiner also was desolated, since his expectations were not fulfilled; the "fruits' (brought about by the people whom he rendered the "How to know the higher worlds") were far from his expectations.

                                    As to the Jesus of Nazareth, the topic is more sensible...
                                    The pure soul, bearing the influence of Krishna, Buddha... being born in a boy, so as to implant the roots of wisdom, love, purity and readiness of sacrifice. 12 years this process has to be ongoing. Then, closer to his teenage, the Zarathustra I took possession of that boy-man, the I who before that was dwelling and living as another boy, perhaps a little bit more mature (it might be several years difference). That another boy dies, so does his father. Soon his present mother dies too and the both families unite. Years and years the boy is living without any awareness of his greatness. This understanding, through various ways, gets clearer the closer he gets to his age of 30. Then he becomes ready to offer himself and all he possesses - his entity as such - to the One Who's destiny and task is to bear and wave / lift the sin of men. This One was God, cause only the one who created man is able to bear and lift the man's erroneous development, cause only the Creator loves the creature so much, and only He has that power. At the same time his mother is rejuvenated due to the implication of the another mother, whose boy died at his teenage. The One dwells in the the human entity so prepared for three years. First being less attached to his humanity / manship, then more and more. In time, he become God and Man - equally. In time he masters all that is a human entity. He goes deeper, and now his whole body is kept together by his will. The time's just ripe for  the final point of his earth mission.... Blood pours into the Earth, He gets into / becomes the aura of Earth. He paves the way (as first bearer and walker) for the rest of humanity for follow the road of escape, of right development. This path / way might seem not very easy or just sometime, but... the matter is that the Path is not invented, the Path is He himslef, and He is such as He is, not other.

                                    Sensible (or sensitive) topic...

                                    With all my respect,

                                    Andrei



                                    Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                    Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                    Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                    Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                    Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                                  • dottie zold
                                    Dear Andrei, first I want to really thank you for having this conversation in a way that gently listens and shares. I am not sure the rituals, if not
                                    Message 17 of 21 , May 3, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      Dear Andrei, first I want to really thank you for having this conversation in a way that gently listens and shares.

                                       

                                      I am not sure the rituals, if not understood properly, and even maybe what is called to be transformed for todays age, have a real affect. If people, of today in the consciousness soul age, are not awake to the real mysteries of these rituals and what they have to do with them and also what their responsibility is as well, it is a tragedy. I think we can trust we are now a grown people. I think not growing up, and relating to this new age properly, continues to impeded the transition across the Threshold. We have to find a way to be awake in this. At least this is my understanding of Rudolf Steiner's works and I strive to be awake in this to the best of my ability, and in my imagination.

                                       

                                      There was a really tight lady who was a very knowledeable Steiner student who passed away recently. She was a practioner of the ritual in the Church as she felt it still had meaning. I think it is she who brought the  meaning to it because she was striving to be conscious in it. I think it makes a really big difference. But this type of dialogue is not really had or even understood by not only the parishioners but by the preachers themselves.

                                       

                                      I was thinking 'yeah anthros can head into the church and help bring understanding to the rituals in centuries to come'. Yet there is something about the whole structure that must change. It's not the people, its the mindset of 'the little ones'. I was thinking about that term just shared recently and I keep thinking, they were children Jesus was speaking about. Well, we can continue to think of ourselves as children or we can wake up to the fact we need to meet this time, this new time, this new incarnation rightly.

                                       

                                      It seems to me that it is so easy to fall into the old shoe we were before. No matter how great the personality or deed has no matter, rather what matters is that we do not remain the same. We shall have the same impulses however they must be transformed to even a greater level. That's  why it is good to consider our past biographies even if we are not aware of who we were etc. There is a point of departure wherein we can ask ' am I transforming from my last life or are these the same issues I faced then and am continue to respond in the same manner?'

                                       

                                      It seems to me that we don't ask this question and don 't consider the possibility of what needs to be transformed out of the last biography, not just what has to be transformed now out of this mindset. For this ongoing stream of consciousness continues and we have to catch it. We can just say 'hey what the hey' :) or we can say 'man, what the hell is my responsibility here?' 'How am I doing?'

                                       

                                      And this is where the church comes in at in regards to 'we are no longer little children'. These people are not little children and it seems to me that the 'flock' is being led astray by well meaning people. I don't even think really the adversaries, the adversarial brotherhood are even in the churches any more really. They got bigger fish to fry because communities are being built by people trying to wake up. And they got to get into there and keep the divisions going on. And that is what we have going on a bit in Anthroposophy. But that's okay because Michael is dedicated to this group of warriors striving to wake up. He stands firm in this cause and for this was the teaching brought forth by Rudolf Steiner.

                                       

                                      The Johannine Church as opposed to the Church of Peter is really the new way but transformed into a way of living versus on Sunday putting our bonnets on. Each man has the pulpit, and takes care of this to the best of his ability. (I say man in the sense of 'mankind' always) The Catholics will say, the esoteric ones anyway, will say these two churches have to reunite. Well, I think not. Not in the olden form of the Church of Peter as it is called. The Church of the Magdalene and James serves the people in a way that allows freedom whereas the Church of Peter does not. Can it, can the Church of Peter change its inner structure: I think not.

                                       

                                      I think even the rituals are to be transformed for this time as well. We must have reached a point wherein we are working in the etheric realms to meet the Christ in consciousness.

                                       

                                      All good things,

                                      Dottie

                                      --- On Sat, 5/3/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...> wrote:

                                      From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...>
                                      Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                      To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                      Date: Saturday, May 3, 2008, 11:35 AM

                                      Dear all,
                                      Dottie, Sandor,

                                      To start with, may I mention that whatever I say here has not at all the purpose to impose any opinion on anyone. It is rather a co-participation in discussing the subjects.

                                      So, the church. Who's making the church as it is? Men. Why more inspired, more inspired men are not quite present in the church as priests? Why this glue of Christians is now a useless body, a sterile womb? Thus, to believe or not in the future of church implies to believe or not that the man of real faith and compassion for  the others will or will not come in the church/basilica/community.

                                      The focus in the churches is, in my opinion, put on the liberation - on liberation/salvation more then on "you are sinners". As for the mysteries, they are present in the religious services, even if not understood fully by those who are making them. We have, thus, the services on baptism, Eucharist etc, and most priest are accepting that these procedures are mysteries/divine secrets, but effective ones. This lack of understanding leads to that so high respect and observance of the doctrine and non-openness to the questions. This lack of understanding and live contact with spiritual world, mixed sometime with lack of compassion with the people the priests live with - all these leads to indoctrination; and indoctrination does not, ex definitio, like questions and doubts. I still wander how the priests themselves succeed to avoid questioning themselves.

                                      However, this body is still useful for many people. And again, the new people may change the church, for church is made of people. If church will not meet the needs of people, it will transform itself into an useless relict.

                                      With all respect,

                                      Andrei



                                      ----- Original Message ----
                                      From: dottie zold <dottie_z@...>
                                      To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2008 8:45:54 PM
                                      Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                      Hi Andrei and Friends,

                                       

                                      Church is an interesting thing for me. I think a time has passed for this idea of church in the old manner. I do want to say that I know it still serves people in a very big way. My hope  is that it would be able to serve in a way that freedom can sit in the room. It is my experience that freedom does not sit in the room from the pulpit where a man is looked at as having the answers versus inspiring answers and questions. It's already a given and things are mostly put onto how we are sinners and not on the mystery, only in relations to our sins. That's a very big issue I think facing us and the future. And the church as I see it and experience its people, its not okay to move further into the mystery as its already been stated. Now all that's left is to look into one's life and see how we can stop sinning. It does serve and at the same time I think its time to grow up further than that point.

                                       

                                      We have been incarnating over and over and we can not continue to hear the same old words, the same old wine in new wineskins. Something has got to give. We can trust that we are now grown and we are now at a  really crucial point since Golgotha. The church seems to be stuck in an old groove that does not really serve in the manner it can serve where questions are posed that have us thinking on things as the mystery of our lives of our world.

