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

Stephen's Preamble to Spiritual Science

Expand Messages
  • holderlin66
    http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/poe/works/poetry/ulalume.html Thus I pacified Psyche and kissed her, And tempted her out of her gloom- And conquered her scruples
    Message 1 of 24 , Sep 21, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/poe/works/poetry/ulalume.html

      "Thus I pacified Psyche and kissed her,
      And tempted her out of her gloom-
      And conquered her scruples and gloom;
      And we passed to the end of the vista,
      But were stopped by the door of a tomb-
      By the door of a legended tomb;
      And I said- "What is written, sweet sister,
      On the door of this legended tomb?"
      She replied- "Ulalume- Ulalume-
      'Tis the vault of thy lost Ulalume!"

      Stephen Hale wrote:

      "A Preamble to the Future Course of Spiritual Science"

      The evolution of Spiritual Science has reached the point where
      Anthropsophy, seen as an evolution out of Theosophy, and thus
      forming the first division of spiritual science which we can term,
      The Philosophy of Universal Human, must effect a transition out of
      itself into those two aspects, or segments, that we can term,
      Psychosophy and Pneumatosophy, and thus make up the second great
      division we can call, The Psychology of Self Remembering. Taken
      together, these four aspects: Theosophy, Anthroposophy, Psychosophy,
      and Pneumatosophy, and their corresponding divisions: The Philosophy
      of Universal Human, and The Psychology of Self Remembering comprise
      the Complete Evolution of Spiritual Science."

      Bradford requires clarification;

      Ya, I get that a lot, Bradford always requires clarification. But in
      this case, I happen to like this new wind bag STephen and really
      want to hear more from his Four Part Break down of the great winds
      of Spiritual Science. Four great winds, that might, if I get some
      clarification suit a whole new mapping of the Spiritual FOUR
      chambered heart in order to build the Fifth chamber, using the Fifth
      Ether and the Fifth Gospel.

      Aeolus
      by Dr Anthony E. Smith

      "Custodian of the four winds. A minor deity, he is the son of a king
      called Hippotes, and lived on one of the rocky Lipara islands, close
      to Sicily. In the caves on this island were imprisoned the winds,
      and Aeolos, directed by the higher gods, let out these winds as soft
      breezes, gales, or whatever the higher gods wished. Being visited by
      the Greek hero Odysseus, Aeolos received him favorably, and on the
      hero's departure presented Odysseus with a bag containing all the
      adverse winds, so that his friend might reach Ithaca with a fair
      wind. Odysseus did as Aeolos bid, but in sight of his homeland,
      having been untroubled by foul weather, he fell asleep and his men,
      curious, opened the bag, thus releasing all the fierce winds, which
      blew their ship far off course (Odyssey X, 2; Vigil I, 52). "

      Bradford continues;

      Aeolus S. Hale sir, let me ask you to detail if I have some of this
      right. "Theosophy, Anthroposophy, Psychosophy,
      and Pneumatosophy..."

      Theosophy- A nice basic book by Steiner and borrowing the
      foundations of Theosophical Society outlines the research of St.
      Paul and Dionysus the Areopagite.

      http://www.artonwalls.com/FrescoPages/fresco29.htm
      From a 14th-century Italian address in Latin verse to Robert of
      Anjou, now in the British Library, London.

      Seraphim are the first of the nine Orders or Hierarchies of Angels,
      as described by Dionysus the Areopagite, who was a student of the
      Apostle Paul. and who had recorded what Paul had told him of his
      vision of the third heaven (2Cor 12:2).

      Bradford continues;

      Theosophy, St. Paul and Dr. Rudolf Steiner seemed part of the
      starting point of Anthroposophy. Perhaps we could say, why not? Why
      not when we consider Paul's mission. Paul's mission was picked up
      and elaborated by Steiner. Of course we still don't have enough
      thinking fuel in the gradually depleted and watered down vitality of
      our Anthro community, compared to the vibrant first blush of
      research strength that came from those like Bock, Hiebbel and
      Valentin Tomberg.

      I don't thrust the argument of Valentin Tomberg in anyone's face,
      but I can tell you that Tomberg really worked deeply with Steiner
      indications and the inner life. Later Tomberg buried himself in the
      Catholic Church of all places. He stole Steiner's deep Theosophy
      insights, that were connected to the early Pauline Church and then,
      with mystery and poverty following him, Tomberg buried his Michael
      Soul in the hypocrisy of the Catholic church. So in the word
      THEOSOPHY the entire riddle of Valentin Tomberg stands out. One we
      cannot solve with only one life time perspective.

      http://www.vermontel.net/~vtsophia/kriele1.htm

      Next of the four you indicated Stephen, ANTHROPOSOPHY. This
      practical body of human works, medicine, education, science,
      agriculture all have to do with growing the Sophic/Cordelia aspects
      of our Soul and bringing these deeds directly on-line into culture.
      You shall know them by their works!

      The conflict between the Mother and Daughter movements remains
      rather external to the intimacy of how to grow and tend to the
      understanding of the objective nature of the Sophic/Anthrosophic
      soul into a Queen or King Lear. How amazingly the Sophic soul has
      grown from Persephone, which for the Anthro impaired was the exiled
      Soul, of us, in Greek Myth. And revealed how for 1/2 time the soul
      would be exiled to incarnation on Earth and 1/2 time to return to
      the spiritual world. What we learn from Hades, and what we learn in
      the dark world lit by Neo Gods..is clearly a Persephone/Sophia
      issue. This Sophia issue is further complicted by the advance of
      Novalis and the Egyptian Goddess image of NUT.

      Maria in the Mystery Dramas is repulsive to fine Drama critics
      because, culture hates the idea of the human being struggling for
      the Mastery of soul forces that lead toward Goodness. Drama wants to
      see Cordelia hung, crucified, dead, just to understand Catharsis.
      But Steiner in his Resurrection and Etheric uplifting message,
      really demanded that we cease to think in such old Plot structures.
      Defusing Luciferic and Ahrimanic tendencies in the social life
      appears to be an inner plot that leaves people unmoved. All the
      institutional work of Anthroposophy, like the rest of the world,
      must struggle with the burden of human dysfunctional behavior. All
      of these details help to grow the Human Gemut, the warm courage of
      the content that we can easily see in the Cordelia character but so
      far are unable to grow into a Maria like love of new spiritual
      courage.

      Next comes PSYCHOSOPHY, using Stephen's model. Robert Sardello and
      his sweet Jungian basis is not as gritty as the Bradfordian
      objective deconstruction of the layered I AM that has been brought
      with our King Lear research. Understanding the Sex life that battles
      in the soul between Lucifer and Ahriman and how the hypocrisy of the
      human id, lies to itself, to avoid coming to grips with the I AM
      that should do the inner battles within the structure of Sentient-
      Intellectual and Consciousness Soul structures are deep caverns of
      complex human psychology. No one has given Steiner the credit due
      for deconstructing and assembling the model of the Soul that was
      well in advance of Freud, Jung and everyone else.

      What happens in the sludge of the Sentient Soul when we can see it
      clearly arising out of early childhood abuse, RedNeck or other
      fundamentalistic roots, generally over the whole world, cobbled by
      beliefs in Judaism, Islam and christianity, tend to defile the
      sentient soul and keep it wallowing in sludge. These are all well
      documented dynamics of human destiny and the I Am. Clocking the
      conflict of power between Goneril and Regan in King Lear and
      understanding the denial of Lucifer and Ahriman as active beings in
      the soul are whole sets of psychosophy aspects that combine with
      myth and Greek Jungian tangles that cannot yet work clearly with the
      superstructure of the standard structure of psychology as posed by
      Spiritual Science or Psychosophy.

