Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Islam Revisited
- Happy holidays, Joel.
>I find my own thinking parallel with Catherine's, in the need to make aDivisions among anthroposophists, just like among other people, on the
>distinction between the ideological aspects of a Religion, and its
>practice by ordinary people.
issue of Islam, are quite apparent. I just had an email exchange with Peter
Normann Waage about this topic. He writes me a lot of stuff about it and
expresses his personal opinion, that a great meeting between Islam and the
West allegedly taking place at the end of the 20th century according to RS,
between Platonists and Aristotelians. He says the Muslims today are the
Platonists and the Western secular culture Aristotelian. My response is
that the end-of-20th-century train is gone; we're well into the 21st
century, and Islam is exploding all over the globe. Peter says terrorist
explosions started long ago, and I agree, because a century ago, Steiner's
anarchist friend Ben Tucker approved of the use of dynamite once in a while
to tell the politicians where to go when other means of persuasions fell on
So the bottom line here (me speaking) is that it's not only a question of
explosions, but their purpose as well. Anarchist explosions are intended to
liberate, and Muslim explosions are intended to frighten people into
slavery and obedience. Islam means surrender, i.e. slavery and obedience to
a metaphysical dictator. So my aversion to Islam, Jesuitism, and
Scientology is primarily based upon the unforgettable words uttered by
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775:
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of
chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others
may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Or as Theokles/Phosphoros says to Lucifer in Schure's play:
"Rather a hundred thousand deaths and everlasting pain than forego a single
fragment of my liberty!"
Don't get me wrong; I don't believe in anarchist dynamite. Paulina and I
seem to agree upon a hard line with regard to Islam, but we seem to
disagree about how to respond to the challenge. War on the physical plane
is out of synch with the Michaelic impulse that bears a direct link to the
Sermon on the Mount in the Matthew Gospel - an impulse that has been
pursued by Tolstoi, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Nelson
Mandela and others like them. There is no room for bombs, automatic rifles,
electric chairs, lethal injections, firing squads, SWAT teams,
interrogations, torture, etc. in this Michael-stream. Other, non-violent
means of resistance must be mustered - even against suicidal terrorists.
>Steiner, in regards to both Jesuitism and Islam seems to be discussing theSteiner does justice to the individual when he describes individual
>ideological and dogmatic structures of the Religion, but not the practice
>by individual human beings.
historical characters and their biographies and so on, but he does tend to
stereotype huge groups sometimes. To a certain extent, this may be
unavoidable to gain a certain clarity of sorts, but nothing said by Steiner
seems to have been intended in a one-sided way. Of course there are many
ways to see and interpret and understand Islam, but I have chosen to stress
Steiner's warnings about Islam and Sorat and 1998 for reasons I believe I
have made clear.
>It is also possible to look at the situation of Catholicism, andOh, so absolutely. And in the cycle of 18 lectures we've been talking
>fundamentalist Protestantism, and find their ideologies unsatisfactory
>when compared to the "purity" of anthroposophy and PoF.
about, "The Book of Revelation and the work of the Priest," Steiner also
talks about how the Roman Catholic Church has been a vehicle for Sorat the
Sun-Demon, in addition to Islam, or Mohammedanism as he calls it.
Curiously, Peter Normann Waage says "mohammedanism" is a derogatory word
these days that's offensive to Muslims.. That's news to me. Has anybody
else heard that too?
>But this is certainly not the question that I am asking. My question isI'm glad you mention "trash," because according to the PLANS cult,
>what is working from the inside out, and from the human upward, in the
>social life where these religions are present, and within which people are
>involved. With this question in mind it is clear that many Christians
>ignore the trash in the Bible (such as several parts of Leviticus), and
>the many Muslims also ignore the trash in the Koran.
anthroposophists believe in trash. That's why the so-called "critics"
repeat the same trash over and over again in order to proclaim to the world
what we believe.