                                       

                                      I don't think it is going to change Andrei. Although things may change it seems it is going to be kept trying to keep itself alive through its parishioners need of them. But they don';t realize that they themselves have to grow. The mystery is lost. Isis is lost. And she can't be the old Isis, she is the new Isis. And this new Isis requires that we are grown.

                                       

                                      All good things and thanks,

                                      Dottie

                                      --- On Thu, 5/1/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                      From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                      Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                      To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                      Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 9:29 PM

                                      Hi, everyone !

                                      That subjects of boys changing the I-s etc. is a sensible one and i am not the one to have answers on Yeshua's life. For the time being, I incline to think that it was as described in my previous message. My language possible failed me. But I would like to repeat all these, because certainly I won't do it better then before. Should improve my English.
                                      Was the Christ God? Yes, if we accept the trinity as god.
                                      Did Hebrew and Romans kill god? No, because it is impossible.
                                      Church? I grew up as atheist. That is the culture that was inculcated to me, that is how I was educated. The church where I go when I want to go - the Christian orthodox one. I also attended several protestant gatherings. I've mentioned it before: the church, i.e. the community of Christ, is a necessary thing. How it is carrying out it's key-priority task - that's another think. However, I am sure the things with the church will change into better, because everything in church depends on men (priests), and men CAN change.
                                      I would say that I, persons like me, those who lived in soviet period, on soviet area, have a certain mentality or vision - we usually do not go often to the church, and the church has no deep influence on our world-vision.
                                      As for the pain, suffering, I am not fun of the feelings at all. But it happens, because any man should be able of co-living, co-feeling wit others, with different layers and sides of existence. We may feel pain or suffering due to the compassion we educate in us; compassion, i.e. feelings the same as others do, being able to understand better others, trying to put yourselves in others shoes, opening your heart etc.
                                      However, I am not fun at all of these feelings of grieve. Actually I do not like these kind of feelings. If these feelings are coming not from compassion, but due to the life itself (i.e. these are your own feelings), then the overwhelming of these kinds of grieve feelings in day-by-day life it has an destroyable impact on the society.

                                      Andrei



                                      ----- Original Message ----
                                      From: dottie zold <dottie_z@yahoo. com>
                                      To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                      Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2008 6:36:16 AM
                                      Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                      Hi Andrei,

                                       

                                      I wonder that he had expectations rather than hope. I tend to think of him as one being without those kinds of expections in a way.

                                       

                                      I hear you about pain, I think I just think of it differently.

                                       

                                      I am not so sure you are right in the thought of why this Being was a boy. However that's all good. I tend to think of the Being as what is termed the  'sister soul' of Adam and so I tend to think of the neccessity of this Being comeing forth as male in the physical body.

                                       

                                      When you say 'this one was God' what do you mean by that? Do you mean God as in the sense as the One or  rather as 'a God'? And I am feeling like there is a little confusion as to who was the child's mother who died etc. although maybe its just the way it is written down. Unless I misunderstand that the mother who is left is actually the step mother and her child it is that has died, the Zarathustra child, but whom now lives within the Nathan child. I am also feeling like you are speaking as if there were only one child who gave up the sheaths instead of two. Why is this? What do you think has occurred or is it just the way you are writing it down?

                                       

                                      OKay, hold on here for a second. Okay, are you Catholic? Because I am sensing, and I was sensing it earlier, a thought towards this need for 'pain' to be involved and now that only God could heal what He had created: and so then Christ is God to you, so the Jews did kill God to you? I take no issue with you if you think that, only with the ideas. In any case I do not mean to be offensive rather I like to have things clear in front of me. What is your religious tradition if you don't mind answering. I was brought up Catholic however I tended to ignore the adults and only concentrate on the artistic element and the words of Jesus alone. I seemed to not want to do anything else other than cut out these little words and pictures of him and then mold them into the wood works. I somehow breesed through these days of classes without learning any of their rituals or their handsigns:) etc. I am always amazed by my Catholic friends as to their detail of knowing just when to say 'and also to you' etc. Amazed that I somehow missed all of this. Although thankful now or I woulda been a nun in this lifetime within that damn church and then possibly have been, later on, kicked out for insubordination: ))))))

                                       

                                      I think it would be cool to have an open dialogue about these things and debate them from a level where nothing is hidden to the best of our ability and to keep it on the ideas and not the personal.

                                       

                                      All good things and thanks,

                                      Dottie

                                      --- On Wed, 4/30/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                      From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                      Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                      To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                      Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 1:39 PM

                                      Dear Dottie,

                                      Right to the point:
                                      Suffering is pain, be it physical or moral. It might imply sorrow, grief, desolation. It may need the ability to wait, to endure, to have the patience.
                                      At the same time, the knowledge involves suffering, or at least the suffering coming from com-passion.
                                      of course, Steiner also was desolated, since his expectations were not fulfilled; the "fruits' (brought about by the people whom he rendered the "How to know the higher worlds") were far from his expectations.

                                      As to the Jesus of Nazareth, the topic is more sensible...
                                      The pure soul, bearing the influence of Krishna, Buddha... being born in a boy, so as to implant the roots of wisdom, love, purity and readiness of sacrifice. 12 years this process has to be ongoing. Then, closer to his teenage, the Zarathustra I took possession of that boy-man, the I who before that was dwelling and living as another boy, perhaps a little bit more mature (it might be several years difference). That another boy dies, so does his father. Soon his present mother dies too and the both families unite. Years and years the boy is living without any awareness of his greatness. This understanding, through various ways, gets clearer the closer he gets to his age of 30. Then he becomes ready to offer himself and all he possesses - his entity as such - to the One Who's destiny and task is to bear and wave / lift the sin of men. This One was God, cause only the one who created man is able to bear and lift the man's erroneous development, cause only the Creator loves the creature so much, and only He has that power. At the same time his mother is rejuvenated due to the implication of the another mother, whose boy died at his teenage. The One dwells in the the human entity so prepared for three years. First being less attached to his humanity / manship, then more and more. In time, he become God and Man - equally. In time he masters all that is a human entity. He goes deeper, and now his whole body is kept together by his will. The time's just ripe for  the final point of his earth mission.... Blood pours into the Earth, He gets into / becomes the aura of Earth. He paves the way (as first bearer and walker) for the rest of humanity for follow the road of escape, of right development. This path / way might seem not very easy or just sometime, but... the matter is that the Path is not invented, the Path is He himslef, and He is such as He is, not other.

                                      Sensible (or sensitive) topic...

                                      With all my respect,

                                      Andrei



                                      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                                    • Andrei O.
                                      Dear Dottie, It s pity the English language has no word for man-mail, different from man-human being. I am not quite a church-goer. However, I think it would
                                      Message 18 of 21 , May 3, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Dear Dottie,

                                        It's pity the English language has no word for man-mail, different from man-human being.

                                        I am not quite a church-goer. However, I think it would be a mistake to plead for "let's get rid of these empty shells - so-called churches". There is still no alternative to them. Many people are still going to the church on their way to... to anywhere - just to stay an get together or trying to adjust to some more pure norms in quietness, far from the modern speed and problems. In this respect, churches are often associated with temples. Should these temples have knowledgeable, experienced servants (priests) - very good then.

                                        To turn the church into good, rather then neglecting it and throwing to narrow-minded people - that's better then re-inventing something new. And frankly, I still believe that men are changing the place / situation, i.e. in this particular case - a bunch of people (priests, or "temple's" servants) would be able to transform the church into an alive body.

                                        What this transformation should be associated with? First, you are right, they (priests/ servants) should really be aware of what they are doing during their services and procedures related to them. Second, they should be more open to questions and, due to their own spiritual strivings), be able to answer in helpful manner. A very important and more difficult level for them to achieve, in my view, will be that of accepting the issue you referred to: repeated earthly lives.

