Isis Sophia Studies
From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:42 am
Subject: Isis Sophia Studies
Michael School subject matter;
We can lay out the issues regarding cloning
and the right to life, however, in the Michael School, it means
you should be familiar with Dr. Konig's work and others who,
with Dr. Steiner in the lead, who have outlined the descent of
the human I AM into the physical embryo. In Trimesters and a
series of weeks the various integrations of the future design
code of the individual, physical-etheric-astral and I AM, descend
from the Starry world of the invisible to the visible space of
the womb. There in the tiny capsule, in a miniature, microversion
of the Egg Shaped Zodiac, and cosmos we live in, rather the I
Am, takes, literally root.
Michael School students take great interest
in the shift of color in birds and animals when it comes to forces
given externally and forces reversed and projected internally
between the sexes. In other words the externalization of the
colors of the male cardinal, the lions mane, the stag's horns...show
forces that extend, externally, and the opposite of those forces
that are projected inwardly into egg and womb formation reveal
a reverse of externalized forces into internalized forces. These
are part of the Female inversions into suckling and motherhood
that are massive physics inversions that tap, through women,
the starry heavens.
The Michael School student is expected to
have a clear understanding of the periods in which the I AM of
a human child elaborates its destiny and even to the point when
the child takes over the contractions and begins labor in pregnant
women... and they say, (the child and it's starry rising sign
connected to the parents) the child wants to come now... It is
time. It is due. Here the child determines the time when the
labor begins, by star relationships.
Now we know we have attempted to present facts
before to those who insist there is no god, or that human beings,
when their etheric bodies are severed from the physical, don't
experience a "life Tableau" and these errors in thinking
are constantly thrown back, because Initiation has not taken
a hand in someone's destiny to give them a little kick that awakens
intense interest. Logic and Empowered Intelligence, along with
understanding what one is seeing in life, is part of curiosity
and interest. Lacking these intimate tools, it becomes "The
Wall" of feeble denial sponsored by Pink Floyd.
So Cloning and salavaging the Incarnation
package of a human being, from being manipulated into Ahrimanic
directions, is also part of the Michael School mandates. Steiner
and hundreds of researchers like Nicanor Perlas and all these
souls here:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/i-sisnews6.php
...Are working on the Threshold and the implications,
where the ethics and the utter stupidity of people allow their
failed university educations to merge with Ahrimanic intentions
under the name of Science. When we unfold the historical fact,
that such a huge event, the landing of the Michael School, entailed
tracing the I AM, not only from Cradle to Grave but from Grave
to Cradle and back beyond, to the first inception of the I AM
of humanity...We are looking at Super-profound, FIRST history
of the I Am ever presented to the Western World. It merges, and
should merge with all the sciences, but Dwarfs in moral scope,
the mapping of the human Genome which based on current trends,
eventually leads to the stealing of the star codes of Sophia
and patenting life.
Here is the latest news from these human ignorant
bunglers:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097927/
"This is not an accident.
Each time pro-lifers have tried in recent years to treat the
embryo or fetus as a person in one context or another, pro-choicers
have responded by treating the fetus as a nonentity. When pro-lifers
sought to ban human cloning, pro-choicers offered a counterproposal
that would require the destruction of every cloned embryo —
which they referred to only as "an unfertilized blastocyst"
and "the product of nuclear transplantation" —
within two weeks of its creation. When pro-lifers sought to make
fetuses eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program,
pro- choicers offered a counterproposal to expand the program's
eligibility guidelines "as if any reference to targeted
low-income children were a reference to targeted low-income pregnant
women." The pro-choice alternative made no reference to
the gestated entity until it was "born."
It's a strategy of denial.
And this week, it ran into too much reality.
Tell that to all the unfertilized
eggs that have become cloned mammals in the last seven years.
In Thursday's debate on UVVA,
Feinstein charged, "The bill says a one-day-old fertilized
egg is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Translation: It
is a person." But those two sentences aren't an accurate
description of UVVA. The first sentence is a fact; the second
is a mistranslation. A human embryo is a member of our species.
But that doesn't mean it's a person. An adult is a senior member
of the species. A child is a junior member. A viable fetus is
a more junior member. A pre-viable fetus is a still more junior
member. A zygote is the most junior member. You can argue that
personhood begins at viability while admitting that human distinctness
begins at conception. On the other hand, if you deny the human
distinctness of the fetus, most people will stop listening to
you. Given a choice between calling the fetus a child and calling
it a pregnancy, they'll call it a child."
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 1:43 pm
Subject: Killings left and right (was: Isis Sophia Studies)
At 20:42 31.03.2004, Bradford wrote:
Here is the latest news from these human
ignorant bunglers:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2097927/
"This is not an accident.
Each time pro-lifers have tried in recent years to treat the
embryo or fetus as a person in one context or another, pro-choicers
have responded by treating the fetus as a nonentity. When pro-lifers
sought to ban human cloning, pro-choicers offered a counterproposal
that would require the destruction of every cloned embryo —
which they referred to only as "an unfertilized blastocyst"
and "the product of nuclear transplantation" —
within two weeks of its creation. When pro-lifers sought to make
fetuses eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program,
pro- choicers offered a counterproposal to expand the program's
eligibility guidelines "as if any reference to targeted
low-income children were a reference to targeted low-income pregnant
women." The pro-choice alternative made no reference to
the gestated entity until it was "born."
