A little
more on the junkie with liver trouble
God the junkie (more for Tarjei)
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 5:27 am
Subject: God the junkie (more for Tarjei)
Tarjei:
In other words, a healthy soul in a healthy
body makes a person less compassionate than a sick and weak one?
Can you please explain this rationale of yours, Diana?
I have done so explicitly but I can repeat
myself. The purpose of God incarnating, as I was taught, was
to experience our sufferings; to choose a more diseased body
would seem to reflect his purposes in a meaningful way. I know
there are many other, complex angles on the "mystery of
Golgotha" in anthroposophy and theologians spend lifetimes
on the question; I'm just explaining my logic, as you requested,
and how it would follow from what I was taught in Sunday school
(which I know Bradford will now ridicule, that's fine; I'm merely
telling you where the notions originate, they are drawn from
fairly ordinary Christians' understanding of the meaning of God
taking human form etc.) Of course it also had a lot to do with
sin; but there too the junkie would still look good.
I
wrote:
I'm starting to agree that Tarjei's view
of God is racist; he also seems to be a eugenicist.
[Tarjei:]
With whom do you "agree that Tarjei's
view of God is racist" ?
Why are we going in circles? You enjoyed goading
me to say that your God is racist; it's a set-up so that now
you can say I "smeared" you. Bizarre.
And wouldn't the very creation of species
and races be a eugenic activity, unless those species and races
simply popped out of a happenstance chemical soup at random?
I agree that evolution (and apparently even
the simple fact of biodiversity) presents a problem to the notion
of an entirely benevolent God. Don't blame me! I certainly don't
claim to have sorted out anybody's "mission" or solved
any "mysteries" lately.
And now you are suggesting that if Christ
were born healthy and whole, He would be incompassionate? Please
explain this rationale.
I think I've done so, no need to yammer on
about the same points now. Not that he would be "incompassionate"
otherwise - but that his choosing an unhealthy body would be
internally consistent with the purposes for which God took human
form.
The fact remains that Christ was born into
an excellent and healthy body, and this was why he was strong
enough to heal diseases and even give sight to the blind.
You think? Where do you find a justification
for the idea that it was his "excellent and healthy body"
that made him able to heal diseases? I thought it was supposed
to do with being the Son of God? What did we need the son of
God for – all we needed was someone with a strong and healthy
body? (Do you even believe in God? It isn't sounding that way
– it's sounding like you believe in strong, healthy bodies.)
One woman with a disease she had for many
years only touched His garment and was cured. Do you believe
for a moment that Christ's healing mission would have been equally
effective if he had been sick and weak and "really fucked
up" - ?
Yes – according to the story of God's
purpose in taking a human body to share our weaknesses at that
point in time. I think a Christ with a sick or weak body or soul
makes good sense. (Of course, it isn't as sexy as the version
in the Passion, since so many people today are turned on by horrific
violence, whereas physical illness is just a drag. You could
not make a blockbuster sensation about God suffering debilitating
illness, that would not be cool and Hollywood wouldn't go near
it, but it's just as logical as a metaphor.)
And you would expect a foulmothed junkie
to be able to save the world and be a role model for the rest
of humanity?
A recovered foul-mouthed junkie, of course.
Exactly.
The WHOLE POINT of the incarnation . . . the
whole point of his suffering: recovery, or healing. Healing from
a healthy and pure body and soul? Huh? I see you trying very
hard to find every possible comeback to what I suggested
and I think what I suggested was powerful. Maybe you could let
my idea "live in" you for awhile :)
The God who favors the strong and healthy
is not the God I was taught is central to Christianity. The meek
shall inherit the earth.
Do you see your own distortions and falsifications,
Diana, or are you blind to them?
It is not a falsification or a distortion
of Christianity to suggest that God's purpose in incarnating
was (partly) to share the worst burdens of our physical suffering.
I realize that many of your words to me are taunting and mocking,
Tarjei. I think I actually prefer Bradford's direct insults.
Your sly ridicule is kind of creepy to me.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 6:08 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] God the junkie (more for
Tarjei)
At 14:27 27.03.2004, Diana wrote:
The purpose of God incarnating, as I was
taught, was to experience our sufferings; to choose a more diseased
body would seem to reflect his purposes in a meaningful way.