                                        The epoch when people should focus on the ongoing life only, so as to increase their responsibility, is more and more over. And the idea of repeated lives shall enter the church as well. Otherwise, the spiritual life of the humankind will look double-folded: churches with a sort of background presence and esoteric circles playing the role of alternative. The "esotericism" of these circles would be not the same as of the previous esoteric associations, since that esoteric knowledge is not esoteric anymore, since very many people are having those esoteric principles at hand; these principles or knowledge became so largely known, so that almost everyone knows the esoteric basics.

                                        Or, I may be wrong. Actually, the church is needed as an institution for mass, for all people; and the less numerical circles are needed for less-accepted ideas :)
                                        You know, actually here we come to the question of our own usefulness. Yes, I mean those who have the knowledge of esoteric basics or more. Are we producing the "goods" that are useful for the mankind. Ok, may be it's too much, but do we achieve some levels of spiritual development that are really A DEVELOPMENT that IS an achievement for us, so it could be useful for others as well? In my opinion, this kind of rezultativity is still modest. The basic reasons of that, in my view? - laziness.

                                        With all good wishes,

                                        Andrei


                                        ----- Original Message ----
                                        From: dottie zold <dottie_z@...>
                                        To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                        Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2008 10:01:47 PM
                                        Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                        Dear Andrei, first I want to really thank you for having this conversation in a way that gently listens and shares.

                                         

                                        I am not sure the rituals, if not understood properly, and even maybe what is called to be transformed for todays age, have a real affect. If people, of today in the consciousness soul age, are not awake to the real mysteries of these rituals and what they have to do with them and also what their responsibility is as well, it is a tragedy. I think we can trust we are now a grown people. I think not growing up, and relating to this new age properly, continues to impeded the transition across the Threshold. We have to find a way to be awake in this. At least this is my understanding of Rudolf Steiner's works and I strive to be awake in this to the best of my ability, and in my imagination.

                                         

                                        There was a really tight lady who was a very knowledeable Steiner student who passed away recently. She was a practioner of the ritual in the Church as she felt it still had meaning. I think it is she who brought the  meaning to it because she was striving to be conscious in it. I think it makes a really big difference. But this type of dialogue is not really had or even understood by not only the parishioners but by the preachers themselves.

                                         

                                        I was thinking 'yeah anthros can head into the church and help bring understanding to the rituals in centuries to come'. Yet there is something about the whole structure that must change. It's not the people, its the mindset of 'the little ones'. I was thinking about that term just shared recently and I keep thinking, they were children Jesus was speaking about. Well, we can continue to think of ourselves as children or we can wake up to the fact we need to meet this time, this new time, this new incarnation rightly.

                                         

                                        It seems to me that it is so easy to fall into the old shoe we were before. No matter how great the personality or deed has no matter, rather what matters is that we do not remain the same. We shall have the same impulses however they must be transformed to even a greater level. That's  why it is good to consider our past biographies even if we are not aware of who we were etc. There is a point of departure wherein we can ask ' am I transforming from my last life or are these the same issues I faced then and am continue to respond in the same manner?'

                                         

                                        It seems to me that we don't ask this question and don 't consider the possibility of what needs to be transformed out of the last biography, not just what has to be transformed now out of this mindset. For this ongoing stream of consciousness continues and we have to catch it. We can just say 'hey what the hey' :) or we can say 'man, what the hell is my responsibility here?' 'How am I doing?'

                                         

                                        And this is where the church comes in at in regards to 'we are no longer little children'. These people are not little children and it seems to me that the 'flock' is being led astray by well meaning people. I don't even think really the adversaries, the adversarial brotherhood are even in the churches any more really. They got bigger fish to fry because communities are being built by people trying to wake up. And they got to get into there and keep the divisions going on. And that is what we have going on a bit in Anthroposophy. But that's okay because Michael is dedicated to this group of warriors striving to wake up. He stands firm in this cause and for this was the teaching brought forth by Rudolf Steiner.

                                         

                                        The Johannine Church as opposed to the Church of Peter is really the new way but transformed into a way of living versus on Sunday putting our bonnets on. Each man has the pulpit, and takes care of this to the best of his ability. (I say man in the sense of 'mankind' always) The Catholics will say, the esoteric ones anyway, will say these two churches have to reunite. Well, I think not. Not in the olden form of the Church of Peter as it is called. The Church of the Magdalene and James serves the people in a way that allows freedom whereas the Church of Peter does not. Can it, can the Church of Peter change its inner structure: I think not.

                                         

                                        I think even the rituals are to be transformed for this time as well. We must have reached a point wherein we are working in the etheric realms to meet the Christ in consciousness.

                                         

                                        All good things,

                                        Dottie

                                        --- On Sat, 5/3/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                        From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                        Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                        To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                        Date: Saturday, May 3, 2008, 11:35 AM

                                        Dear all,
                                        Dottie, Sandor,

                                        To start with, may I mention that whatever I say here has not at all the purpose to impose any opinion on anyone. It is rather a co-participation in discussing the subjects.

                                        So, the church. Who's making the church as it is? Men. Why more inspired, more inspired men are not quite present in the church as priests? Why this glue of Christians is now a useless body, a sterile womb? Thus, to believe or not in the future of church implies to believe or not that the man of real faith and compassion for  the others will or will not come in the church/basilica/ community.

                                        The focus in the churches is, in my opinion, put on the liberation - on liberation/salvatio n more then on "you are sinners". As for the mysteries, they are present in the religious services, even if not understood fully by those who are making them. We have, thus, the services on baptism, Eucharist etc, and most priest are accepting that these procedures are mysteries/divine secrets, but effective ones. This lack of understanding leads to that so high respect and observance of the doctrine and non-openness to the questions. This lack of understanding and live contact with spiritual world, mixed sometime with lack of compassion with the people the priests live with - all these leads to indoctrination; and indoctrination does not, ex definitio, like questions and doubts. I still wander how the priests themselves succeed to avoid questioning themselves.

                                        However, this body is still useful for many people. And again, the new people may change the church, for church is made of people. If church will not meet the needs of people, it will transform itself into an useless relict.

                                        With all respect,

                                        Andrei



                                        ----- Original Message ----
                                        From: dottie zold <dottie_z@yahoo. com>
                                        To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                        Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2008 8:45:54 PM
                                        Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                        Hi Andrei and Friends,

                                         

                                        Church is an interesting thing for me. I think a time has passed for this idea of church in the old manner. I do want to say that I know it still serves people in a very big way. My hope  is that it would be able to serve in a way that freedom can sit in the room. It is my experience that freedom does not sit in the room from the pulpit where a man is looked at as having the answers versus inspiring answers and questions. It's already a given and things are mostly put onto how we are sinners and not on the mystery, only in relations to our sins. That's a very big issue I think facing us and the future. And the church as I see it and experience its people, its not okay to move further into the mystery as its already been stated. Now all that's left is to look into one's life and see how we can stop sinning. It does serve and at the same time I think its time to grow up further than that point.

                                         

                                        We have been incarnating over and over and we can not continue to hear the same old words, the same old wine in new wineskins. Something has got to give. We can trust that we are now grown and we are now at a  really crucial point since Golgotha. The church seems to be stuck in an old groove that does not really serve in the manner it can serve where questions are posed that have us thinking on things as the mystery of our lives of our world.

                                         

                                        I don't think it is going to change Andrei. Although things may change it seems it is going to be kept trying to keep itself alive through its parishioners need of them. But they don';t realize that they themselves have to grow. The mystery is lost. Isis is lost. And she can't be the old Isis, she is the new Isis. And this new Isis requires that we are grown.

                                         

                                        All good things and thanks,

                                        Dottie

                                        --- On Thu, 5/1/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                        From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                        Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                        To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                        Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 9:29 PM

                                        Hi, everyone !

