There will be no Funeral
From: winters_diana
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 6:11 pm
Subject: There will be no funeral
I looked back over what I've said here in
the past week, and more point-by-point on this with Tarjei is
useless, it just gets surreal. To summarize what I have tried
to say:
It is possible (many people do it) to believe
in a god or gods that do not appoint people on racial missions,
or assign meanings to racial characteristics. It is possible
to worship the Judeo-Christian God and not believe that he assigns
racial missions. One does not, in fact, hear talk of racial missions
in mainstream Protestant churches or Catholic churches today.
(One is more likely to hear such a concept condemned.) Even if
the Bible offers justification for such views, like many other
things in the Bible many Christians today, fortunately, do not
take it literally. These Christians surely are not all "materialists."
Arguably it is assigning spiritual meanings to racial characteristics
that actually is materialistic thinking.
Whether I personally believe in the
Judeo-Christian God or the Loch Ness monster was never relevant
to this discussion. The monkey talk is merely to point out that
things get dang complicated if you feel you must assign every
lifeform a mission (carefully delineated from that of every other
lifeform, distinguishing species from species and races from
races in neat, WRONG categories). Put another way: If you don't
need God to have assigned missions to all these monkeys, he really
doesn't have to have assigned separate missions for white skin
and dark skin, either. Every mole on your elbow does not
have a cosmic purpose. The good news: This does not make you
a monkey. This need not destroy your spirituality. This does
not kill God. It is probably not that easy to kill God. There
will be no funeral.
Voila, as Dottie says.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 24, 2004 9:17 pm
Subject: Re: There will be no funeral
Diana:
It is possible (many people do it) to believe
in a god or gods that do not appoint people on racial missions,
or assign meanings to racial characteristics. It is possible
to worship the Judeo-Christian God and not believe that he assigns
racial missions.
Dear Diana,
I do not think of it as 'well God assigned
a mission to so and so and this group and that group and this
species and so forth. I do contemplate things though as to why.
These are questions that come up for me in my overall contemplations.
I don't consider Dr. Steiners talk as being on racial appointments,
rather, group consciousness and elevation of selves. And for
all of us. I think of countries versus races. I think of Europe,
Africa, America, Latin America, and so forth. I think it possible
that each does indeed have its own Archangel of sorts. It seems
possible to me. Don't know it for my self however but if I so
contemplate it does seem like a possibility.
I do think people who wish to study further
the who what why and how of things also look at this. People
within the Christian community may as well but that would be
on an individual basis. Dr. Steiners students come to him because
they are looking for certain thoughts to the questions that have
been formulating within them. And some of these questions come
up to the idea well why are there these difference continents
with these different peoples some more spiritual, some more educated,
some more violent and so forth. And I think these questions are
good for those who so wish to look. For those who do not wish
to look than that is fine as well. But just because we choose
to look does not make us wrong or racist or whatever else that
has been said by the critics. Colleges study these subjects all
the time even if they are not on a spiritual understanding they
still get to the whys and wheres. Dr. Steiners work takes it
a few steps further. And if these questions come up for you his
works offer a point of view for one to consider amongst the many
others that are out there on the book shelf.
Diana:
One does not, in fact, hear talk of racial
missions in mainstream Protestant churches or Catholic churches
today. (One is more likely to hear such a concept condemned.)
Yes, they may be condemned but so what? Does
that make them right. If they so do not wish to look to these
points don't. Others in colleges and studies do so choose and
that does not make them wrong in pursuing such thoughts. I mostly
found church going peoples to by hypocrites. Not really nice
of me and so I try to just say hey we are all human. But I do
so wish all this 'God would not do this and God condemns that
and so forth would just stop. I find these people big on judging
others but not very good at pulling the log out of their own
eyes.
Diana:
Even if the Bible offers justification
for such views, like many other things in the Bible many Christians
today, fortunately, do not take it literally.
It's a study Diana. It's a contemplation as
to what significance things have around us and on us. Is there
a correlation between these things and what I/we percieve? Do
these thoughts deepen our understanding on things around us or
not? Where do these thoughts lead us? What understandings deepen
my experience as a human being. We can go around negating all
kinds of things without truly thinking them through and I believe
we can go deeper to get to the mysteries of this life. I mean
this life is a mystery. No one person has the answer for himself.