I know there are many other, complex angles on the "mystery
of Golgotha" in anthroposophy and theologians spend lifetimes
on the question; I'm just explaining my logic, as you requested,
and how it would follow from what I was taught in Sunday school
(which I know Bradford will now ridicule, that's fine; I'm merely
telling you where the notions originate, they are drawn from
fairly ordinary Christians' understanding of the meaning of God
taking human form etc.) Of course it also had a lot to do with
sin; but there too the junkie would still look good.
Christ healed such afflictions. Addiction
to chemicals is an affliction not only of the body, but of the
soul and spirit as well. In the case of a junkie, a drug addict,
the "I Am" is weaker than the forces of the Opposing
Powers who work through the addictive drug. You're suggesting
that Christ was weaker than Ahriman and Lucifer, that he might
as well have been hooked on addictive chemicals for the kick
of it, like the junkie is.
"Now the Christ taught
his initiates that he came from a world where death was unknown;
he learnt to know death, here on earth, and conquered death.
If one understands this connection between the earthly world
and the divine world, it will be possible to lead the intellect
back gain into spirituality. We might express approximately in
this way the content of the esoteric teachings given by the Christ
to his initiated disciples: it was the teaching of death, as
seen from the scene of the divine world. If one wishes to penetrate
into the real depths of this esoteric teaching, one must realize
that he who understands the entire evolution of mankind knows
that the gods have overcome Ahriman by using his forces for the
benefit of the Earth, but his power has been broken because the
gods themselves learnt to know death in the being of Christ.
Indeed, the gods have placed Ahriman into the evolution of the
earth, but, in making use of him, they have forced him to come
down into the evolution of the earth without completing his own
rulership."
- Exoteric and Esoteric Christianity [Das
Sonnenmysterium von Tod und Auferstehung], Dornach, 2 April,
1922, GA 211 - http://www.uncletaz.com/exoeso.html
Not that he would be "incompassionate"
otherwise - but that his choosing an unhealthy body would be
internally consistent with the purposes for which God took human
form.
Jesus with an unhealthy body? In that case,
the Jesus infant wouldn't have survived the flight into Egypt.
He would have been too sick and weak for that. And if he had
lived to adulthood, he wouldn't have survived one single day
of the Christ-incarnation that would have torn his body asunder
if he had carried the Christ for more than three years.
Where do you find a justification for the
idea that it was his "excellent and healthy body" that
made him able to heal diseases?
Health, healing, and strength comes from
health, not from disease.
I thought it was supposed to do with being
the Son of God? What did we need the son of God for – all
we needed was someone with a strong and healthy body?
Anybody with a strong or healthy body? Saddam
Hussein with a strong and healthy body?
(Do you even believe in God? It isn't sounding
that way – it's sounding like you believe in strong, healthy
bodies.)
Whatever....
And you would expect a foulmothed junkie
to be able to save the world and be a role model for the rest
of humanity?
A recovered foul-mouthed junkie, of course.
Exactly.
Brilliant. Christ resisted the temptations
of Lucifer and Ahriman after fasting for 40 days in the desert.
He did not succumb to such temptations only to "recover"
later. That's nonsense.
Maybe you could let my idea "live
in" you for awhile :)
Frankly, I don't think that would be good
for my health.
It is not a falsification or a distortion
of Christianity to suggest that God's purpose in incarnating
was (partly) to share the worst burdens of our physical suffering.
Christ had to heal and rescue humanity because
human beings were weaker than Ahriman. You're suggesting that
Christ Himself should have been weaker than Ahriman by succumbing
to all kinds of diseases.
I realize that many of your words to me
are taunting and mocking, Tarjei. I think I actually prefer Bradford's
direct insults. Your sly ridicule is kind of creepy to me.
My creepy sly ridicule? That's one hell of
a bail-out, Diana.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:56 pm
Subject: Re: God the junkie (more for Tarjei)
Tarjei:
Christ healed such afflictions. Addiction
to chemicals is an affliction not only of the body, but of the
soul and spirit as well.
God heals afflictions of the body, but not
of the soul or spirit, then?