                                        That subjects of boys changing the I-s etc. is a sensible one and i am not the one to have answers on Yeshua's life. For the time being, I incline to think that it was as described in my previous message. My language possible failed me. But I would like to repeat all these, because certainly I won't do it better then before. Should improve my English.
                                        Was the Christ God? Yes, if we accept the trinity as god.
                                        Did Hebrew and Romans kill god? No, because it is impossible.
                                        Church? I grew up as atheist. That is the culture that was inculcated to me, that is how I was educated. The church where I go when I want to go - the Christian orthodox one. I also attended several protestant gatherings. I've mentioned it before: the church, i.e. the community of Christ, is a necessary thing. How it is carrying out it's key-priority task - that's another think. However, I am sure the things with the church will change into better, because everything in church depends on men (priests), and men CAN change.
                                        I would say that I, persons like me, those who lived in soviet period, on soviet area, have a certain mentality or vision - we usually do not go often to the church, and the church has no deep influence on our world-vision.
                                        As for the pain, suffering, I am not fun of the feelings at all. But it happens, because any man should be able of co-living, co-feeling wit others, with different layers and sides of existence. We may feel pain or suffering due to the compassion we educate in us; compassion, i.e. feelings the same as others do, being able to understand better others, trying to put yourselves in others shoes, opening your heart etc.
                                        However, I am not fun at all of these feelings of grieve. Actually I do not like these kind of feelings. If these feelings are coming not from compassion, but due to the life itself (i.e. these are your own feelings), then the overwhelming of these kinds of grieve feelings in day-by-day life it has an destroyable impact on the society.

                                        Andrei



                                        ----- Original Message ----
                                        From: dottie zold <dottie_z@yahoo. com>
                                        To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                        Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2008 6:36:16 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                        Hi Andrei,

                                         

                                        I wonder that he had expectations rather than hope. I tend to think of him as one being without those kinds of expections in a way.

                                         

                                        I hear you about pain, I think I just think of it differently.

                                         

                                        I am not so sure you are right in the thought of why this Being was a boy. However that's all good. I tend to think of the Being as what is termed the  'sister soul' of Adam and so I tend to think of the neccessity of this Being comeing forth as male in the physical body.

                                         

                                        When you say 'this one was God' what do you mean by that? Do you mean God as in the sense as the One or  rather as 'a God'? And I am feeling like there is a little confusion as to who was the child's mother who died etc. although maybe its just the way it is written down. Unless I misunderstand that the mother who is left is actually the step mother and her child it is that has died, the Zarathustra child, but whom now lives within the Nathan child. I am also feeling like you are speaking as if there were only one child who gave up the sheaths instead of two. Why is this? What do you think has occurred or is it just the way you are writing it down?

                                         

                                        OKay, hold on here for a second. Okay, are you Catholic? Because I am sensing, and I was sensing it earlier, a thought towards this need for 'pain' to be involved and now that only God could heal what He had created: and so then Christ is God to you, so the Jews did kill God to you? I take no issue with you if you think that, only with the ideas. In any case I do not mean to be offensive rather I like to have things clear in front of me. What is your religious tradition if you don't mind answering. I was brought up Catholic however I tended to ignore the adults and only concentrate on the artistic element and the words of Jesus alone. I seemed to not want to do anything else other than cut out these little words and pictures of him and then mold them into the wood works. I somehow breesed through these days of classes without learning any of their rituals or their handsigns:) etc. I am always amazed by my Catholic friends as to their detail of knowing just when to say 'and also to you' etc. Amazed that I somehow missed all of this. Although thankful now or I woulda been a nun in this lifetime within that damn church and then possibly have been, later on, kicked out for insubordination: ))))))

                                         

                                        I think it would be cool to have an open dialogue about these things and debate them from a level where nothing is hidden to the best of our ability and to keep it on the ideas and not the personal.

                                         

                                        All good things and thanks,

                                        Dottie

                                        --- On Wed, 4/30/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                        From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                        Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                        To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                        Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 1:39 PM

                                        Dear Dottie,

                                        Right to the point:
                                        Suffering is pain, be it physical or moral. It might imply sorrow, grief, desolation. It may need the ability to wait, to endure, to have the patience.
                                        At the same time, the knowledge involves suffering, or at least the suffering coming from com-passion.
                                        of course, Steiner also was desolated, since his expectations were not fulfilled; the "fruits' (brought about by the people whom he rendered the "How to know the higher worlds") were far from his expectations.

                                        As to the Jesus of Nazareth, the topic is more sensible...
                                        The pure soul, bearing the influence of Krishna, Buddha... being born in a boy, so as to implant the roots of wisdom, love, purity and readiness of sacrifice. 12 years this process has to be ongoing. Then, closer to his teenage, the Zarathustra I took possession of that boy-man, the I who before that was dwelling and living as another boy, perhaps a little bit more mature (it might be several years difference). That another boy dies, so does his father. Soon his present mother dies too and the both families unite. Years and years the boy is living without any awareness of his greatness. This understanding, through various ways, gets clearer the closer he gets to his age of 30. Then he becomes ready to offer himself and all he possesses - his entity as such - to the One Who's destiny and task is to bear and wave / lift the sin of men. This One was God, cause only the one who created man is able to bear and lift the man's erroneous development, cause only the Creator loves the creature so much, and only He has that power. At the same time his mother is rejuvenated due to the implication of the another mother, whose boy died at his teenage. The One dwells in the the human entity so prepared for three years. First being less attached to his humanity / manship, then more and more. In time, he become God and Man - equally. In time he masters all that is a human entity. He goes deeper, and now his whole body is kept together by his will. The time's just ripe for  the final point of his earth mission.... Blood pours into the Earth, He gets into / becomes the aura of Earth. He paves the way (as first bearer and walker) for the rest of humanity for follow the road of escape, of right development. This path / way might seem not very easy or just sometime, but... the matter is that the Path is not invented, the Path is He himslef, and He is such as He is, not other.

                                        Sensible (or sensitive) topic...

                                        With all my respect,

                                        Andrei



                                        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                        Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                                      • Andrei O.
                                        MAN-MALE of course ... From: Andrei O. To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2008 1:12:01 AM Subject: Re:
                                        Message 19 of 21 , May 3, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          MAN-MALE of course


                                          ----- Original Message ----
                                          From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...>
                                          To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                          Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2008 1:12:01 AM
                                          Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                          Dear Dottie,

                                          It's pity the English language has no word for man-mail, different from man-human being.

                                          I am not quite a church-goer. However, I think it would be a mistake to plead for "let's get rid of these empty shells - so-called churches". There is still no alternative to them. Many people are still going to the church on their way to... to anywhere - just to stay an get together or trying to adjust to some more pure norms in quietness, far from the modern speed and problems. In this respect, churches are often associated with temples. Should these temples have knowledgeable, experienced servants (priests) - very good then.

                                          To turn the church into good, rather then neglecting it and throwing to narrow-minded people - that's better then re-inventing something new. And frankly, I still believe that men are changing the place / situation, i.e. in this particular case - a bunch of people (priests, or "temple's" servants) would be able to transform the church into an alive body.

                                          What this transformation should be associated with? First, you are right, they (priests/ servants) should really be aware of what they are doing during their services and procedures related to them. Second, they should be more open to questions and, due to their own spiritual strivings), be able to answer in helpful manner. A very important and more difficult level for them to achieve, in my view, will be that of accepting the issue you referred to: repeated earthly lives.

                                          The epoch when people should focus on the ongoing life only, so as to increase their responsibility, is more and more over. And the idea of repeated lives shall enter the church as well. Otherwise, the spiritual life of the humankind will look double-folded: churches with a sort of background presence and esoteric circles playing the role of alternative. The "esotericism" of these circles would be not the same as of the previous esoteric associations, since that esoteric knowledge is not esoteric anymore, since very many people are having those esoteric principles at hand; these principles or knowledge became so largely known, so that almost everyone knows the esoteric basics.

                                          Or, I may be wrong. Actually, the church is needed as an institution for mass, for all people; and the less numerical circles are needed for less-accepted ideas :)
                                          You know, actually here we come to the question of our own usefulness. Yes, I mean those who have the knowledge of esoteric basics or more. Are we producing the "goods" that are useful for the mankind. Ok, may be it's too much, but do we achieve some levels of spiritual development that are really A DEVELOPMENT that IS an achievement for us, so it could be useful for others as well? In my opinion, this kind of rezultativity is still modest. The basic reasons of that, in my view? - laziness.