We can contemplate it but only our willingness to think on deeper
things that are not discussed in public arenas will we begin
to truly have a deeper understanding of the mystery.
Diana:
Whether I personally believe in
the Judeo-Christian God or the Loch Ness monster was never relevant
to this discussion.
I think what it is is a discussion about ourselves
and what we believe in. I like hearing what you are thinking.
And it is interesting to listen in on this conversation because
it feels like you two are not speaking to one another its kind
of like you are both talking past one another. I can't have those
kinds of conversations any more. Life is too short.
Diana:
Put another way: If you don't need God
to have assigned missions to all these monkeys, he really doesn't
have to have assigned separate missions for white skin and dark
skin, either. Every mole on your elbow does not have a
cosmic purpose. The good news: This does not make you a monkey.
Well I think we can look at the various animals
and consider what they are doing here. What is their impact on
the world and society? Is there like a 'mother group' of Monkeys,
or a mother group of Flowers, the archtypes that Joseph Campbell
speaks on? Steiner speaks on these archtypal groups and how they
accomplish a certain goal towards evolution. You may think that
crazy but he just did not stop on one subject. He found its interconnectivity
on a multitude of levels. I can't know those things he talks
about but I can surmise that what he says may be just the right
thing as I have seen this in the studies I hold close to my heart
regarding the Christ.
I think the idea of us having a cosmic purpose
as a whole and as an individual is a worthy conversation. I think
the idea that the 'mole' makes part of who I am is undeniable
depending of the 'moles' placement:) I am thinking on Cindy,
(oh I do not remember her name, she was a famous model married
to Richard Gere) and how that specific mole in the right place
on the right face rocked the world for a bit. Now, that is a
part of her life. Do we take the mole off and it becomes cancerous
and so forth. I think everything is relevent. I no longer say
'oh what a miracle' oh what a coincedence' as I have seen a rhyme
and reason for the things that happen in my life and that of
my family and friends. They may not see them as clearly as I
do because this is my personal study. I study human behaviour
and the happenings that travel along side of us in a way. So,
I see it all relevant, mole, monkey, flower, Christian, Jew,
and so forth.
Diana:
It is probably not that easy to kill God.
Hey Diana, I am wondering how do you see God?
Not in the God of the church or the God of your parents or how
others see this God but do you have a thought if there was a
God or a thing that was called God how does it appear to you?
Do you have a seperate understanding than what others have of
God? Do you have your own understanding or do you just think
there is no God.
For me, I think we are all God. I think we
all make up this entity called God. This puts me at odds with
Dr. Steiner students and so forth because I think of all these
things within me and not seperate. I do not neccessarily hold
it as a God outside of me. Nor do I hold it that a God made me
and so forth. I tend to hold it that we are all peices of what
is considered God and when we all find our way back to our original
state we will be God once again as in the beginning. We do not
get swallowed up into nothingness that does not have meaning
or where we lose our souls timbre rather we are aware that we
are all vibrating within and actually make up the One.
I also like the idea you have about being
content with the idea that life will carry on without you and
this is comforting. I would like to say that maybe you could
keep an open mind as to the point you do live on even if you
can not find it within yourself. You can not take my personal
experience nor that of any other I am sure however I would like
to say we never die in the way that we cease to exist as a being
of some sorts. You may not know that and many people do not however
I find it doesn't hurt to just leave open the possibility. I
think that is how I had some of my adult experiences. I just
wondered and began a certain study with earnest and wahla little
by little things understandings started to show themselves to
me.
I like the story told by Paramahansa about
what dying is like. He says dying is like a soldier being shot
and the soldier is falling backwards with the thought 'I am dying,
I am dying, and a voice says ' no your'e not your talking to
me'...and that quick one realizes 'oh yeah look I am not dying
I am continuing on somehow, what is this wonder and who am I
talking to'...(paraphrasing) And Diana, it is just like that
believe it or not. I know I am going to be I'm dying, I'm dying
and then suddenly a voice is going to say 'no your not your talking
to me' and I am going to laugh so hard at my hard head once again.
Anyhow, just wanted to share a few thoughts,
Love,
d
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:05 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] There will be no funeral
At 03:11 25.03.2004, Diana wrote:
I looked back over what I've said here
in the past week, and more point-by-point on this with Tarjei
is useless, it just gets surreal.