In the case of a junkie, a drug addict,
the "I Am" is weaker than the forces of the Opposing
Powers who work through the addictive drug. You're suggesting
that Christ was weaker than Ahriman and Lucifer, that he might
as well have been hooked on addictive chemicals for the kick
of it, like the junkie is.
If you bring in Ahriman, of course, you confuse
me, as I'm sure you'll be happy to agree. :) I don't know, Tarjei,
I just find your insistence that Christ was merely "strong"
to miss the mark. It is, at best, one-sided. He had to be strong,
of course, but what was the point of being strong if there was
so little to overcome in the first place? You make him sound
like a superhero action adventure figure, leaping tall buildings,
you're disgusted and shocked by the notion of his weakness. But
wasn't the point of the incarnation for him to take on human
weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Can you theologically justify
drawing a line at a certain place, where he could have had these
weaknesses and these afflictions, and still be "strong,"
but not others? Other afflictions would just be too gross or
something, or beneath his dignity? I don't see that. It would
make more sense to me if there were nothing he could not
suffer and yet overcome.
(I did not understand what you mean to show
by the Steiner passage below, could you explain how it backs
up what you're saying rather than what I'm saying?)
"Now the Christ taught
his initiates that he came from a world where death was unknown;
he learnt to know death, here on earth, and conquered death.
If one understands this connection between the earthly world
and the divine world, it will be possible to lead the intellect
back gain into spirituality. We might express approximately in
this way the content of the esoteric teachings given by the Christ
to his initiated disciples: it was the teaching of death, as
seen from the scene of the divine world. If one wishes to penetrate
into the real depths of this esoteric teaching, one must realize
that he who understands the entire evolution of mankind knows
that the gods have overcome Ahriman by using his forces for the
benefit of the Earth, but his power has been broken because the
gods themselves learnt to know death in the being of Christ.
Indeed, the gods have placed Ahriman into the evolution of the
earth, but, in making use of him, they have forced him to come
down into the evolution of the earth without completing his own
rulership."
- Exoteric and Esoteric Christianity [Das
Sonnenmysterium von Tod und Auferstehung], Dornach, 2 April,
1922, GA 211 - http://www.uncletaz.com/exoeso.html
Jesus with an unhealthy body? In that case,
the Jesus infant wouldn't have survived the flight into Egypt.
He would have been too sick and weak for that. And if he had
lived to adulthood, he wouldn't have survived one single day
of the Christ-incarnation that would have torn his body asunder
if he had carried the Christ for more than three years.
Need I point out that he didn't survive
the Christ incarnation? He died. And was risen . How exactly
did he do this? Are there are some illnesses or afflictions that
would have been so bad he couldn't have done what he did,
that would negate the resurrection? I don't think it insults
Jesus, or makes him less "strong" in the end, to suggest
he could have overcome worse things than you are willing
to contemplate. (In fact I don't think they're worse, compared
with the way his physical sufferings are portrayed, from what
I've heard, in The Passion.)
Health, healing, and strength comes from
health, not from disease.
Yes, but physical health or spiritual?
I repeat that to insist they are the same thing is materialistic.
And often (physical) health comes from overcoming
disease. That's what immunity is. Isn't this (at least part of)
the feeling against vaccination in anthroposophic medicine? Same
reason recovered addicts often counsel recovering addicts,
and can be more effective than people who have no experience
with addiction. Yes?
I thought it was supposed to do with being
the Son of God? What did we need the son of God for – all
we needed was someone with a strong and healthy body?
Anybody with a strong or healthy body?
Saddam Hussein with a strong and healthy body?
By your argument it could have been Saddam
Hussein. By mine, if a strong and healthy body is not required,
if the "strength" that is required is not physical
but spiritual, then Saddam Hussein, presumably, would not be
capable, but a recovering junkie would do just fine.
Christ resisted the temptations of Lucifer
and Ahriman after fasting for 40 days in the desert. He did not
succumb to such temptations only to "recover" later.
True. But why didn't he "resist"
the flayings and the nails hammered through his flesh? He succumbed
in the end – and was risen. I thought he had his reasons
for being willing to endure this? I see your argument as emphasizing
his weakness rather than his strength.
My creepy sly ridicule? That's one hell
of a bail-out, Diana.