                                          With all good wishes,

                                          Andrei


                                          ----- Original Message ----
                                          From: dottie zold <dottie_z@yahoo. com>
                                          To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                          Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2008 10:01:47 PM
                                          Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                          Dear Andrei, first I want to really thank you for having this conversation in a way that gently listens and shares.

                                           

                                          I am not sure the rituals, if not understood properly, and even maybe what is called to be transformed for todays age, have a real affect. If people, of today in the consciousness soul age, are not awake to the real mysteries of these rituals and what they have to do with them and also what their responsibility is as well, it is a tragedy. I think we can trust we are now a grown people. I think not growing up, and relating to this new age properly, continues to impeded the transition across the Threshold. We have to find a way to be awake in this. At least this is my understanding of Rudolf Steiner's works and I strive to be awake in this to the best of my ability, and in my imagination.

                                           

                                          There was a really tight lady who was a very knowledeable Steiner student who passed away recently. She was a practioner of the ritual in the Church as she felt it still had meaning. I think it is she who brought the  meaning to it because she was striving to be conscious in it. I think it makes a really big difference. But this type of dialogue is not really had or even understood by not only the parishioners but by the preachers themselves.

                                           

                                          I was thinking 'yeah anthros can head into the church and help bring understanding to the rituals in centuries to come'. Yet there is something about the whole structure that must change. It's not the people, its the mindset of 'the little ones'. I was thinking about that term just shared recently and I keep thinking, they were children Jesus was speaking about. Well, we can continue to think of ourselves as children or we can wake up to the fact we need to meet this time, this new time, this new incarnation rightly.

                                           

                                          It seems to me that it is so easy to fall into the old shoe we were before. No matter how great the personality or deed has no matter, rather what matters is that we do not remain the same. We shall have the same impulses however they must be transformed to even a greater level. That's  why it is good to consider our past biographies even if we are not aware of who we were etc. There is a point of departure wherein we can ask ' am I transforming from my last life or are these the same issues I faced then and am continue to respond in the same manner?'

                                           

                                          It seems to me that we don't ask this question and don 't consider the possibility of what needs to be transformed out of the last biography, not just what has to be transformed now out of this mindset. For this ongoing stream of consciousness continues and we have to catch it. We can just say 'hey what the hey' :) or we can say 'man, what the hell is my responsibility here?' 'How am I doing?'

                                           

                                          And this is where the church comes in at in regards to 'we are no longer little children'. These people are not little children and it seems to me that the 'flock' is being led astray by well meaning people. I don't even think really the adversaries, the adversarial brotherhood are even in the churches any more really. They got bigger fish to fry because communities are being built by people trying to wake up. And they got to get into there and keep the divisions going on. And that is what we have going on a bit in Anthroposophy. But that's okay because Michael is dedicated to this group of warriors striving to wake up. He stands firm in this cause and for this was the teaching brought forth by Rudolf Steiner.

                                           

                                          The Johannine Church as opposed to the Church of Peter is really the new way but transformed into a way of living versus on Sunday putting our bonnets on. Each man has the pulpit, and takes care of this to the best of his ability. (I say man in the sense of 'mankind' always) The Catholics will say, the esoteric ones anyway, will say these two churches have to reunite. Well, I think not. Not in the olden form of the Church of Peter as it is called. The Church of the Magdalene and James serves the people in a way that allows freedom whereas the Church of Peter does not. Can it, can the Church of Peter change its inner structure: I think not.

                                           

                                          I think even the rituals are to be transformed for this time as well. We must have reached a point wherein we are working in the etheric realms to meet the Christ in consciousness.

                                           

                                          All good things,

                                          Dottie

                                          --- On Sat, 5/3/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                          From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                          Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                          To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                          Date: Saturday, May 3, 2008, 11:35 AM

                                          Dear all,
                                          Dottie, Sandor,

                                          To start with, may I mention that whatever I say here has not at all the purpose to impose any opinion on anyone. It is rather a co-participation in discussing the subjects.

                                          So, the church. Who's making the church as it is? Men. Why more inspired, more inspired men are not quite present in the church as priests? Why this glue of Christians is now a useless body, a sterile womb? Thus, to believe or not in the future of church implies to believe or not that the man of real faith and compassion for  the others will or will not come in the church/basilica/ community.

                                          The focus in the churches is, in my opinion, put on the liberation - on liberation/salvatio n more then on "you are sinners". As for the mysteries, they are present in the religious services, even if not understood fully by those who are making them. We have, thus, the services on baptism, Eucharist etc, and most priest are accepting that these procedures are mysteries/divine secrets, but effective ones. This lack of understanding leads to that so high respect and observance of the doctrine and non-openness to the questions. This lack of understanding and live contact with spiritual world, mixed sometime with lack of compassion with the people the priests live with - all these leads to indoctrination; and indoctrination does not, ex definitio, like questions and doubts. I still wander how the priests themselves succeed to avoid questioning themselves.

                                          However, this body is still useful for many people. And again, the new people may change the church, for church is made of people. If church will not meet the needs of people, it will transform itself into an useless relict.

                                          With all respect,

                                          Andrei



                                          ----- Original Message ----
                                          From: dottie zold <dottie_z@yahoo. com>
                                          To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                          Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2008 8:45:54 PM
                                          Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                          Hi Andrei and Friends,

                                           

                                          Church is an interesting thing for me. I think a time has passed for this idea of church in the old manner. I do want to say that I know it still serves people in a very big way. My hope  is that it would be able to serve in a way that freedom can sit in the room. It is my experience that freedom does not sit in the room from the pulpit where a man is looked at as having the answers versus inspiring answers and questions. It's already a given and things are mostly put onto how we are sinners and not on the mystery, only in relations to our sins. That's a very big issue I think facing us and the future. And the church as I see it and experience its people, its not okay to move further into the mystery as its already been stated. Now all that's left is to look into one's life and see how we can stop sinning. It does serve and at the same time I think its time to grow up further than that point.

                                           

                                          We have been incarnating over and over and we can not continue to hear the same old words, the same old wine in new wineskins. Something has got to give. We can trust that we are now grown and we are now at a  really crucial point since Golgotha. The church seems to be stuck in an old groove that does not really serve in the manner it can serve where questions are posed that have us thinking on things as the mystery of our lives of our world.

                                           

                                          I don't think it is going to change Andrei. Although things may change it seems it is going to be kept trying to keep itself alive through its parishioners need of them. But they don';t realize that they themselves have to grow. The mystery is lost. Isis is lost. And she can't be the old Isis, she is the new Isis. And this new Isis requires that we are grown.

                                           

                                          All good things and thanks,

                                          Dottie

                                          --- On Thu, 5/1/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                          From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                          Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                          To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                          Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 9:29 PM

                                          Hi, everyone !

                                          That subjects of boys changing the I-s etc. is a sensible one and i am not the one to have answers on Yeshua's life. For the time being, I incline to think that it was as described in my previous message. My language possible failed me. But I would like to repeat all these, because certainly I won't do it better then before. Should improve my English.
                                          Was the Christ God? Yes, if we accept the trinity as god.
                                          Did Hebrew and Romans kill god? No, because it is impossible.
                                          Church? I grew up as atheist. That is the culture that was inculcated to me, that is how I was educated. The church where I go when I want to go - the Christian orthodox one. I also attended several protestant gatherings. I've mentioned it before: the church, i.e. the community of Christ, is a necessary thing. How it is carrying out it's key-priority task - that's another think. However, I am sure the things with the church will change into better, because everything in church depends on men (priests), and men CAN change.
                                          I would say that I, persons like me, those who lived in soviet period, on soviet area, have a certain mentality or vision - we usually do not go often to the church, and the church has no deep influence on our world-vision.
                                          As for the pain, suffering, I am not fun of the feelings at all. But it happens, because any man should be able of co-living, co-feeling wit others, with different layers and sides of existence. We may feel pain or suffering due to the compassion we educate in us; compassion, i.e. feelings the same as others do, being able to understand better others, trying to put yourselves in others shoes, opening your heart etc.
                                          However, I am not fun at all of these feelings of grieve. Actually I do not like these kind of feelings. If these feelings are coming not from compassion, but due to the life itself (i.e. these are your own feelings), then the overwhelming of these kinds of grieve feelings in day-by-day life it has an destroyable impact on the society.