      How the Astral body sits in the soul and the relation autism to
      mercury and chemical disruptions and conscious attacks on the
      balance system of the nervous system, plunge us into a Psychosophy
      war in culture that ties itself into Ahrimanized medicine.

      Understanding serial killers and the Nietzsche psychology profile
      that Steiner outlined, and even coping with Hannibal Lechtars where
      the idea of eating a person, is a form of reversed communion, can be
      traced to real events and karmic patterns of development. Steiner's
      Karma lectures are the most advance psychology outlines and case
      studies ever presented to humanity. Bar None. The only people Barred
      are the infants who haven't a single dithering clue what
      Anthropsophy contains.

      Now number four would be PNEUMATOSOPHY, ruach, pneuma and spiritus—
      meaning "breath", immediately identifying them with life, just as
      soul is anima. The biblical creator breathed life into his lifeless
      images of clay. The breath of life animated (Latin, "anima" soul)
      them.

      Spirit, breath, and starting with such a stunning concept for Earth
      and Earth dwellers, that never, I say, never is taken up by Anthros
      in general, cept the Priests and Bock, because some idiotic
      concession has entered the dim witted mind set that somehow Spirit
      and Breath must be handed over to the brains of Priests because the
      baby step thinking jerks remain stuck in their former incarnations
      when the mighty Luciferic Church dominated everything, cannot get
      themselves, now that Ahriman and Science dominate everything, to
      think about HOLY SPIRIT BREATH and connect it to Logos and ATomic
      table.

      Christ appears with a newly minted, atomic table flesh body and
      breaths through his lungs, raw sanctified Holy Spirit Breath, over
      the disciples and we stumbling monkeys cannot put, atomic table,
      fleshy physical body, breath, Logos and Christ together. You see how
      a child begins to crawl and stand and walk and put one foot in front
      of the other. That is what Steiner has done for Science. But 99% of
      even our crews, who take up the Fifth Gospel or the Christ being,
      cannot put one thought in front of the other. We still rely on the
      old habit of the Church, and we still exist with a numb pocket in
      our brain, that is left over because we don't think, we can think of
      such things. PHOOOOEY!

      STephen, it was Pneumasophy that remained a little vague to me. For
      the whole range of Elemental worlds, animal and invested astral
      forces in the animal world, the invested beings in the etheric world
      and on up to the Fire and Agni Seriphic Beings of whole,
      overwhelming Love forces of the Father...I would love for you,
      Stephen, to give me some clues as to how you see Pneumasophy.

      Some might say it is yogic breathing. Some might say, it is where
      ever Living Being is operative...Some might say, Beings...all
      Beings. What do you think this term Pneumasophy means Stephen? And
      can you break down and detail out how you see these four categories
      in more specific detail. In other words if I have screwed up
      somewhere in my understanding of your four part outline, let me know
      where and how, as best as anyone can under brief circumstances.
      Somewhere in the ball park?
    • holderlin66
      Stephen Hale wrote: Anthroposophy expresses the evolution of spiritual science up til now. As such, anthroposophical spiritual science represents the highest
      Message 2 of 24 , Sep 21, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephen Hale wrote:

        "Anthroposophy expresses the evolution of spiritual science up til
        now. As such, anthroposophical spiritual science represents the
        highest expression of human intelligence capable of recognizing and
        explaining the culmination of the first aspect of the planetary
        alignment of May 5th as previously described; a culmination
        involving the direct experience of critical mass and its impetus for
        a greater measure of inner reflection. Beyond this point, spiritual
        science at its present level of development, can not go."

        Bradford hits the PAUSE button:

        Woe, woe, woe, hold on here Stephen...ease down lad, ease down. You
        list failed Sentient in Roman times, failed Consciousness Soul in
        Babylonian and failed Intellectual Soul in America...while I might
        find justification for elaborating Babylonian super Planetary and
        cosmic seed germs as part of the 3rd Post Atlantean, Egyptain
        Babylonian pattern that has emerged now, has surfaced now, in this
        time period as Steiner had indicated.. Still the layers of
        development are Sentient-Intellectual-Consciousness Soul and for
        good reason. While individual people have different leanings and
        capacities in various stratas, where they are more developed, the
        building of a solid Consciousness Soul faculty is a goal. There is
        also an Anti-brotherhood, anti-consciousness soul direction and
        underpinnings as well.

        Babylonian Consciousness Soul superstructure, is only part of the
        story. This Consciousness Soul faculty is not only math and Beings
        but warmth and Angelic brotherhood. It is saturation in myth and new
        vision something like Joseph Campbell. While Steiner was drawing as
        well from the higher seed of his Spirit Self, and translating this
        thought substance, into currency of 20th century thought forms.

        But, Stephen, you suddenly trance out and your eyes go wide, or as I
        suspect this isn't just coming hot off the nimble fingers of your
        computer...if it is coming hot off the nimble fingers of your
        computer, fresh baked, than I better look at those eyes of yours to
        see if the Trance condition isn't happening right here on the AT.

        So Stephen, you place great emphasis on a Stellar
        configuration "The planetary alignment that occurred on May 5th,
        2000, at the exact mid-point of Spring and Summer,..." which
        requires me to reel you in a bit from the magnificent research you
        have done up till now. Now most of the wonderful depth issues that
        you reveal, I can follow, yet the Robotic Prounouncement and
        delivery has me a bit worried. Where are you getting this style of
        delivery from? Notice, I don't dismiss what you are thinking, but it
        is certainly not warmed with human cognition. Warming it up, heating
        it in the oven, has prevented me from writing many things, and I am
        still a kind of cold fish.

        As an aside, I won't say that you don't have some strong points
        here, but the dehumanized style needs a little warmth. A little
        humor. YOu see, there is no way that you can walk into a room and
        start spouting like this, unless you imagine that that is the way
        Initiates behave. They don't. Maybe Valentin Andrea behaved that way
        and Shakespeare behaved that way when they were Channeling Christian
        Rosenkreuz.

        So there is an issue I have with the style of delivery. Now that
        does not mean that anybody should come up and open fire on Stephen
        because he has popped open his twenty year old bottle of best
        champagne he has been hiding in his cellar. It looks like you have
        had this pent up for some time and we all need to take champagne and
        sip it carefully and a person who serves champagne knows that they
        can't keep pouring without asking if, lets say, somebody gets this.
        I would love to have you around to unfold this stuff slowly, notice
        I didn't ask you to prove any of this, but to slow it down, at least
        for my brain..because this delivery just swishes over so many heads
        and I would like to assist in saturation and grasping your
        experience and compare it with mine and others.

        Now, you're very lucky, cause I get it. But when you suddenly
        brought in this zinger, "Beyond this point, spiritual
        science at its present level of development, can not go." I start to
        get a little itchy. You see here is my problem.

        Theosophy and I give lectures on Spiritual Science at many
        Theosophical groups, they have schemes and patterns..but what I have
        done and what we all need to do is to flesh out these schemes and
        patterns. Alice Bailey has schemes and patterns. Yet human
        experience is having a hard time catching up to things like, YES
        THIS IS THE WAY IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE AND THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENED IN
        THE STARS end of story. People, we bearers of I AM's, have to get to
        know their own inner experiences. Fleshing out Sentient soul
        experience, is for me, much more a part of creating the space to see
        and understand. We neither understand the core field of Intellectual
        Soul, Consciousness Soul and Sentient Soul, nor do we attempt
        amongst ourselves to make it fully living and common cognitive
        process.