I am not bailing out. I'm happy to go on with
it.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 2:15 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: God the junkie (more
for Tarjei)
At 04:56 29.03.2004, Diana wrote:
I don't know, Tarjei, I just find your
insistence that Christ was merely "strong" to miss
the mark.
OK, God ain't dead, and he won't be buried,
but He's sick and very weak and in intensive care.
It is, at best, one-sided. He had to be
strong, of course, but what was the point of being strong if
there was so little to overcome in the first place? You make
him sound like a superhero action adventure figure, leaping tall
buildings, you're disgusted and shocked by the notion of his
weakness. But wasn't the point of the incarnation for him to
take on human weaknesses and vulnerabilities.
No.
Can you theologically justify drawing a
line at a certain place, where he could have had these
weaknesses and these afflictions, and still be "strong,"
but not others? Other afflictions would just be too gross or
something, or beneath his dignity? I don't see that. It would
make more sense to me if there were nothing he could not
suffer and yet overcome.
You're not making sense to me.
(I did not understand what you mean to
show by the Steiner passage below, could you explain how it backs
up what you're saying rather than what I'm saying?)
It explains the Mission of Christ and His
Deed of Golgotha.
Yes, but physical health or spiritual?
I repeat that to insist they are the same thing is materialistic.
Physical and spiritual health are interconnected.
I won't comment your understanding of materialism defined.
And often (physical) health comes from
overcoming disease. That's what immunity is. Isn't this
(at least part of) the feeling against vaccination in anthroposophic
medicine? Same reason recovered addicts often counsel
recovering addicts, and can be more effective than people who
have no experience with addiction. Yes?
Again, addiction is caused by a chemical substance
being stronger than the "I Am" in the individual concerned.
That's why this "God-as-drug-addict" idea is nonsense.
True. But why didn't he "resist"
the flayings and the nails hammered through his flesh?
You don't see the difference between resisting
temptation and resisting violent attack? I give up. Ask Gandhi.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:18 am
Subject: Re: God the junkie (more for Tarjei)
OK, God ain't dead, and he won't be buried,
but He's sick and very weak and in intensive care.
Did you miss the part where he got up again,
a few days later?
I wrote:
But wasn't the point of the incarnation
for him to take on human weaknesses and vulnerabilities.
No.
Care to elaborate? To take on human weaknesses
and vulnerabilities and overcome them. On our behalf.
No?
You're not making sense to me.
I'll try again. It may be that problem again
where since English is my first language, I don't express myself
as precisely in this language as you do :)
Didn't (doesn't) God have the power to overcome
anything? Shouldn't Jesus have been able to rise from
the dead no matter what affliction he suffered in his
human form? I'm assuming, from how upset the idea of drug addiction
made you, that there must be certain categories in your mind
of ailments, afflictions, injuries etc., that are so bad
that Christ couldn't overcome them. Some things he could withstand,
and others he could not. He was able to withstand crucifixion,
being nailed to a piece of wood until he was dead, and still
rose again. But drug addiction would be too much, too outrageous,
too terrible and disgusting an ailment for him to have overcome.
I'm trying to understand how these categories work - which things
he could overcome, and which you think he could not overcome.
steiner passage -
It explains the Mission of Christ and His
Deed of Golgotha.
ok. I still don't see it as incompatible with
what I wrote, but never mind.
Physical and spiritual health are interconnected.
Ok, but how so? You have to have physical
health before you can be strong spiritually? No one with
a chronic disease need apply?
Again, addiction is caused by a chemical
substance being stronger than the "I Am" in the individual
concerned. That's why this "God-as-drug-addict" idea
is nonsense.
So God could not overcome drug addiction.
(Bad news for addicts. Jesus didn't die for them.)
You don't see the difference between resisting
temptation and resisting violent attack? I give up. Ask Gandhi.
Bad news for people who have trouble resisting
temptation. Jesus didn't die for those who have trouble resisting
temptation.
Well, maybe the sticking point is that you
don't think drug addiction is a disease, but just a behavioral
choice or a character issue. Not sure this is worth going further
off topic with.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 6:42 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: God the junkie (more
for Tarjei)
Diana:
Shouldn't Jesus have been able to rise
from the dead no matter what affliction he suffered in
his human form? I'm assuming, from how upset the idea of drug
addiction made you, that there must be certain categories in
your mind of ailments, afflictions, injuries etc., that are so
bad that Christ couldn't overcome them.
