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

Search this site powered by FreeFind