        I don't know that people have understood anything much about
        Sentient Soul experience, Intellectual Soul experience or
        Consciousness Soul experience. And certainly some of the best of the
        best that I have met, still just hear these anthro babble terms and
        really have no rich experience to add to them. Now comes a mighty
        uncorked bottle of all of us looking at our watches and saying we're
        late, we're late for a very important date, May 5th 2000, it was the
        Cosmic Christ event and we missed it, Oh damn, we're doomed, doomed
        I tell you. Bullsh--t.

        We got a lot of catching up to do, I'll give you that, but everyone
        is on their own clock and I admit to you that I would like some
        outside Cosmic factor to tell us all what time of day it is but that
        isn't how it works. It simply isn't how it works. We are on a 243
        year ride still in this Michael period and we are dealing with real
        global issues in the foreground and in the background we do have
        massive Cosmic and Etheric Christ issues that pertain to the future
        of Anthroposophy. If you mean that the four aspects of germinal
        Anthroposophy you named, Pneumasophy, Theosophy, etc should become
        developed research organs of the whole body of diverse Spiritual
        Science, I might see some germinal indications for that. But lets
        take this very rich discussion a little more slowly because I really
        want to follow your thinking on this and I tend to be a bit slow.

        The following is fairly typical of the dogmatic, stern style, if not
        the content of the interesting Champagne your passing around. I'd
        like this frozen codified drink you offered to melt a little in the
        glass so I could taste what you really mean by this.

        You wrote;

        "Thus, this event can be shown to have a completely
        supersensible basis and purpose for its occurrence. Divided as
        previously indicated into the two relevant aspects that we have
        termed, culmination and new beginning, this event can be logically
        described as involving: 1) the significant presentation of the five
        planets previously called forth in the Old Moon evolution to serve
        under the guiding influence of Jehova; and, 2) the close-in
        alignment of these five planets with the sun over the course of the
        thirteen days from May 5 through May 17th that specifically installs
        this general osmotic pressure for etheric regeneration."

        Bradford continues;

        Silly me, you know I thought when Mars had zoomed closest to the
        Earth in 70,000 years and we were faced with Martian division of
        Intellectual and Sentient soul volcanic activity pending the Iraq
        invasion and protests world wide, that somehow Buddha would be
        happy. You know about Buddha don't you? David Spangler even picked
        up on the Mars thing and did one of the finest essays on Mars I've
        read, and he and I agreed for a change. Now you come along, dear
        brother Stephen and give us another cosmic mandate that happened and
        that now we are here, (like the old shopping center maps, YOU ARE
        HERE). Well as I said, we might be where you say we are, but people,
        nobody, nobody responds to Stars so firmly, except when it comes to
        why the Mayans stopped their calendar predictions at 2012. Did they
        know something we don't know?

        Ya, and this last part is pure Steiner not pure you or me.

        You wrote:

        "Briefly stated, the Old Moon sphere of evolution involved the work
        required to form the prototype of the Astral Body that has been
        bestowed on man for his evolvement on earth. As such, and in order
        to facilitiate a certain accelerated development of this Astral Body
        for the Earth evolution of man, Jehova remains connected with the
        Moon at the point of the separation of Old Sun and its spiritual
        members, the Sun Spirits. Along with the Beings of the Second
        Hierarchy, comprised of the Kyriotetes, Dynamis, and Exusiai, this
        previous sphere of Old Sun served to form the prototype of the
        Etheric Body of man."

        You see, I have tried, with Wagner and the Rhinegold to show how the
        Old MOOn experiences work..The Rhinegold and the astral world and a
        gnome force from the Old Moon, but again, the Michael School we are
        dealing with can't hardly, except for Vermont Sophia group, even
        cope with the thinking gems you are throwing out here. If you are
        gonna treat everyone to seventeen glasses of pure champagne, go
        slower, break it down, build up some real experience and if you must
        hinge it on a May 2000 event, take some of the God told me so, out
        of the delivery so I can enjoy it with you.
      • wdenval@aol.com
        In a message dated 09/21/2004 8:37:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time, ... Perhaps what Stephen is pointing to here since he s broken down Spiritual Science into
        Message 3 of 24 , Sep 21, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 09/21/2004 8:37:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time, holderlin66@... writes:


          Beyond this point, spiritual
          science at its present level of development, can not go


          Perhaps what Stephen is pointing to here since he's broken down Spiritual Science into four disciplines is that beyond this point individuals, who having developed new capacities within one aspect, unite together to forge a new path. Just a wild guess. Actually a wild observation of mine because I've worked for the past sixteen years with young children. And I work with children with  ADD, and Autism, and Childhood obesity and Depression and, and, and...   Kind of reminds me of Cinderella-you know here we are in the cinders-humanity on the ash-heap. But these children, without exception have tremendous potential and, in many cases (probably in all cases-I'm just too dull to discern) new capacities.  They can put on "the new clothes",  they can go to the ball, and they can marry the prince and wear the crown. Also reminiscent of the phoenix arising from the ashes-but what exactly is arising here? The new queen and thus a new rule-at least according to the fairy tale.-Val
        • Tarjei Straume
          ... I read some of Tomberg s anthroposophical stuff in the 1980 s, and I must admit he made no impression on me. There are anthros around who are big on
          Message 4 of 24 , Sep 29, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            At 18:32 21.09.2004, Bradford wrote:

            >I don't thrust the argument of Valentin Tomberg in anyone's face, but I
            >can tell you that Tomberg really worked deeply with Steiner indications
            >and the inner life. Later Tomberg buried himself in the Catholic Church of
            >all places. He stole Steiner's deep Theosophy insights, that were
            >connected to the early Pauline Church and then, with mystery and poverty
            >following him, Tomberg buried his Michael Soul in the hypocrisy of the
            >Catholic church.

            I read some of Tomberg's anthroposophical stuff in the 1980's, and I must
            admit he made no impression on me. There are anthros around who are big on
            Tomberg, and at the same time, they call Marie Steiner "a bitch" for
            denying Tomberg "the apostlic succession after Steiner" so to speak.
            Personally, I choose Marie Steiner any time. Without her, the
            Anthroposophical Society and all the published works of RS wouldn't have
            been available to us today.

            Incidentally, Steiner was once approached by some members of the Catholic
            clergy after a lecture. They pointed out how many of his teachings were
            similar to Catholocism - the purgatory and so forth. So they asked him why
            didn't he join the Church? Steiner's response was to the effect that it was
            his task to speak to those who stand *outside* the Church, because *they
            also* have the right to be led to Christ.

            End of story. In my book, the Tomberg people who call Marie Steiner a bitch
            can just take their church and shove it.


            Tarjei
            http://uncletaz.com/
          • holderlin66
            Tarjei Straume wrote: End of story. In my book, the Tomberg people who call Marie Steiner a bitch can just take their church and shove it. Bradford
            Message 5 of 24 , Sep 29, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Tarjei Straume wrote:

              "End of story. In my book, the Tomberg people who call Marie Steiner
              a bitch can just take their church and shove it."

              Bradford says..humpfff:

              I don't particularly like reductionism no matter where I find it
              especially since I am such a gas bag...breakfast of helium and all
              that. I agree with only one thing. I agree that the low life level
              of considering the gossippy war how the ashes of Steiner were fought
              over, literally, before Tomberg even came on the scene has been
              wrung out and kicked around by those who love gossip long enough.
              Anthros have done little but bicker with reductionism and gossip
              about complex issues of karma while never fully standing back and
              looking at the complexity of the issues.