Hey Diana, a person who is caught up in all
their passions and desires is a slave to this world in a sense.
Christ needed to be free in order to lead others to freedom.
A person on drugs and so forth can overcome their addictions
and so on to lead others but as we can see that it takes time
to overcome the things of this world. Christ had three years
from the Jordan to overcome death and inspire a people to their
own salvation and the knowledge that 'the kingdom is within'.
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:07 am
Subject: Re: God the junkie (more for Tarjei)
Dottie wrote:
Hey Diana, a person who is caught up in
all their passions and desires is a slave to this world in a
sense. Christ needed to be free in order to lead others to freedom.
I agree (theoretically, at least), but it
seems like you're saying Christ couldn't have freed himself from
something like drug addiction. I'm still trying to figure out
just which things are so bad that Christ couldn't have overcome
them. Drug addiction is one. Are there others? This is an interesting
thread. I find that "New Age" beliefs often surprisingly
resemble the "old" age ones. Drug addiction, you guys
are saying, is about being a slave to one's passions and desires?
A person on drugs and so forth can overcome
their addictions and so on to lead others but as we can see that
it takes time to overcome the things of this world. Christ had
three years from the Jordan to overcome death and inspire a people
to their own salvation and the knowledge that 'the kingdom is
within'.
So you're putting a time factor in here -
Christ could have overcome drug addiction, perhaps - but not
in 3 years? How much time would Christ have needed to overcome
drug addiction?
Besides, in anthroposophy, all these things
are pre-engineered according to scripts and scrolls. There must
have been a reason he had 3 years, right? If he needed more time,
he could have taken more time. The 3 years was certainly some
meaningful number, since all numbers are meaningful in anthroposophy.
(I can't see the anthroposophic/karma/predestined occult meanings
version of the story as compatible with the Bible at all, on
deeper levels, but that's another question. In fact the whole
business of Christ's incarnation seems to me to have been missed,
it seems to just not compute, in an occult scheme.)
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:03 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: God the junkie (more
for Tarjei)
Diana:
I agree (theoretically, at least), but
it seems like you're saying Christ couldn't have freed himself
from something like drug addiction.
Nah, I'm not saying that he couldn't. My God
Diana the story goes he freed himself from death which is the
biggest thing we got going on in this physical world. It is what
drives so many to and from a thing. And what is funny is that
there is no way out of this life but through this death. Not
one person can move from this. And so for me I think the only
thing we take with ourselves is what we have learned here. There
is nothing else. Not a damn thing else. We go naked as we came.
Diana:
I'm still trying to figure out just which
things are so bad that Christ couldn't have overcome them. Drug
addiction is one. Are there others?
Well, to throw another loop, I believe we
all make up God and the saving grace Christ is within each of
us whether we like it or not. It may not shine through but it
is always the saving grace within each. In my opinion. So in
believing this God/Drugaddicts overcome drugs everyday.
I think you miss the point that I or Tarjei
thinks that God couldn't overcome a certain thing. For me it
would take a very special human being, and we all are such special
human beings, to alleviate the sufferering in the world of mens
minds.
I actually do not have time to continue but
I think it is interesting as well as it asks us to dig deeper
into what our perceptions are.
Do you recall a Su, Sufrito on the critics
list Diana? I ask because I just got an email from this person
and it had a virus in it. But luckily for me my friend opened
it up.
To be continued:)
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:48 am
Subject: Re: God the junkie (more for Tarjei)
Dottie, also no more time today, but I'll
try to pick this up again later.
Do you recall a Su, Sufrito on the critics
list Diana? I ask because I just got an email from this person
and it had a virus in it.
Yes, I know her, and I can assure you she
would not deliberately send you a virus. There are lots of viruses
floating around.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:02 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: God the junkie (more
for Tarjei)
At 15:18 29.03.2004, Diana wrote:
Ok, but how so? You have to have physical
health before you can be strong spiritually?
It's more likely to be the other way around.
No one with a chronic disease need apply?
Apply for what? Medicare?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
March/April
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy