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

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] On the theme of sacrifice of The Christ and some personal matters

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 of 21 , May 1 9:29 PM
      • 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 3 of 21 , May 1 10:30 PM
        • 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 4 of 21 , May 3 10:45 AM
          • 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 5 of 21 , May 3 10:47 AM
            • 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 6 of 21 , May 3 11:35 AM
              • 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 7 of 21 , May 3 12:01 PM
                • 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 8 of 21 , May 3 3:12 PM
                  • 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 9 of 21 , May 3 3:43 PM
                    • 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 10 of 21 , May 3 5:14 PM
                      • 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 11 of 21 , May 5 3:59 AM
                        • 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.