              Marie Steiner, for all you know or don't probably had a good Orpheus
              sort of reason for standing by Eurythmy and having numerous ailments
              in her limbs; perhaps it may even be a Hypatia sort of reason to
              stand by Steiner and the new library of Alexandria that Steiner was
              building.

              But the taste or lack of taste in understanding the cognitive
              refinement of how Tomberg addressed Steiner's work, remains in the
              eye of the beholder. Tomberg had a style of research and approach to
              Steiner's work that was stunningly rich. But I have never inclined
              myself to Catholics, expect that certain Catholic girls certainly
              wanted to experience Sex...but the guilt, the guilt, I, to this day
              do not understand the guilt.. And no one to this day, understands or
              has with satisifaction fully explained Tomberg's retreat to the
              guilt capitol of the world. If it was a retreat. So I have a certain
              respect for all of our Anthro bretheren. Plato certainly left
              Steiner holding the bag, but we would have to ask ourselves how
              Plato survived the Templar events? Not to be allegorical here.
              Things are not so easy and we are great prophets of reductionism and
              gossip.

              George Bush is winning because of his folkys homespun delivery and
              everything is simple and easy and black or white. Kerry is losing
              because he is revealing his Hamlet complexity. I'll take Hamlet
              complexity when I am dining with Anthros and Bush simplicity when
              dining with some of my Texas friends.

              http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/or030897.htm

              Dr Deakin: Imagine a time when the world's greatest living
              mathematician was a woman, indeed a physically beautiful woman, and
              a woman who was simultaneously the world's leading astronomer.

              And imagine that she conducted her life and her professional work in
              a city as turbulent and troubled as Ayodhya or Amritsar, Belfast or
              Beirut is today.

              And imagine such a female mathematician achieving fame not only in
              her specialist field, but also as a philosopher and religious
              thinker, who attracted a large popular following.

              And imagine her as a virgin martyr killed, not for her Christianity,
              but by Christians because she was not one of them.

              And imagine that the guilt of her death was widely whispered to lie
              at the door of one of Christianity's most honoured and significant
              saints.

              Would we not expect to have heard of all this? Would it not be
              shouted from the rooftops? Would it not be possible to walk into any
              bookstore and buy a biography of this woman? Would not her life be
              common knowledge?

              You would think so, but such is not the case. And that is the reason
              for this talk.

              For Hypatia of Alexandria was indeed, at the time she was killed by
              Christian fanatics, the world's foremost mathematician and
              astronomer and also a leading neoplatonist philosopher. Physically
              beautiful, devotedly celibate, she was the revered teacher of a man
              (Synesius of Cyrene) who, after his conversion to Christianity,
              helped formulate the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, using
              neoplatonist principles learned at her feet.

              And yes, the shadow of guilt over her lynch-murder still clouds the
              memory of St Cyril of Alexandria, Doctor of the Universal Church,
              and in particular, Doctor of the Incarnation.

              Hypatia is not quite the first woman mathematician of whom we know.
              (There are at least two earlier claimants to that title.) She is,
              however, the first of whom we have reasonably detailed and reliable
              information. She was also the most eminent female mathematician of
              ancient times - until the 18th century quite unmatched, and still
              the only woman of whom it can be claimed that she was absolutely pre-
              eminent in the mathematical world of her day.
            • gaelman58
              ... but I ... indications ... Church of ... poverty ... of the ... I must ... are big on ... for ... speak. ... wouldn t have ... Catholic ... were ... him why
              Message 6 of 24 , Sep 29, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
                <cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
                > At 18:32 21.09.2004, Bradford wrote:
                >
                > >I don't thrust the argument of Valentin Tomberg in anyone's face,
                but I
                > >can tell you that Tomberg really worked deeply with Steiner
                indications
                > >and the inner life. Later Tomberg buried himself in the Catholic
                Church of
                > >all places. He stole Steiner's deep Theosophy insights, that were
                > >connected to the early Pauline Church and then, with mystery and
                poverty
                > >following him, Tomberg buried his Michael Soul in the hypocrisy
                of the
                > >Catholic church.
                >
                > I read some of Tomberg's anthroposophical stuff in the 1980's, and
                I must
                > admit he made no impression on me. There are anthros around who
                are big on
                > Tomberg, and at the same time, they call Marie Steiner "a bitch"
                for
                > denying Tomberg "the apostlic succession after Steiner" so to
                speak.
                > Personally, I choose Marie Steiner any time. Without her, the
                > Anthroposophical Society and all the published works of RS
                wouldn't have
                > been available to us today.
                >
                > Incidentally, Steiner was once approached by some members of the
                Catholic
                > clergy after a lecture. They pointed out how many of his teachings
                were
                > similar to Catholocism - the purgatory and so forth. So they asked
                him why
                > didn't he join the Church? Steiner's response was to the effect
                that it was
                > his task to speak to those who stand *outside* the Church,
                because *they
                > also* have the right to be led to Christ.
                >
                > End of story. In my book, the Tomberg people who call Marie
                Steiner a bitch
                > can just take their church and shove it.
                >
                >
                > Tarjei
                > http://uncletaz.com/

                This stuff is written on behalf of the Michael Impulse, is it?

                Do us the small courtesy of giving a citation regarding the
                conversation you mention. The clergy asked a baptized RC and ex-
                altar boy to "join the Church"? Steiner's task was to speak to one
                group but not another? Huh?
                Some Tombergers called Marie Steiner a "bitch"? No reasonable
                person will take that as fact on someone's sayso...what they will
                take as a fact is your telling them to "take their Church and shove
                it".
              • Tarjei Straume
                ... I write on behalf of any impulse of my choosing, smartass. ... Do me the BIG courtesy and drop that snide condescending tone of yours. It s in one of his
                Message 7 of 24 , Sep 29, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 19:37 29.09.2004, gaelman58 wrote:

                  This stuff is written on behalf of the Michael Impulse, is it?

                  I write on behalf of any impulse of my choosing, smartass.

                  Do us the small courtesy of giving a citation regarding the conversation you mention. 

                  Do me the BIG courtesy and drop that snide condescending tone of yours. It's in one of his six thousand lectures, so just do the digging yourself. I forgot the reference. (If you've paid any attention to my previous posts, you should have noticed that I always give the exact reference when I have it.)

                  Tarjei
                  http://uncletaz.com/

                  Think twice before flaming the gurus on the net.
                  - http://www.albion.com/

                • Tarjei Straume
                  ... Steiner was not a Roman Catholic, and he did not endorse the authority of the Pope. ... Who said Steiner s task was to speak to one group but not another
                  Message 8 of 24 , Sep 29, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I (Tarjei) wrote:

                    > > Incidentally, Steiner was once approached by some members of the Catholic
                    > > clergy after a lecture. They pointed out how many of his teachings were
                    > > similar to Catholocism - the purgatory and so forth. So they asked him why
                    > > didn't he join the Church? Steiner's response was to the effect that it
                    > was
                    > > his task to speak to those who stand *outside* the Church, because *they
                    > > also* have the right to be led to Christ.

                    I also wrote:

                    > > In my book, the Tomberg people who call Marie Steiner a bitch
                    > > can just take their church and shove it.

                    At 19:37 29.09.2004, gaelman58 wrote:

                    >The clergy asked a baptized RC and ex-altar boy to "join the Church"?

                    Steiner was not a Roman Catholic, and he did not endorse the authority of
                    the Pope.

                    >Steiner's task was to speak to one group but not another? Huh?

                    Who said "Steiner's task was to speak to one group but not another" ?