One of the biggest headache-causing aspects
of the pro-life/pro-choice theater is that it's been turned into
such a damnned political football, with the pro-lifers on the
right and the pro-choicers on the left. Both of these movements
carry lethal anti-life viruses, because there is no such thing
as a pro-life political platform. None whatsoever. If you choose
to give a thumbs-up for the unborn life and translate your stand
into a political endorsement, you're forced to trade one kind
of killing with another. They'll let unborn children live if
you agree to increase the ratio of lethal injections, firing
squads, gas chambers, random police brutality as a deterrant
against street crime, and multiplying foreign invasions tenfold
while banning media reports about casualties of war, including
unborn babies.
This hard choice between different varieties
of lethal political action seems to be driving some people close
to the brink of utter confusion. Such people seek a way out of
their dilemma by declaring liberalism to be a sickness. This
reminds me of an imaginary exchange I once wrote between Jerry
Falwell and Thomas Jefferson as part of the court room action
in my semi-autobigraphical play:
http://www.southerncrossreview.org/30/straume1.htm
Falwell (faces Jefferson, pauses, and finally
finds his voice, brandishing his leather Bible): Mister Jefferson,
you are of course familiar with this book; it is the King James
Version of the Holy Bible.
Jefferson: Yes, I used to
have one.
Falwell (gaining confidence): And you believe
the Holy Word of God, as a good Christian, Founding Father and
all?
Jefferson (puzzled): Of course.
Falwell (triumphant): And you agree that the
infallible Word of God should be the law of the land?
Jefferson: I beg your pardon,
sir, but what you have there is not the infallible Word of God.
It is a masterful renditions in English of sacred Jewish scriptures.
The New Testament does teach us about the salvation of all mankind,
but in my day we established a separation of church and state
in order to prevent members of the clergy like yourself from
undermining our God-given right to liberty, especially in spiritual
matters.
Falwell: You're..... you're a liberal?!!
Jefferson (laughing at Falwell's dismay): I
most certainly am. I'm a revolutionary; you're a reactionary.
Not only did I write the Declaration of Independence; I also
created the Democratic Party. If you value freedom, you must
fight for it every day. To do that, you must be a liberal. The
infallible Word of God is not to be found on dead print, but
in the living hearts of all free men. That was a problem for
us when we drafted the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton was a
believer in the printed word; I wasn't. I have complete faith
in the free spirit.
Falwell: But..... but the Bible.....
Jefferson: The Bible cannot be used for the purpose
of legislation, but I agree that every gentleman ought to read
it.
Falwell (almost begging):
But Mister Jefferson.....
Magistrate: Mister Falwell, if you wish to continue
this, I suggest you invite Mister Jefferson to your church. The
witness is dismissed.
[Bradford's quote:]
It's a strategy of denial.
And this week, it ran into too much reality.
Tell that to all the unfertilized
eggs that have become cloned mammals in the last seven years.
Cloned mammals - that brings us to animal
rights, doesn't it? I'm never certain of these things, but doesn't
animal rights and vegetarianism and so on belong to the political
left? There are nuts there too, of course, who threaten to slaughter
a butcher's family if he doesn't change profession. A little
on the wild side, and almost funny in a cruel sort of way: Someone
from the beef industry was abducted by animal rights activists
and got his butt involuntarily branded, because they wanted him
to experience what it was like.
Anyway, my point is that the left-right political
division creates moral chaos and prevents people from seeing
moral issues clearly. The right-wingers want trigger-happy cops
to deter crime and send undesirables to the morgue, but they
also want the privilege of shooting through their bullet-proof
vests with a little help from the NRA. I see nothing wrong with
the principle of rights to gun ownership, but it sounds so nutty
to hear folks like Charlton Heston and even "Easy Rider"(!)
Peter Fonda whining about them having to pry their guns from
their "dead, cold fingers." Hello? If anything should
be pried from my dead, cold fingers, it would have to be a reefer
or something.
So what kind of killing do you prefer? If
you like to see more unborn children killed, vote left. If you
prefer frying of convicts in front of live audiences, foreign
infants killed by stray bullets from invasion forces, cops beating
the crap out of street punks, and a growth in the meat industry
that entails more hunting and slaughter and teaching children
to tear the guts out of their four-legged playmates while they're
still warm, vote right.
What seems to be hard for many people to swallow
is that Anthroposophy carries a hope to reduce and eventually
eliminate all killings. People will learn to refrain from
retaliation and vengeance and even self-defence. They will become
as wise as serpents and harmless as doves, like Christ put it.
They will become vegetarians and eventually mineral-eaters. Live
and let live. Tolstoy and Gandhi and MLK have only hinted at
the beginnings of this movement. Whether they were conservatives
or revolutionaries or liberals is something for "the intelligenzia"
to figure out.
Let them take their sweet time doing so.
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