                                          Andrei



                                          ----- Original Message ----
                                          From: dottie zold <dottie_z@yahoo. com>
                                          To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                          Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2008 6:36:16 AM
                                          Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                          Hi Andrei,

                                           

                                          I wonder that he had expectations rather than hope. I tend to think of him as one being without those kinds of expections in a way.

                                           

                                          I hear you about pain, I think I just think of it differently.

                                           

                                          I am not so sure you are right in the thought of why this Being was a boy. However that's all good. I tend to think of the Being as what is termed the  'sister soul' of Adam and so I tend to think of the neccessity of this Being comeing forth as male in the physical body.

                                           

                                          When you say 'this one was God' what do you mean by that? Do you mean God as in the sense as the One or  rather as 'a God'? And I am feeling like there is a little confusion as to who was the child's mother who died etc. although maybe its just the way it is written down. Unless I misunderstand that the mother who is left is actually the step mother and her child it is that has died, the Zarathustra child, but whom now lives within the Nathan child. I am also feeling like you are speaking as if there were only one child who gave up the sheaths instead of two. Why is this? What do you think has occurred or is it just the way you are writing it down?

                                           

                                          OKay, hold on here for a second. Okay, are you Catholic? Because I am sensing, and I was sensing it earlier, a thought towards this need for 'pain' to be involved and now that only God could heal what He had created: and so then Christ is God to you, so the Jews did kill God to you? I take no issue with you if you think that, only with the ideas. In any case I do not mean to be offensive rather I like to have things clear in front of me. What is your religious tradition if you don't mind answering. I was brought up Catholic however I tended to ignore the adults and only concentrate on the artistic element and the words of Jesus alone. I seemed to not want to do anything else other than cut out these little words and pictures of him and then mold them into the wood works. I somehow breesed through these days of classes without learning any of their rituals or their handsigns:) etc. I am always amazed by my Catholic friends as to their detail of knowing just when to say 'and also to you' etc. Amazed that I somehow missed all of this. Although thankful now or I woulda been a nun in this lifetime within that damn church and then possibly have been, later on, kicked out for insubordination: ))))))

                                           

                                          I think it would be cool to have an open dialogue about these things and debate them from a level where nothing is hidden to the best of our ability and to keep it on the ideas and not the personal.

                                           

                                          All good things and thanks,

                                          Dottie

                                          --- On Wed, 4/30/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                          From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                          Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                          To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                          Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 1:39 PM

                                          Dear Dottie,

                                          Right to the point:
                                          Suffering is pain, be it physical or moral. It might imply sorrow, grief, desolation. It may need the ability to wait, to endure, to have the patience.
                                          At the same time, the knowledge involves suffering, or at least the suffering coming from com-passion.
                                          of course, Steiner also was desolated, since his expectations were not fulfilled; the "fruits' (brought about by the people whom he rendered the "How to know the higher worlds") were far from his expectations.

                                          As to the Jesus of Nazareth, the topic is more sensible...
                                          The pure soul, bearing the influence of Krishna, Buddha... being born in a boy, so as to implant the roots of wisdom, love, purity and readiness of sacrifice. 12 years this process has to be ongoing. Then, closer to his teenage, the Zarathustra I took possession of that boy-man, the I who before that was dwelling and living as another boy, perhaps a little bit more mature (it might be several years difference). That another boy dies, so does his father. Soon his present mother dies too and the both families unite. Years and years the boy is living without any awareness of his greatness. This understanding, through various ways, gets clearer the closer he gets to his age of 30. Then he becomes ready to offer himself and all he possesses - his entity as such - to the One Who's destiny and task is to bear and wave / lift the sin of men. This One was God, cause only the one who created man is able to bear and lift the man's erroneous development, cause only the Creator loves the creature so much, and only He has that power. At the same time his mother is rejuvenated due to the implication of the another mother, whose boy died at his teenage. The One dwells in the the human entity so prepared for three years. First being less attached to his humanity / manship, then more and more. In time, he become God and Man - equally. In time he masters all that is a human entity. He goes deeper, and now his whole body is kept together by his will. The time's just ripe for  the final point of his earth mission.... Blood pours into the Earth, He gets into / becomes the aura of Earth. He paves the way (as first bearer and walker) for the rest of humanity for follow the road of escape, of right development. This path / way might seem not very easy or just sometime, but... the matter is that the Path is not invented, the Path is He himslef, and He is such as He is, not other.

                                          Sensible (or sensitive) topic...

                                          With all my respect,

                                          Andrei



                                          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.



                                          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                                        • dottie zold
                                          Hi dear Andrei, I definitely do not mean to get rid of the churches in any shape way or form rather I would like to see more urgent push from within the
                                          Message 20 of 21 , May 3, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment

                                            Hi dear Andrei,

                                             

                                            I definitely do not mean to get rid of the churches in any shape way or form rather I would like to see more urgent push from within the Movement to create the conditions that  man can begin to really speak about the mysteries openly without concern of being ostrocized from the church members, clergy etc. I mean if one speaks of interacting with an angel it must be the devil. One can't question anything really as 'there's just some things one can't know'. I love sharing with my evengelic friends the final passage of the Gospel of John: if all the words of Jesus were written down there would not be enough books in the world to contain them.' This usually just gets everything real quite in the room:)))

                                             

                                            I think in order for the church members/preachers to transform they have to do a 360. There really is no room in the churches for this specifically. Even many of the Tomberg students talk about 'there is only one mystical body of Christ and He exists in the Catholic Church.' This is a real big issue when looking at old mysteries versus new ones, the Isis who suckles the child and the new Isis that demands men now lift her veil: not the one that sits and is adored, no, this is something that needs to shake man from the tree.

                                             

                                            I am thinking its more about 'complacency' then lazyness, although they are in the same family:))) It's really a failure to come to grips with taking oneself in hand in a very big way. I mean we can do it in small ways and they will lead to big ways. Steiner felt this responsibility, he tried to impart the importance of this, he said if people do not take this up it will be a tragedy for mankind, and if anthroposophists fail to hear the 'third call' then the Sophia will be forced to work from other realms. We as human beings have a duty, those that undertake this work, to rise and come together to figure out how we do move forward.

                                            And usually I have to input 'those who so choose to', but you know, I mean what the hell, we are here during this time period and we are awake to the graveness of the situation.

                                             

                                            It's not like in olden times where those who were warriors on the battlefields have to be warriors on those type of battlefields now, rather it is a battle for the soul, and this battle for the soul needs all hands on deck. To the b est of our ability. I get a little tired of having to be pc with what I want to say in this regards as we know better. We know better. And who the hell is our leader for goodeness sake: Michael. Who wants to face that Being with all the intellectual knowledge that judges others less then because we have spiritual science? Not me. Need to get on our horses, but just not the same as in the last life, our own spiritual horses, our awakened Will, needs to get real with the little time we have here on earth and get our grooves on.

                                             

                                            all my best,

                                            d

                                             



                                            --- On Sat, 5/3/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...> wrote:

                                            From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@...>
                                            Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                            To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                            Date: Saturday, May 3, 2008, 3:12 PM

                                            Dear Dottie,

                                            It's pity the English language has no word for man-mail, different from man-human being.