You're creating your own confusion, Diana
To summarize what I have tried to say:
It is possible (many people do it) to believe
in a god or gods that do not appoint people on racial missions,
or assign meanings to racial characteristics.
We've been talking primarily about the mission
of the Hebrews here, and about the mission given to them by Yahve.
Of course you can believe in all kinds of gods who don't behave
like Yahve. Perhaps Odin did to some extent, but not Balder -
and btw, Balder is the benevolent God for whom a funeral was
held when he was murdered through Loke's stealth, killed by a
mistletoe.
It is possible to worship the Judeo-Christian
God and not believe that he assigns racial missions.
In that case, you haven't been reading the
OT, where Yahve assigns special tasks and missions to his people
throughout.
One does not, in fact, hear talk of racial
missions in mainstream Protestant churches or Catholic churches
today. (One is more likely to hear such a concept condemned.)
What you have in mind when you say "racial
missions" is obviously something very different from what
we've been talking about. As usual, you distort things beyond
recognition and make them into absurd caricatures; then you turn
around and say that most Christians don't believe in such distorted
caricatures.
Even if the Bible offers justification
for such views, like many other things in the Bible many Christians
today, fortunately, do not take it literally. These Christians
surely are not all "materialists." Arguably it is assigning
spiritual meanings to racial characteristics that actually is
materialistic thinking.
OK, let's try to follow you here: God was
not a racist when he created human races, but if he had put some
spiritual characteristics or qualities into those races or given
them spiritual tasks or missions, he would have been a racist.
And those who believe in a God who does such things, are racists.
Whether I personally believe in
the Judeo-Christian God or the Loch Ness monster was never relevant
to this discussion.
Oh yes it is. Human existence is a mystery,
and how we came to be divided in different races on different
continents at the dawn of time as we know it, is also a mystery.
You're implying that it is racist to suggest that the emergence
of human races was not a meaningless and absurd phenomenon.
The monkey talk is merely to point out
that things get dang complicated if you feel you must assign
every lifeform a mission (carefully delineated from that
of every other lifeform, distinguishing species from species
and races from races in neat, WRONG categories).
That's part of the reason why I ask if you
believe in Carl Sagan's primordial cosmic soup. If we have all
emerged from a happenstance chemical soup, it doesn't matter
if we're monkeys or bees or Greeks or Hebrews or Indians. In
the world of blind chance, there are no missions for anyone until
Star Trek, where the mission is given by Starfleet Command "to
boldly go where no man has gone before". It looks like Star
Trek embodies those racial missions you're thinking about, where
Vulcans make the best science officers, Klingons the best warriors
and so on. And when they're all on the same ship, the Enterprise
becomes the Earth in a sense. That's the world where races are
sent out on those racial missions you're talking about from different
planets and galaxies, but that's rather remote from what we've
been talking about here, and that you have distorted into a Star
Trek idea.
Put another way: If you don't need God
to have assigned missions to all these monkeys, he really doesn't
have to have assigned separate missions for white skin and dark
skin, either.
I don't know why you think complexion is the
determining factor, Diana. The Archangeloi are the regents of
nations and races, and these differences are primarily expressed
through languages. As the French saying goes, "la langue,
cé la nation."
Every mole on your elbow does not
have a cosmic purpose.
Yes, even moles have cosmic significance.
There is nothing in existence without a cosmic purpose, Diana.
As Bob Dylan put it, "Every Grain of Sand".
The good news: This does not make you a
monkey.
As Erasmus Montanus said to his mother, Morlille:
MONTANUS.
Morlille, I shall make a stone of you.
NILLE.
Yes speak, that is better.
MONTANUS.
Now you shall hear. A stone cannot fly.
NILLE.
No that is true, except when you throw it.
MONTANUS.
You cannot fly.
NILLE.
That is true too.
MONTANUS.
Ergo, is Morlille a stone?
(Nille weeps.)
MONTANUS.
Why does Moorlille weep?
NILLE.
Oh I am so afraid, that I become a stone, my legs are beginning
to get cold already.
MONTANUS.
Take it easy Morlille, I shall immediately make you a human again.
A stone cannot think nor speak.
NILLE.
That is true. I don't know if it can think, but it cannot speak.
MONTANUS.
Morlille can speak.
NILLE.
Yes thank God, as a poor peasant wife I can speak.
MONTANUS.