                    Roman Catholics were always welcome to attend Steiner's lectures, just like
                    people of any other theological or philosophical persuasion. He also
                    lectured to an audience of RC priests on at least one occasion. But he was
                    obviously not interested in doing a Tomberg by converting to Catholicism
                    and allowing his initiation science to become a mouthpiece for Papal authority

                    >Some Tombergers called Marie Steiner a "bitch"?

                    Yes, on a non-public anthro-list.

                    >No reasonable person will take that as fact on someone's sayso...

                    You're doing a Peter Staudenmaier here. You write "reasonable" when you
                    mean "unreasonable."

                    If you think I'm making things up and lying in my posts, nobody is forcing
                    you to read my posts. Steiner's words were that he told the priests it was
                    his task to speak to people outside the church because they ALSO had the
                    right to be brought to Christ. Take it or leave it. If you think I'm lying,
                    stop reading my posts.

                    >what they will take as a fact is your telling them to "take their Church
                    >and shove it".

                    What makes you an authority on what other people will take as a fact?
                    Papists who call Marie Steiner a bitch because she opposed Tomberg's bid
                    for the leadership of the Anthroposophical society, can IMHO take their
                    church and shove it. Period.


                    Tarjei
                    http://uncletaz.com/
                  • Tarjei Straume
                    ... Perhaps some light needs to be shed on the relationship between Rudolf Steiner and the Roman Catholic Church: It is the aim of Anthroposophical Spiritual
                    Message 9 of 24 , Sep 29, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 19:37 29.09.2004, gaelman58 wrote:

                      >The clergy asked a baptized RC and ex-altar boy to "join the Church"?

                      Perhaps some light needs to be shed on the relationship between Rudolf
                      Steiner and the Roman Catholic Church:

                      "It is the aim of Anthroposophical Spiritual Science to serve religious
                      interest, and to give a content to religious experience. With what result?
                      In the course of this year (1919) the question was brought forward before
                      the Holy Roman Congregation whether the teaching that is termed
                      theosophical is in keeping with the teaching of the Catholic Church, and
                      whether it is permissible to belong to theosophical societies, to attend
                      theosophical meetings, and to read theosophical papers and periodicals. The
                      answer was: “No”, in every case, No, “in omnibus”. This is the spirit of
                      opposition, of contradiction, and the Jesuit Zimmermann interprets it more
                      particularly by applying this veto of the Holy Roman Congregation to
                      Anthroposophy also. I need not set Zimmermann's writings before you in
                      detail. You all know the wind that blows from a certain quarter against
                      Anthroposophical Spiritual Science, and that it is the breath of the Spirit
                      of contradiction. The Spirit carried in this wind can be felt in the
                      following words, penned by that same Zimmermann, who for years spread
                      abroad the lie that I was a renegade priest: “Through the defection of
                      their General Secretary, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, who took along with him most
                      of the members, the Theosophical Society picked up again to some extent in
                      the course of years, and now owns about twenty-five lodges, one-fifth of
                      which are certainly somewhat dormant, and publishes at Dusseldorf, as its
                      official organ, Das Theosophische Streben (The Theosophic Endeavour). The
                      followers of Steiner, who named his theosophy ‘Anthroposophy’ after his
                      exit, complained recently that he was becoming unproductive, that he had no
                      new ‘visions’, that he always lectures upon the same things, that he would
                      soon have to throw himself into something new, etc.” This paves the way for
                      another article dealing in the same intelligent fashion with the “Threefold
                      Social Organism”. You see what Spirit of truth backs up this Jesuit? A
                      Jesuit does not merely represent his personal opinion, but the opinion of
                      the Catholic Church. He speaks only as a member of the Catholic Church.
                      What he says represents the opinion of the Catholic Church. We must judge
                      such things from a moral point of view. We must ask whether anyone who
                      deals with truth as this man does ­ a man, moreover, held in high esteem by
                      a particular religious community, can be held in high esteem by the true
                      spirit of humanity."

                      - Rudolf Steiner: The Cosmic New Year, Lecture IV: The Breaking-In of
                      Soiritual Revelations Since the Last Third of the Nineteenth Century -
                      Thoughts on New Year's Eve: Stuttgart 31st December, 1919, GA 195.

                      http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/GA/GA0195/19191231a01.html

                      Cheers,


                      Tarjei
                      http://uncletaz.com/
                    • Tarjei Straume
                      Here s more: ********************************************** The creeds who wish to remain in the old beaten tracks, who do not wish to arouse themselves to a
                      Message 10 of 24 , Sep 29, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Here's more:

                        **********************************************

                        The creeds who wish to remain in the old beaten tracks, who do not wish to
                        arouse themselves to a new knowledge of the Mystery of Golgotha, will
                        reinforce their strong fighting position which they already have taken up,
                        and it would be very frivolous, my dear friends, if we would remain
                        unconscious of the fact that this battle has started.

                        I myself, you can be sure, am not at all eager for such a battle,
                        particularly not for a battle with the Roman Catholic Church which, it
                        seems, is forced upon us from the other side with such violence. He who,
                        after all, thoroughly knows the deeper historical impulses of the creeds of
                        our time will be very unwilling to fight time-honored institutions. But if
                        the battle is forced upon us, it is not to be avoided! And the clergy of
                        our day is not in the least inclined to open its doors to that which has to
                        enter: the spiritual-scientific world conception. Remember the grotesque
                        quotations I read to you recently where it was said that people should
                        inform themselves about anthroposophically-oriented spiritual science
                        through the writings of my opponents, since Roman-Catholics are forbidden
                        by the Pope to read my own writings. This is not a light matter, my dear
                        friends; it is a very serious matter! A battle which arises in such a
                        manner, which is capable of disseminating such a judgment in the world,
                        such a battle is not to be taken lightly. And what is more; it is not to be
                        taken lightly since we do not enter it willingly. Let us take the example
                        of the Roman-Catholic Church, my dear friends; matters are not different in
                        regard to the Protestant Church, but the Roman-Catholic church is more
                        powerful ­ and we have to consider time-honored institutions: if one
                        understands the significance of the vestments of the priest when he reads
                        the Holy Mass, the meaning of every single piece of his priestly garments,
                        if one understands every single act of the Holy Mass, then one knows that
                        they are sacred, time-honored establishments; they are establishments more
                        ancient than Christianity for the Holy Mass is a ritual of the ancient
                        Mystery culture, transformed in the Christian sense. And modern clergy who
                        uses such weapons as described above lives in these rituals! Thus, if one
                        has, on the one hand, the deepest veneration for the existing rituals and
                        symbolism, and sees, on the other hand, how insufficient is the defense of
                        and how serious are the attacks against that which wishes to enter
                        mankind's evolution, then one becomes aware of the earnestness that is
                        necessary in taking a stand in these matters. It is truly something worth
                        deep study and consideration. What is thus heralded from that side is only
                        at its beginnings; and it is not right to sleep in regard to is; on the
                        contrary, we have to sharpen our perception for it. During the two decades
                        in which the Anthroposophical Movement has been fostered in Middle Europe,
                        we could indulge in sectarian somnolence which was so hard to combat in our
                        own ranks and which still today sits so deeply embedded in the souls of the
                        human beings who have entered the Anthroposophical Movement. But the time
                        has passed in which we might have been allowed to indulge in sectarian
                        somnolence. That which I have often emphasized here is deeply true, namely,
                        that it is necessary that we should grasp the world-historical significance
                        of the Anthroposophical Movement and overlook trifles, but that we should
                        also consider the small impulses as serious and great.