                                            I am not quite a church-goer. However, I think it would be a mistake to plead for "let's get rid of these empty shells - so-called churches". There is still no alternative to them. Many people are still going to the church on their way to... to anywhere - just to stay an get together or trying to adjust to some more pure norms in quietness, far from the modern speed and problems. In this respect, churches are often associated with temples. Should these temples have knowledgeable, experienced servants (priests) - very good then.

                                            To turn the church into good, rather then neglecting it and throwing to narrow-minded people - that's better then re-inventing something new. And frankly, I still believe that men are changing the place / situation, i.e. in this particular case - a bunch of people (priests, or "temple's" servants) would be able to transform the church into an alive body.

                                            What this transformation should be associated with? First, you are right, they (priests/ servants) should really be aware of what they are doing during their services and procedures related to them. Second, they should be more open to questions and, due to their own spiritual strivings), be able to answer in helpful manner. A very important and more difficult level for them to achieve, in my view, will be that of accepting the issue you referred to: repeated earthly lives.

                                            The epoch when people should focus on the ongoing life only, so as to increase their responsibility, is more and more over. And the idea of repeated lives shall enter the church as well. Otherwise, the spiritual life of the humankind will look double-folded: churches with a sort of background presence and esoteric circles playing the role of alternative. The "esotericism" of these circles would be not the same as of the previous esoteric associations, since that esoteric knowledge is not esoteric anymore, since very many people are having those esoteric principles at hand; these principles or knowledge became so largely known, so that almost everyone knows the esoteric basics.

                                            Or, I may be wrong. Actually, the church is needed as an institution for mass, for all people; and the less numerical circles are needed for less-accepted ideas :)
                                            You know, actually here we come to the question of our own usefulness. Yes, I mean those who have the knowledge of esoteric basics or more. Are we producing the "goods" that are useful for the mankind. Ok, may be it's too much, but do we achieve some levels of spiritual development that are really A DEVELOPMENT that IS an achievement for us, so it could be useful for others as well? In my opinion, this kind of rezultativity is still modest. The basic reasons of that, in my view? - laziness.

                                            With all good wishes,

                                            Andrei


                                            ----- Original Message ----
                                            From: dottie zold <dottie_z@...>
                                            To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2008 10:01:47 PM
                                            Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                            Dear Andrei, first I want to really thank you for having this conversation in a way that gently listens and shares.

                                             

                                            I am not sure the rituals, if not understood properly, and even maybe what is called to be transformed for todays age, have a real affect. If people, of today in the consciousness soul age, are not awake to the real mysteries of these rituals and what they have to do with them and also what their responsibility is as well, it is a tragedy. I think we can trust we are now a grown people. I think not growing up, and relating to this new age properly, continues to impeded the transition across the Threshold. We have to find a way to be awake in this. At least this is my understanding of Rudolf Steiner's works and I strive to be awake in this to the best of my ability, and in my imagination.

                                             

                                            There was a really tight lady who was a very knowledeable Steiner student who passed away recently. She was a practioner of the ritual in the Church as she felt it still had meaning. I think it is she who brought the  meaning to it because she was striving to be conscious in it. I think it makes a really big difference. But this type of dialogue is not really had or even understood by not only the parishioners but by the preachers themselves.

                                             

                                            I was thinking 'yeah anthros can head into the church and help bring understanding to the rituals in centuries to come'. Yet there is something about the whole structure that must change. It's not the people, its the mindset of 'the little ones'. I was thinking about that term just shared recently and I keep thinking, they were children Jesus was speaking about. Well, we can continue to think of ourselves as children or we can wake up to the fact we need to meet this time, this new time, this new incarnation rightly.

                                             

                                            It seems to me that it is so easy to fall into the old shoe we were before. No matter how great the personality or deed has no matter, rather what matters is that we do not remain the same. We shall have the same impulses however they must be transformed to even a greater level. That's  why it is good to consider our past biographies even if we are not aware of who we were etc. There is a point of departure wherein we can ask ' am I transforming from my last life or are these the same issues I faced then and am continue to respond in the same manner?'

                                             

                                            It seems to me that we don't ask this question and don 't consider the possibility of what needs to be transformed out of the last biography, not just what has to be transformed now out of this mindset. For this ongoing stream of consciousness continues and we have to catch it. We can just say 'hey what the hey' :) or we can say 'man, what the hell is my responsibility here?' 'How am I doing?'

                                             

                                            And this is where the church comes in at in regards to 'we are no longer little children'. These people are not little children and it seems to me that the 'flock' is being led astray by well meaning people. I don't even think really the adversaries, the adversarial brotherhood are even in the churches any more really. They got bigger fish to fry because communities are being built by people trying to wake up. And they got to get into there and keep the divisions going on. And that is what we have going on a bit in Anthroposophy. But that's okay because Michael is dedicated to this group of warriors striving to wake up. He stands firm in this cause and for this was the teaching brought forth by Rudolf Steiner.

                                             

                                            The Johannine Church as opposed to the Church of Peter is really the new way but transformed into a way of living versus on Sunday putting our bonnets on. Each man has the pulpit, and takes care of this to the best of his ability. (I say man in the sense of 'mankind' always) The Catholics will say, the esoteric ones anyway, will say these two churches have to reunite. Well, I think not. Not in the olden form of the Church of Peter as it is called. The Church of the Magdalene and James serves the people in a way that allows freedom whereas the Church of Peter does not. Can it, can the Church of Peter change its inner structure: I think not.

                                             

                                            I think even the rituals are to be transformed for this time as well. We must have reached a point wherein we are working in the etheric realms to meet the Christ in consciousness.

                                             

                                            All good things,

                                            Dottie

                                            --- On Sat, 5/3/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                            From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                            Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                            To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                            Date: Saturday, May 3, 2008, 11:35 AM

                                            Dear all,
                                            Dottie, Sandor,

                                            To start with, may I mention that whatever I say here has not at all the purpose to impose any opinion on anyone. It is rather a co-participation in discussing the subjects.

                                            So, the church. Who's making the church as it is? Men. Why more inspired, more inspired men are not quite present in the church as priests? Why this glue of Christians is now a useless body, a sterile womb? Thus, to believe or not in the future of church implies to believe or not that the man of real faith and compassion for  the others will or will not come in the church/basilica/ community.

                                            The focus in the churches is, in my opinion, put on the liberation - on liberation/salvatio n more then on "you are sinners". As for the mysteries, they are present in the religious services, even if not understood fully by those who are making them. We have, thus, the services on baptism, Eucharist etc, and most priest are accepting that these procedures are mysteries/divine secrets, but effective ones. This lack of understanding leads to that so high respect and observance of the doctrine and non-openness to the questions. This lack of understanding and live contact with spiritual world, mixed sometime with lack of compassion with the people the priests live with - all these leads to indoctrination; and indoctrination does not, ex definitio, like questions and doubts. I still wander how the priests themselves succeed to avoid questioning themselves.

                                            However, this body is still useful for many people. And again, the new people may change the church, for church is made of people. If church will not meet the needs of people, it will transform itself into an useless relict.

                                            With all respect,

                                            Andrei



                                            ----- Original Message ----
                                            From: dottie zold <dottie_z@yahoo. com>
                                            To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                            Sent: Saturday, May 3, 2008 8:45:54 PM
                                            Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                            Hi Andrei and Friends,

                                             

                                            Church is an interesting thing for me. I think a time has passed for this idea of church in the old manner. I do want to say that I know it still serves people in a very big way. My hope  is that it would be able to serve in a way that freedom can sit in the room. It is my experience that freedom does not sit in the room from the pulpit where a man is looked at as having the answers versus inspiring answers and questions. It's already a given and things are mostly put onto how we are sinners and not on the mystery, only in relations to our sins. That's a very big issue I think facing us and the future. And the church as I see it and experience its people, its not okay to move further into the mystery as its already been stated. Now all that's left is to look into one's life and see how we can stop sinning. It does serve and at the same time I think its time to grow up further than that point.

                                             

                                            We have been incarnating over and over and we can not continue to hear the same old words, the same old wine in new wineskins. Something has got to give. We can trust that we are now grown and we are now at a  really crucial point since Golgotha. The church seems to be stuck in an old groove that does not really serve in the manner it can serve where questions are posed that have us thinking on things as the mystery of our lives of our world.