Good. Ergo is Morlille no stone.
http://www.kb.dk/elib/lit/dan/holberg/komedier/erasmus.dkl/a2.htm
This need not destroy your spirituality.
This does not kill God. It is probably not that easy to kill
God. There will be no funeral.
Try the mistletoe. Loke will give you a hand
if need be.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:57 am
Subject: Re: There will be no funeral
I wrote:
It is possible to worship the Judeo-Christian
God and not believe that he assigns racial missions.
Tarjei:
In that case, you haven't been reading
the OT, where Yahve assigns special tasks and missions to his
people throughout.
Tarjei, argue all you like, lots of Christians
are reading the same Bible you are yet the churches are not
preaching racial missions, nor stoning adulterers, selling children
into slavery, etc. Taking your sacred text literally on every
point, even those clearly inserted by ordinary, fallible humans
centuries ago, puts you in some interesting company.
What you have in mind when you say "racial
missions" is obviously something very different from what
we've been talking about. As usual, you distort things beyond
recognition and make them into absurd caricatures; then you turn
around and say that most Christians don't believe in such distorted
caricatures.
You have a point there – I don't believe
the worst possible implications of "racial missions"
were suggested by Steiner or are generally held by anthroposophists
today. I do think that it is an historically dangerous and regressive
idea from which no good can result, even if the worst never results.
OK, let's try to follow you here: God was
not a racist when he created human races, but if he had put some
spiritual characteristics or qualities into those races or given
them spiritual tasks or missions, he would have been a racist.
And those who believe in a God who does such things, are racists.
Yes. Peter has noted the simple and very widely
held definitions of racism, by which pretty much any assigning
of "racial missions" would probably be racist. I totally
agree. To most educated people today, such notions are loathsome
and rightly so. I plead guilty to "political correctness"
insofar as it means rejecting racial missions, or racial destiny
or racial karma or races advancing and declining in some cosmic
scheme, no matter how appealing the spiritual notions invoked
to justify these ideas.
I think we cannot reach understanding on this
because 1) your belief that God did, in fact, assign racial missions,
is quite rock solid (I am amazed by how solid, how unquestionable
– you dismiss other possibilities, and even the substantial
evidence that other Christians don't buy this for a minute, as
utterly preposterous); and 2) you greatly hoped that if I could
be convinced that I was, thereby, declaring God racist, I could
be jarred from these statements (or, at least, that my statements
would thereby appear preposterous or even frightening to others).
It appears to me a crude appeal to shame and fear. Perhaps if
you just tell me, often enough, that I am afraid of God, it will
come true?
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 5:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: There will be no funeral
At 13:57 27.03.2004, Diana wrote:
Tarjei, argue all you like, lots of Christians
are reading the same Bible you are yet the churches are not
preaching racial missions, nor stoning adulterers, selling children
into slavery, etc. Taking your sacred text literally on every
point, even those clearly inserted by ordinary, fallible humans
centuries ago, puts you in some interesting company.
Wow! I'm stoning adulterers or selling children
into slavery, or preaching such practices? Looks like you've
made the leap I mentioned - from accusing us of racism to accusing
us of pedophilia and what have you. Shame on you, Diana.
(About those racial missions, you'll have
to consult science officer Spock on the U.S.S. Enterprise.)
Yes. Peter has noted the simple and very
widely held definitions of racism, by which pretty much any assigning
of "racial missions" would probably be racist. I totally
agree. To most educated people today, such notions are loathsome
and rightly so. I plead guilty to "political correctness"
insofar as it means rejecting racial missions, or racial destiny
or racial karma or races advancing and declining in some cosmic
scheme, no matter how appealing the spiritual notions invoked
to justify these ideas.
In other words, you reject the notion of human
races? So Do I. Human races are part of the past, and
racial differences are disappearing and don't have a justification
in our day and age. We've said that. Steiner has said that, and
he's been quoted. Case closed.
You and PS keep pounding race and racism and
racial stuff over and over and over like a broken record. It's
the only thing PS is interested in, and you don't have interest
in much else either, excepe left-handedness perhaps. And when
the racism thing gets boring, you start off on child slavery
and imply that I and other anthroposophists endorse it. Naughty
naughty.
