Re: Charles Manson, aka Jesus Christ
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, John Massengale <john@...> wrote:
> >John Massengale wrote concerning my Charles Manson piece:
> >> Why is this appropriate for a Steiner list?
> >Why wouldn't a thoughtful analysis of Charles Manson be off limits
> >spiritual science? I don't get it. Criminology is a passion ofmine.
>appropriate for a Steiner list.
> And dachshunds are a passion of mine, but I don't discuss them here.
> I didn't say it's off limits. I asked why what you wrote is
> >Should I not post my ideas on this subject, because it makes New
> >feel uncomfortable?meant as an insult. But I'm not a New Ager.
> Since you frequently write about your disdain for New Agers, that's
>list. Is there any insight from Steiner or to anthroposophy?
> And you didn't answer why your post is appropriate for a Steiner
>Again I don't understand your problem with my Manson piece. Why
does a piece on Charles Manson have to have "insight from Steiner
or anthroposophy?" Anthroposophy isn't a cult. I have my own
insights and ideas concerning a whole range of topics, and I don't
see any conflict between these ideas and anthroposophy. This forum
is about Anthroposophists like us getting together and exploring each
other's ideas on things, not regurgitating the past.
Besides, serial killer hardly existed in Steiner's time, so how am I
supposed to include Steiner's thoughts on mass murder in my piece?