                                             

                                            I don't think it is going to change Andrei. Although things may change it seems it is going to be kept trying to keep itself alive through its parishioners need of them. But they don';t realize that they themselves have to grow. The mystery is lost. Isis is lost. And she can't be the old Isis, she is the new Isis. And this new Isis requires that we are grown.

                                             

                                            All good things and thanks,

                                            Dottie

                                            --- On Thu, 5/1/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                            From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                            Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                            To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                            Date: Thursday, May 1, 2008, 9:29 PM

                                            Hi, everyone !

                                            That subjects of boys changing the I-s etc. is a sensible one and i am not the one to have answers on Yeshua's life. For the time being, I incline to think that it was as described in my previous message. My language possible failed me. But I would like to repeat all these, because certainly I won't do it better then before. Should improve my English.
                                            Was the Christ God? Yes, if we accept the trinity as god.
                                            Did Hebrew and Romans kill god? No, because it is impossible.
                                            Church? I grew up as atheist. That is the culture that was inculcated to me, that is how I was educated. The church where I go when I want to go - the Christian orthodox one. I also attended several protestant gatherings. I've mentioned it before: the church, i.e. the community of Christ, is a necessary thing. How it is carrying out it's key-priority task - that's another think. However, I am sure the things with the church will change into better, because everything in church depends on men (priests), and men CAN change.
                                            I would say that I, persons like me, those who lived in soviet period, on soviet area, have a certain mentality or vision - we usually do not go often to the church, and the church has no deep influence on our world-vision.
                                            As for the pain, suffering, I am not fun of the feelings at all. But it happens, because any man should be able of co-living, co-feeling wit others, with different layers and sides of existence. We may feel pain or suffering due to the compassion we educate in us; compassion, i.e. feelings the same as others do, being able to understand better others, trying to put yourselves in others shoes, opening your heart etc.
                                            However, I am not fun at all of these feelings of grieve. Actually I do not like these kind of feelings. If these feelings are coming not from compassion, but due to the life itself (i.e. these are your own feelings), then the overwhelming of these kinds of grieve feelings in day-by-day life it has an destroyable impact on the society.

                                            Andrei



                                            ----- Original Message ----
                                            From: dottie zold <dottie_z@yahoo. com>
                                            To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                            Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2008 6:36:16 AM
                                            Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

                                            Hi Andrei,

                                             

                                            I wonder that he had expectations rather than hope. I tend to think of him as one being without those kinds of expections in a way.

                                             

                                            I hear you about pain, I think I just think of it differently.

                                             

                                            I am not so sure you are right in the thought of why this Being was a boy. However that's all good. I tend to think of the Being as what is termed the  'sister soul' of Adam and so I tend to think of the neccessity of this Being comeing forth as male in the physical body.

                                             

                                            When you say 'this one was God' what do you mean by that? Do you mean God as in the sense as the One or  rather as 'a God'? And I am feeling like there is a little confusion as to who was the child's mother who died etc. although maybe its just the way it is written down. Unless I misunderstand that the mother who is left is actually the step mother and her child it is that has died, the Zarathustra child, but whom now lives within the Nathan child. I am also feeling like you are speaking as if there were only one child who gave up the sheaths instead of two. Why is this? What do you think has occurred or is it just the way you are writing it down?

                                             

                                            OKay, hold on here for a second. Okay, are you Catholic? Because I am sensing, and I was sensing it earlier, a thought towards this need for 'pain' to be involved and now that only God could heal what He had created: and so then Christ is God to you, so the Jews did kill God to you? I take no issue with you if you think that, only with the ideas. In any case I do not mean to be offensive rather I like to have things clear in front of me. What is your religious tradition if you don't mind answering. I was brought up Catholic however I tended to ignore the adults and only concentrate on the artistic element and the words of Jesus alone. I seemed to not want to do anything else other than cut out these little words and pictures of him and then mold them into the wood works. I somehow breesed through these days of classes without learning any of their rituals or their handsigns:) etc. I am always amazed by my Catholic friends as to their detail of knowing just when to say 'and also to you' etc. Amazed that I somehow missed all of this. Although thankful now or I woulda been a nun in this lifetime within that damn church and then possibly have been, later on, kicked out for insubordination: ))))))

                                             

                                            I think it would be cool to have an open dialogue about these things and debate them from a level where nothing is hidden to the best of our ability and to keep it on the ideas and not the personal.

                                             

                                            All good things and thanks,

                                            Dottie

                                            --- On Wed, 4/30/08, Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com> wrote:

                                            From: Andrei O. <amail4andrei@ yahoo.com>
                                            Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_ tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters
                                            To: anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com
                                            Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2008, 1:39 PM

                                            Dear Dottie,

                                            Right to the point:
                                            Suffering is pain, be it physical or moral. It might imply sorrow, grief, desolation. It may need the ability to wait, to endure, to have the patience.
                                            At the same time, the knowledge involves suffering, or at least the suffering coming from com-passion.
                                            of course, Steiner also was desolated, since his expectations were not fulfilled; the "fruits' (brought about by the people whom he rendered the "How to know the higher worlds") were far from his expectations.

                                            As to the Jesus of Nazareth, the topic is more sensible...
                                            The pure soul, bearing the influence of Krishna, Buddha... being born in a boy, so as to implant the roots of wisdom, love, purity and readiness of sacrifice. 12 years this process has to be ongoing. Then, closer to his teenage, the Zarathustra I took possession of that boy-man, the I who before that was dwelling and living as another boy, perhaps a little bit more mature (it might be several years difference). That another boy dies, so does his father. Soon his present mother dies too and the both families unite. Years and years the boy is living without any awareness of his greatness. This understanding, through various ways, gets clearer the closer he gets to his age of 30. Then he becomes ready to offer himself and all he possesses - his entity as such - to the One Who's destiny and task is to bear and wave / lift the sin of men. This One was God, cause only the one who created man is able to bear and lift the man's erroneous development, cause only the Creator loves the creature so much, and only He has that power. At the same time his mother is rejuvenated due to the implication of the another mother, whose boy died at his teenage. The One dwells in the the human entity so prepared for three years. First being less attached to his humanity / manship, then more and more. In time, he become God and Man - equally. In time he masters all that is a human entity. He goes deeper, and now his whole body is kept together by his will. The time's just ripe for  the final point of his earth mission.... Blood pours into the Earth, He gets into / becomes the aura of Earth. He paves the way (as first bearer and walker) for the rest of humanity for follow the road of escape, of right development. This path / way might seem not very easy or just sometime, but... the matter is that the Path is not invented, the Path is He himslef, and He is such as He is, not other.

                                            Sensible (or sensitive) topic...

                                            With all my respect,

                                            Andrei



                                            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.




                                            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.


                                            Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                                          • Andrei O.
                                            Dear all, Dottie and Albert, All that we are talking here about strongly leads me towards the question on spiritual development, and that brings me to the
                                            Message 21 of 21 , May 5, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dear all,
                                              Dottie and Albert,

                                              All that we are talking here about strongly leads me towards the question on spiritual development, and that brings me to the question on teachers. Yes :) , I know someone may say its now up to everybody's abilities, the teacher are less and less important in someone's spiritual development. I agree with this, but only partially. From time to time anyone needs an impetus, an impulse given by an external influence/boost.

                                              Many of us have been lucky of meeting such elevated persons?

                                              This also refers in a way to the topic of "I-s" that we touched upon a little bit earlier. The one who used to be Zarathustra, he himself - I - after contributing to the Christological preparations should have been then reappearing on the Earth in various stages. So that would be one of high teachers, useful in the matter of spiritual development. Another one would be that who used to be John the Baptizer. But these are real masters, too high perhaps to be met so easy. However, we do have among us people who are farther in their human evolution and might be rather easy to access.

                                              With best regards,

                                              Andrei


                                              Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.