                        **********************************************
                        - Rudolf Steiner: The Mission of the Archangel Michael, VI: The Ancient
                        Yoga Culture and the New Yoga Will. The Michael Culture of the Future,
                        Dornach, 30th November, 1919 GA 194

                        http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/MissMich/19191130p01.html


                        Tarjei
                        http://uncletaz.com/
                      • gaelman58
                        ... Church ? ... Rudolf ... religious ... result? ... before ... Church, and ... attend ... periodicals. The ... spirit of ... it more ... to ... you in ...
                        Message 11 of 24 , Sep 30, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
                          <cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
                          > At 19:37 29.09.2004, gaelman58 wrote:
                          >
                          > >The clergy asked a baptized RC and ex-altar boy to "join the
                          Church"?
                          >
                          > Perhaps some light needs to be shed on the relationship between
                          Rudolf
                          > Steiner and the Roman Catholic Church:
                          >
                          > "It is the aim of Anthroposophical Spiritual Science to serve
                          religious
                          > interest, and to give a content to religious experience. With what
                          result?
                          > In the course of this year (1919) the question was brought forward
                          before
                          > the Holy Roman Congregation whether the teaching that is termed
                          > theosophical is in keeping with the teaching of the Catholic
                          Church, and
                          > whether it is permissible to belong to theosophical societies, to
                          attend
                          > theosophical meetings, and to read theosophical papers and
                          periodicals. The
                          > answer was: "No", in every case, No, "in omnibus". This is the
                          spirit of
                          > opposition, of contradiction, and the Jesuit Zimmermann interprets
                          it more
                          > particularly by applying this veto of the Holy Roman Congregation
                          to
                          > Anthroposophy also. I need not set Zimmermann's writings before
                          you in
                          > detail. You all know the wind that blows from a certain quarter
                          against
                          > Anthroposophical Spiritual Science, and that it is the breath of
                          the Spirit
                          > of contradiction. The Spirit carried in this wind can be felt in
                          the
                          > following words, penned by that same Zimmermann, who for years
                          spread
                          > abroad the lie that I was a renegade priest: "Through the
                          defection of
                          > their General Secretary, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, who took along with
                          him most
                          > of the members, the Theosophical Society picked up again to some
                          extent in
                          > the course of years, and now owns about twenty-five lodges, one-
                          fifth of
                          > which are certainly somewhat dormant, and publishes at Dusseldorf,
                          as its
                          > official organ, Das Theosophische Streben (The Theosophic
                          Endeavour). The
                          > followers of Steiner, who named his theosophy `Anthroposophy'
                          after his
                          > exit, complained recently that he was becoming unproductive, that
                          he had no
                          > new `visions', that he always lectures upon the same things, that
                          he would
                          > soon have to throw himself into something new, etc." This paves
                          the way for
                          > another article dealing in the same intelligent fashion with
                          the "Threefold
                          > Social Organism". You see what Spirit of truth backs up this
                          Jesuit? A
                          > Jesuit does not merely represent his personal opinion, but the
                          opinion of
                          > the Catholic Church. He speaks only as a member of the Catholic
                          Church.
                          > What he says represents the opinion of the Catholic Church. We
                          must judge
                          > such things from a moral point of view. We must ask whether anyone
                          who
                          > deals with truth as this man does ­ a man, moreover, held in high
                          esteem by
                          > a particular religious community, can be held in high esteem by
                          the true
                          > spirit of humanity."
                          >
                          > - Rudolf Steiner: The Cosmic New Year, Lecture IV: The Breaking-In
                          of
                          > Soiritual Revelations Since the Last Third of the Nineteenth
                          Century -
                          > Thoughts on New Year's Eve: Stuttgart 31st December, 1919, GA 195.
                          >
                          > http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/GA/GA0195/19191231a01.html
                          >
                          > Cheers,
                          >
                          >
                          > Tarjei
                          > http://uncletaz.com/


                          Read what is said, Tarjei. Steiner says, "This is the spirit of
                          opposition, of contradiction, and the Jesuit Zimmerman INTERPETS it
                          more particularly by applying this veto of the Holy Roman
                          Congregation (applied to Theosophy only) to Anthroposophy also.
                          You see, a single Jesuit priest doesn't have that kind of official
                          juice where he can condemn this or that according to his personal
                          views. Steiner apparently agreed with the Vatican in saying that
                          Theosophy wasn't Christ-centered. He left the Theosophical Society,
                          didn't he?
                        • gaelman58
                          ... the Catholic ... teachings were ... asked him why ... effect that it ... because *they ... Church ? ... authority of ... another ? ... just like ... also
                          Message 12 of 24 , Sep 30, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
                            <cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
                            > I (Tarjei) wrote:
                            >
                            > > > Incidentally, Steiner was once approached by some members of
                            the Catholic
                            > > > clergy after a lecture. They pointed out how many of his
                            teachings were
                            > > > similar to Catholocism - the purgatory and so forth. So they
                            asked him why
                            > > > didn't he join the Church? Steiner's response was to the
                            effect that it
                            > > was
                            > > > his task to speak to those who stand *outside* the Church,
                            because *they
                            > > > also* have the right to be led to Christ.
                            >
                            > I also wrote:
                            >
                            > > > In my book, the Tomberg people who call Marie Steiner a bitch
                            > > > can just take their church and shove it.
                            >
                            > At 19:37 29.09.2004, gaelman58 wrote:
                            >
                            > >The clergy asked a baptized RC and ex-altar boy to "join the
                            Church"?
                            >
                            > Steiner was not a Roman Catholic, and he did not endorse the
                            authority of
                            > the Pope.
                            >
                            > >Steiner's task was to speak to one group but not another? Huh?
                            >
                            > Who said "Steiner's task was to speak to one group but not
                            another" ?
                            >
                            > Roman Catholics were always welcome to attend Steiner's lectures,
                            just like
                            > people of any other theological or philosophical persuasion. He
                            also
                            > lectured to an audience of RC priests on at least one occasion.
                            But he was
                            > obviously not interested in doing a Tomberg by converting to
                            Catholicism
                            > and allowing his initiation science to become a mouthpiece for
                            Papal authority
                            >
                            > >Some Tombergers called Marie Steiner a "bitch"?
                            >
                            > Yes, on a non-public anthro-list.
                            >
                            > >No reasonable person will take that as fact on someone's sayso...
                            >
                            > You're doing a Peter Staudenmaier here. You write "reasonable"
                            when you
                            > mean "unreasonable."
                            >
                            > If you think I'm making things up and lying in my posts, nobody is
                            forcing
                            > you to read my posts. Steiner's words were that he told the
                            priests it was
                            > his task to speak to people outside the church because they ALSO
                            had the
                            > right to be brought to Christ. Take it or leave it. If you think
                            I'm lying,
                            > stop reading my posts.
                            >
                            > >what they will take as a fact is your telling them to "take their
                            Church
                            > >and shove it".
                            >
                            > What makes you an authority on what other people will take as a
                            fact?
                            > Papists who call Marie Steiner a bitch because she opposed
                            Tomberg's bid
                            > for the leadership of the Anthroposophical society, can IMHO take
                            their
                            > church and shove it. Period.
                            >
                            >
                            > Tarjei
                            > http://uncletaz.com/

                            No one is calling you a liar, Tarjei. I really believe if you were
                            able you'd supply citations about the "bitch" business you would.
                            And yeah, you do supply citations when you can.

                            I suppose I'm not the only person who does not take things as true
                            on someone's sayso. You'd recommend that for folk's wouldn't you?

                            Actually I do enjoy reading what you have to say on the list
                            although not perhaps for reasons you'd like...enjoyed that movie
                            review in the Southern Cross...much of what you say is quite
                            humorous.