I think we cannot reach understanding on
this because 1) your belief that God did, in fact, assign racial
missions, is quite rock solid (I am amazed by how solid, how
unquestionable – you dismiss other possibilities, and even
the substantial evidence that other Christians don't buy this
for a minute, as utterly preposterous);
What's preposterious is your pursuit and twisting
of this thing, because you know very well that I regard racial
differences as primarily a phenomenon of the past, of ancient
history, that is disappearing. But you seem to refuse to acknowledge
that, so instead you suggest that anthroposophists endorse Taliban-like
OT practices.
Confusion, Diana.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 5:34 am
Subject: Re: There will be no funeral
Wow! I'm stoning adulterers or selling
children into slavery, or preaching such practices?
Sheeesh. That's not what I said. I am pointing
out that you are defending a literalist interpretation of the
Bible, which, on other points, such as the above, I doubt you
would do. So follow the train of thought.
Looks like you've made the leap I mentioned
- from accusing us of racism to accusing us of pedophilia and
what have you. Shame on you, Diana.
There it is again! Fascinating. You state
that I have accused you of pedophilia. I wonder what you are
up to with this nonsense, Tarjei. Anyone who likes can recreate
this thread. Nobody has accused you of pedophilia, get a grip.
you don't have interest in much else either,
excepe left-handedness perhaps.
What, you think my conversation here with
you reflects the only thing that interests me?
And when the racism thing gets boring,
you start off on child slavery and imply that I and other anthroposophists
endorse it.
I implied no such thing. I am saying that
your interpretation of the Bible as supporting "racial missions"
depends on a flawed strategy of understanding the Bible that
I am fairly certain in other contexts you would reject.
Gotta go.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 6:14 am
Subject: Re: There will be no funeral
Wow! I'm stoning adulterers or selling
children into slavery, or preaching such practices?
okay, this upsets me, and I want to make this
clear. Tarjei - I do not think you are a pedophile, or approve
of slavery. The premise of my argument was the opposite though
apparently my attempts to express myself succinctly led to creating
a false impression. I meant to use the fact that, from what you've
written here and elsewhere, I think you do not agree with
many of the repressive things recommended or approved in the
Bible. you could reject Yahweh's appointing of missions on the
same grounds.
I meant to suggest that your understanding
of Yahweh's appointing missions puts you in company you do not
want to keep - the company of literalist Biblical interpreters,
that is, with whom you would have little in common; I am not
suggesting you want to keep company with child molesters or slaverholders.
I was suggesting the opposite. okay? although, I'm realizing
your adding "pedophile" to the situation is really
totally bizarre, because even if I had (which I did not) suggested
you approved of all those other things, I don't really think
the Bible anywhere approves of pedophilia. really gotta
go, writing this in a hurry now and will come back tomorrow to
see what further confusion and hostility has resulted.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:35 am
Subject: Diana's Sick Jesus (was: There will be no funeral)
At 15:14 27.03.2004, Diana wrote:
Tarjei - I do not think you are a pedophile,
or approve of slavery. The premise of my argument was the opposite
though apparently my attempts to express myself succinctly led
to creating a false impression.
Perhaps something or someone is interfering
with your attempts to express yourself succinctly? Some kind
of automatic writing getting in the way?
I meant to use the fact that, from what
you've written here and elsewhere, I think you do not
agree with many of the repressive things recommended or approved
in the Bible. you could reject Yahweh's appointing of missions
on the same grounds.
The fact remains that Yahve did unpalatable
things, like ordering his Chosen people to murder men, women,
and children when invading an enemy city and only spare those
who had snitched on their friends. Yahve was indeed a racial
god in many ways, but I don't see anything immoral about his
application of eugenics for the benefit of his people and for
the preparation of the Messiah's arrival.
I meant to suggest that your understanding
of Yahweh's appointing missions puts you in company you do not
want to keep - the company of literalist Biblical interpreters,
that is, with whom you would have little in common; I am not
suggesting you want to keep company with child molesters or slaverholders.
I was suggesting the opposite. okay?
You were suggesting that I interpret the Bible
in such a way that it puts me in unsavory company that I would
not like to be in if I knew better. The company of pedophiles
and the like. That's what child slavery is all about these days:
pedophelia. This is also the scourge of the Christian churches
these days, with priests and bishops and pastors and preachers
being busted for sexual child abuse all over the globe. Whether
or not this has anything to do with a literal interpretation
of the Old Testament, I don't know; I don't think so, and neither
do you seem to. But you're creating associations along the way
that you may not even be aware of. I'm only pointing out what
you're hinting and indicating and implying with your train of
thought.
although, I'm realizing your adding "pedophile"
to the situation is really totally bizarre, because even if I
had (which I did not) suggested you approved of all those other
things, I don't really think the Bible anywhere approves of pedophilia.