                            You repeat the bit about "flaming gurus"...what gurus are you
                            talking about?
                            for reason
                          • Tarjei Straume
                            ... Try the Comedy Store. Tarjei
                            Message 13 of 24 , Sep 30, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 18:24 30.09.2004, gaelman58 wrote:

                              >Steiner apparently agreed with the Vatican in saying that Theosophy wasn't
                              >Christ-centered.

                              Try the Comedy Store.

                              Tarjei
                            • Tarjei Straume
                              ... You re full of shit, Gaelman. I don t publish private email, nor email from private, closed e-groups. What you say here that you really believe about me is
                              Message 14 of 24 , Sep 30, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 18:45 30.09.2004, yGaelman wrote:

                                >No one is calling you a liar, Tarjei. I really believe if you were able
                                >you'd supply citations about the "bitch" business you would.

                                You're full of shit, Gaelman. I don't publish private email, nor email from
                                private, closed e-groups. What you say here that you really believe about
                                me is plain slanderous falsehood, because you're calling me a liar. And
                                then you backpaddle and deny it. That makes you a coward.

                                Tarjei
                              • gaelman58
                                ... wish to ... will ... taken up, ... remain ... which, it ... He who, ... creeds of ... institutions. But if ... clergy of ... which has to ... grotesque ...
                                Message 15 of 24 , Sep 30, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
                                  <cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
                                  > Here's more:
                                  >
                                  > **********************************************
                                  >
                                  > The creeds who wish to remain in the old beaten tracks, who do not
                                  wish to
                                  > arouse themselves to a new knowledge of the Mystery of Golgotha,
                                  will
                                  > reinforce their strong fighting position which they already have
                                  taken up,
                                  > and it would be very frivolous, my dear friends, if we would
                                  remain
                                  > unconscious of the fact that this battle has started.
                                  >
                                  > I myself, you can be sure, am not at all eager for such a battle,
                                  > particularly not for a battle with the Roman Catholic Church
                                  which, it
                                  > seems, is forced upon us from the other side with such violence.
                                  He who,
                                  > after all, thoroughly knows the deeper historical impulses of the
                                  creeds of
                                  > our time will be very unwilling to fight time-honored
                                  institutions. But if
                                  > the battle is forced upon us, it is not to be avoided! And the
                                  clergy of
                                  > our day is not in the least inclined to open its doors to that
                                  which has to
                                  > enter: the spiritual-scientific world conception. Remember the
                                  grotesque
                                  > quotations I read to you recently where it was said that people
                                  should
                                  > inform themselves about anthroposophically-oriented spiritual
                                  science
                                  > through the writings of my opponents, since Roman-Catholics are
                                  forbidden
                                  > by the Pope to read my own writings. This is not a light matter,
                                  my dear
                                  > friends; it is a very serious matter! A battle which arises in
                                  such a
                                  > manner, which is capable of disseminating such a judgment in the
                                  world,
                                  > such a battle is not to be taken lightly. And what is more; it is
                                  not to be
                                  > taken lightly since we do not enter it willingly. Let us take the
                                  example
                                  > of the Roman-Catholic Church, my dear friends; matters are not
                                  different in
                                  > regard to the Protestant Church, but the Roman-Catholic church is
                                  more
                                  > powerful ­ and we have to consider time-honored institutions: if
                                  one
                                  > understands the significance of the vestments of the priest when
                                  he reads
                                  > the Holy Mass, the meaning of every single piece of his priestly
                                  garments,
                                  > if one understands every single act of the Holy Mass, then one
                                  knows that
                                  > they are sacred, time-honored establishments; they are
                                  establishments more
                                  > ancient than Christianity for the Holy Mass is a ritual of the
                                  ancient
                                  > Mystery culture, transformed in the Christian sense. And modern
                                  clergy who
                                  > uses such weapons as described above lives in these rituals! Thus,
                                  if one
                                  > has, on the one hand, the deepest veneration for the existing
                                  rituals and
                                  > symbolism, and sees, on the other hand, how insufficient is the
                                  defense of
                                  > and how serious are the attacks against that which wishes to enter
                                  > mankind's evolution, then one becomes aware of the earnestness
                                  that is
                                  > necessary in taking a stand in these matters. It is truly
                                  something worth
                                  > deep study and consideration. What is thus heralded from that side
                                  is only
                                  > at its beginnings; and it is not right to sleep in regard to is;
                                  on the
                                  > contrary, we have to sharpen our perception for it. During the two
                                  decades
                                  > in which the Anthroposophical Movement has been fostered in Middle
                                  Europe,
                                  > we could indulge in sectarian somnolence which was so hard to
                                  combat in our
                                  > own ranks and which still today sits so deeply embedded in the
                                  souls of the
                                  > human beings who have entered the Anthroposophical Movement. But
                                  the time
                                  > has passed in which we might have been allowed to indulge in
                                  sectarian
                                  > somnolence. That which I have often emphasized here is deeply
                                  true, namely,
                                  > that it is necessary that we should grasp the world-historical
                                  significance
                                  > of the Anthroposophical Movement and overlook trifles, but that we
                                  should
                                  > also consider the small impulses as serious and great.
                                  >
                                  > **********************************************
                                  > - Rudolf Steiner: The Mission of the Archangel Michael, VI: The
                                  Ancient
                                  > Yoga Culture and the New Yoga Will. The Michael Culture of the
                                  Future,
                                  > Dornach, 30th November, 1919 GA 194
                                  >
                                  > http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/MissMich/19191130p01.html
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Tarjei
                                  > http://uncletaz.com/


                                  In the above Steiner criticizes the Catholic Church AND the
                                  Anthroposophical Movement for "sectarian somnolence"...he says
                                  nothing negative about dogmatic theology nor the sacraments...kind
                                  of endorses them, doesn't he?...inclusive is an antonym of
                                  sectarian...now, what's a good synonym for inclusive?

                                  Excellent research, Tarjei
                                • Tarjei Straume
                                  ... Frankly, I think you should ask Peter Staudenmaier. When he was on this list, I decided at one point that further dialogues with him were a fruitless waste
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Sep 30, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 19:20 30.09.2004, Gaelman wrote:

                                    >In the above Steiner criticizes the Catholic Church AND the
                                    >Anthroposophical Movement for "sectarian somnolence"...he says nothing
                                    >negative about dogmatic theology nor the sacraments...kind of endorses
                                    >them, doesn't he?...inclusive is an antonym of sectarian...now, what's a
                                    >good synonym for inclusive?

                                    Frankly, I think you should ask Peter Staudenmaier. When he was on this
                                    list, I decided at one point that further dialogues with him were a
                                    fruitless waste of time. You have earned the same 'honor', so you guys
                                    apparently have some things in common.

                                    Tarjei
                                  • deborah byron
                                    ... Cosmopolitan
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Sep 30, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      ...inclusive is an antonym of
                                      > sectarian...now, what's a good synonym for inclusive?

                                      Cosmopolitan
                                    • dottie zold
                                      ... Gaelman, you are calling Tarjei a liar above. That much is obvious. And in regards to saying Tarjei would like others to take someones sayso you are so way
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Sep 30, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Gaelman:
                                        > No one is calling you a liar, Tarjei. I really
                                        > believe if you were
                                        > able you'd supply citations about the "bitch"
                                        > business you would.

                                        Gaelman, you are calling Tarjei a liar above. That
                                        much is obvious. And in regards to saying Tarjei would
                                        like others to take someones sayso you are so way off
                                        the mark. Not his m.o.