No, I don't think youo think so either. But
I belive the charge of racism against anthro's isn't enough for
you people; you're looking for worse things to throw at the movement
you have it in for. You don't spell it out, but you insert it
subtely between the lines.
And then there is this sick Jesus of yours
who would have to be leprous, blind, lame, deaf, and addicted
to heroin in order to fit the bill of a compassionate Son of
God. And this wrech should be the savior of humanity who was
hauled out of the gutter half dead screaming for a shot in the
arm and nailed to the cross. How would a wreck like that have
the strength to rise from the dead, Diana?
really
gotta go, writing this in a hurry now and will come back tomorrow
to see what further confusion and hostility has resulted.
And what more confusion and hostility you
can come up with? Like anthros being serial killers for instance,
inspired by Yahve's "racial missions" and Klingon fierceness?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 7:21 pm
Subject: Re: Diana's Sick Jesus (was: There will be no funeral)
Tarjei:
Perhaps something or someone is interfering
with your attempts to express yourself succinctly? Some kind
of automatic writing getting in the way?
What is that supposed to mean? Are you still
believing I'm Peter, or is it evil spirits directing my writing
again?
I wrote:
I meant to use the fact that, from what
you've written here and elsewhere, I think you do not
agree with many of the repressive things recommended or approved
in the Bible. you could reject Yahweh's appointing of missions
on the same grounds.
[Tarjei:]
The fact remains that Yahve did unpalatable
things, like ordering his Chosen people to murder men, women,
and children when invading an enemy city and only spare those
who had snitched on their friends. Yahve was indeed a racial
god in many ways, but I don't see anything immoral about his
application of eugenics for the benefit of his people and for
the preparation of the Messiah's arrival.
Okay by me. I've always thought the Old Testament
God is depicted as practically a psychopath. My point was, well,
my point is still right there above. Many Christians don't take
it as literal prescriptions for how they should behave today
or understand history today.
You were suggesting that I interpret the
Bible in such a way that it puts me in unsavory company that
I would not like to be in if I knew better. The company of pedophiles
and the like. That's what child slavery is all about these days:
pedophelia.
True. Well, partly true, child slavery still
has economic purposes too. I certainly did not suggest that you
spend time in the company of pedophiles or have anything in common
with them. My implication was that since you do not keep
such company, either literally or philosophically, you might
want to reconsider this point on which you would appear to agree
with literal interpretations of the Bible. I meant to suggest
that from what I know of you, any such association should appear
undesirable to you.
I don't think most of the people who interpret
the Bible literally are pedophiles, or slave holders, or go around
stoning adulterers, either, of course. When the potential consequences
of interpreting the Bible literally are pointed out, it is usually
for the same rhetorical reasons I used this argument: to point
out that literal Biblical interpretation is basically quite mindless.
People usually just haven't thought through the absurdity of
taking many Biblical prescriptions literally today. Pointing
out the most extreme examples is done in order to show that the
strategy should be reconsidered because it leads to really unsupportable
things if it is applied consistently.
you're creating associations along the
way that you may not even be aware of. I'm only pointing out
what you're hinting and indicating and implying with your train
of thought.
I am not and have never implied, hinted, or
indicated that you, or any anthroposophist I know, or any anthroposophy
I have read, is a pedophile or approves of pedophilia. I do not
think it is possible to read any remarks I have made anywhere
as suggesting this. You are looking for "smears" where
there aren't any, or trying to construct them yourself out of
my posts, in fact it's starting to look a tad bizarre.
I think that sexual abuse does happen in Waldorf
schools, of course, but I know of no evidence that it happens
with any greater frequency than in any other type of school.
I don't know of any justification for pedophilia to be found
in Rudolf Steiner's writings. I have never heard a Waldorf teacher
or anthroposophist say anything remotely related to a justification
of pedophilia.
But I belive the charge of racism against
anthro's isn't enough for you people; you're looking for worse
things to throw at the movement you have it in for. You don't
spell it out, but you insert it subtely between the lines.