                                        Dottie



                                        __________________________________
                                        Do you Yahoo!?
                                        Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
                                        http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
                                      • gaelman58
                                        ... were able ... email from ... believe about ... liar. And ... Some time ago the fellow from Argentina referred to cowards sitting at computers. Now a man
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Oct 1, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
                                          <cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
                                          > At 18:45 30.09.2004, yGaelman wrote:
                                          >
                                          > >No one is calling you a liar, Tarjei. I really believe if you
                                          were able
                                          > >you'd supply citations about the "bitch" business you would.
                                          >
                                          > You're full of shit, Gaelman. I don't publish private email, nor
                                          email from
                                          > private, closed e-groups. What you say here that you really
                                          believe about
                                          > me is plain slanderous falsehood, because you're calling me a
                                          liar. And
                                          > then you backpaddle and deny it. That makes you a coward.
                                          >
                                          > Tarjei

                                          Some time ago the fellow from Argentina referred to cowards sitting
                                          at computers. Now a man who says "you're full of shit", "that makes
                                          you a coward" sitting at his computer would be an example of this.
                                          Now the facts would be these: The generalities people make about
                                          the Irish are for the most part true. Were we together, you'd take
                                          one look at this blue-eyed, stand-up middleweight and out of
                                          prudence you'd curb your tongue.
                                        • gaelman58
                                          ... nothing ... endorses ... what s a ... this ... a ... guys ... I have no idea who this Staudenmaier guy is...your little resolve will require a measure of
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Oct 1, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
                                            <cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
                                            > At 19:20 30.09.2004, Gaelman wrote:
                                            >
                                            > >In the above Steiner criticizes the Catholic Church AND the
                                            > >Anthroposophical Movement for "sectarian somnolence"...he says
                                            nothing
                                            > >negative about dogmatic theology nor the sacraments...kind of
                                            endorses
                                            > >them, doesn't he?...inclusive is an antonym of sectarian...now,
                                            what's a
                                            > >good synonym for inclusive?
                                            >
                                            > Frankly, I think you should ask Peter Staudenmaier. When he was on
                                            this
                                            > list, I decided at one point that further dialogues with him were
                                            a
                                            > fruitless waste of time. You have earned the same 'honor', so you
                                            guys
                                            > apparently have some things in common.
                                            >
                                            > Tarjei

                                            I have no idea who this Staudenmaier guy is...your little resolve
                                            will require a measure of character...seems to me the HMS
                                            Arachnosophia is running up the white flag.
                                          • Herbert Schumacher
                                            Hello. R. Steiner was fond of the TRINITY and of Angel Hierarchies. Therefore there are some connections with catholicism...schuh
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Oct 1, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Hello. R. Steiner was fond of the TRINITY
                                              and of Angel Hierarchies. Therefore there are
                                              some connections with catholicism...schuh
                                              *********************************************************************
                                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "gaelman58"
                                              <gaelman58@y...> wrote:
                                              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
                                              > <cyberuncle@c...> wrote:
                                              > > At 19:20 30.09.2004, Gaelman wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > >In the above Steiner criticizes the Catholic Church AND the
                                              > > >Anthroposophical Movement for "sectarian somnolence"...he says
                                              > nothing
                                              > > >negative about dogmatic theology nor the sacraments...kind of
                                              > endorses
                                              > > >them, doesn't he?...inclusive is an antonym of sectarian...now,
                                              > what's a
                                              > > >good synonym for inclusive?
                                              > >
                                              > > Frankly, I think you should ask Peter Staudenmaier. When he was on
                                              > this
                                              > > list, I decided at one point that further dialogues with him were
                                              > a
                                              > > fruitless waste of time. You have earned the same 'honor', so you
                                              > guys
                                              > > apparently have some things in common.
                                              > >
                                              > > Tarjei




                                              >
                                              > I have no idea who this Staudenmaier guy is...your little resolve
                                              > will require a measure of character...seems to me the HMS
                                              > Arachnosophia is running up the white flag.
                                            • Frank Thomas Smith
                                              ... Yup, he s the real McCoy! Have a boilermaker, G, you ll feel better.
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Oct 1, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Gaelman wrote:
                                                > Some time ago the fellow from Argentina referred to cowards sitting
                                                > at computers. Now a man who says "you're full of shit", "that makes
                                                > you a coward" sitting at his computer would be an example of this.
                                                > Now the facts would be these: The generalities people make about
                                                > the Irish are for the most part true. Were we together, you'd take
                                                > one look at this blue-eyed, stand-up middleweight and out of
                                                > prudence you'd curb your tongue.

                                                Yup, he's the real McCoy! Have a boilermaker, G, you'll feel better.
                                              • Tarjei Straume
                                                ... Of course there are. Up until the Reformation, Christianity was largely connected to the Catholic Church. Thomas Aquinas was the intellectual
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Oct 1, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  At 18:31 01.10.2004, Herbert Schumacher wrote:

                                                  >Hello. R. Steiner was fond of the TRINITY and of Angel Hierarchies.
                                                  >Therefore there are some connections with catholicism...schuh

                                                  Of course there are. Up until the Reformation, Christianity was largely
                                                  connected to the Catholic Church. Thomas Aquinas was the intellectual
                                                  representative of church theology, which was based upon Biblical texts
                                                  interpreted through "The Philosopher", Aristotle. So in the individuality
                                                  who lived in Aristotle, Aquinas, and Steiner, we have the very architect of
                                                  Christian intellectual thinking.

                                                  With the above in mind, we can see the revolutionary aspect of Steiner's
                                                  message in a proper perspective. He valued the richness of history and art
                                                  and rituals that the church testifies to, but he also expressed the
                                                  necessity for the Christ Impulse to free itself from the clutches of its
                                                  dogmatic theology and passion for authority. What rituals are concerned,
                                                  these have been replaced by those of the CC. We also have new impulses of
                                                  architecture and art; the RC is a museum, a mirror of the past.

                                                  Keep also in mind that the RC killed many of rhe true Christian prophets,
                                                  burned them on the stake, tortured them to death and so on. The history of
                                                  the church is a blood-stained path indeed, just like Islam. Of course there
                                                  are connections between spiritual science and traditional religions; the
                                                  former prepresents the future development of the latter. Old monotheistic
                                                  religions are becoming increasingly decadent, primarily because
                                                  unquestioned authority and blind obedience belong to the past.


                                                  Tarjei
                                                  http://uncletaz.com/
                                                • gaelman58
                                                  ... sitting ... makes ... this. ... about ... take ... better. You ve compared him to a guy by the name of McCoy...hummmmm...and I can t tell you how offended
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Oct 2, 2004
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
                                                    <franksmith@v...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > Gaelman wrote:
                                                    > > Some time ago the fellow from Argentina referred to cowards
                                                    sitting
                                                    > > at computers. Now a man who says "you're full of shit", "that
                                                    makes
                                                    > > you a coward" sitting at his computer would be an example of
                                                    this.
                                                    > > Now the facts would be these: The generalities people make
                                                    about
                                                    > > the Irish are for the most part true. Were we together, you'd
                                                    take
                                                    > > one look at this blue-eyed, stand-up middleweight and out of
                                                    > > prudence you'd curb your tongue.
                                                    >
                                                    > Yup, he's the real McCoy! Have a boilermaker, G, you'll feel
                                                    better.

                                                    You've compared him to a guy by the name of McCoy...hummmmm...and I
                                                    can't tell you how offended I am by your politically insensitive
                                                    remark about the Irish which everyone is simply not true...Dottie,
                                                    at this point the Pinnochio remark is pertinent.
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.