That is not correct. I must repeat that I
never even brought up pedophilia, or any suggestion of it (the
connection to slavery did not occur to me; you suggested it).
You brought pedophilia into this discussion; of all the gruesome
and depraved things a literal reading of the Bible does
support, pedophilia isn't even one of them. The Bible suggests
stoning adulterers, it condemns homosexuality, it calls for women
to be subjugated to their husbands, for parents to beat their
children, it calls for body parts to be chopped off as punishment
for various transgressions etc. I presume you reject these things.
I wanted to suggest that I would find literalist interpretations
of Biblical passages from you surprising, except, apparently,
where they back up some wacko scenario described by Rudolf Steiner.
I have never, in any way, shape, or form,
suggested or hinted that anthroposophy or anthroposophists have
a connection to pedophilia or would approve of pedophilia. I
am not looking for "worse things" to "throw at"
your movement. My criticisms are sincere and I operate ethically,
I do not look for "worse things" to accuse someone
of. I make no attempt to "insert" things between the
lines in any of my writings; I say exactly what I mean, or at
least I try. I am sure that I am sometimes not perfectly clear
and I'm sorry if you read implications in my last couple of posts
that weren't there. I assure you there are no hidden implications
in my posts.
I'll get back to the sick Jesus later. Just
quickly -
How would a wreck like that have the strength
to rise from the dead, Diana?
Ah! How does anyone have the strength
to rise from the dead? You'd have to be God or something to do
that, wouldn't you????
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:01 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Diana's Sick Jesus
(was: There will be no funeral)
At 05:21 29.03.2004, Diana wrote:
I've always thought the Old Testament God
is depicted as practically a psychopath. My point was, well,
my point is still right there above. Many Christians don't take
it as literal prescriptions for how they should behave today
or understand history today.
Behavior and understanding history is one
and the same thing then, and it's prescribed? How can understanding
of history be prescribed when history as a field of research
is only a few centuries old? The Bible is used as a tool, a source,
not a "prescription".
My implication was that since you do not
keep such company, either literally or philosophically, you might
want to reconsider this point on which you would appear to agree
with literal interpretations of the Bible.
I cannot reconsider something on the sole
basis of how it appears to you. Secondly, there is more than
one way to read the Bible "literally." Thirdly, the
original point here was not any specific reading of the Bible,
but a summary of the OT, which stresses the genealogy of Jesus
and is repeated in the Matthew and Luke gospels.
I meant to suggest that from what I know
of you, any such association should appear undesirable to you.
The associations other people make are beyond
my immediate control. You cannot use associations based upon
misconceptions as an argument for others to change their viewpoints
or positions. That's manipulation.
When the potential consequences of interpreting
the Bible literally are pointed out, it is usually for the same
rhetorical reasons I used this argument: to point out that literal
Biblical interpretation is basically quite mindless.
That would depend upon whether or not you
are able to understand the Biblical texts as occult documents
written in Mystery Language. Or if you can recognize that the
genealogies of Luke and Matthew don't match and cannot possible
refer to the same Jesus child. What Adam's "deep sleep"
means. That the Sermon on the Mount, or the Beautitudes, recorded
in Matthew were not spoken to a crowd, as assumed, but to the
disciples only when they were alone. All of this can be drawn
from a literal reading of the Bible.
People usually just haven't thought through
the absurdity of taking many Biblical prescriptions literally
today.
Biblical prescriptions? Biblical prescription
drugs?
Pointing out the most extreme examples
is done in order to show that the strategy should be reconsidered
because it leads to really unsupportable things if it is applied
consistently.
What strategy? The strategy to attack the
Hittites?
I am not and have never implied, hinted,
or indicated that you, or any anthroposophist I know, or any
anthroposophy I have read, is a pedophile or approves of pedophilia.
I do not think it is possible to read any remarks I have made
anywhere as suggesting this. You are looking for "smears"
where there aren't any, or trying to construct them yourself
out of my posts, in fact it's starting to look a tad bizarre.
Really? Do you remember some time ago when
you talked about infants being hurled off mountains in the Middle
Ages, and you linked this to Waldorf teachers switching lefties
into righties? You do things like this once in a while. I merely
point it out to you when it happens.
I think that sexual abuse does happen in
Waldorf schools, of course, but I know of no evidence that it
happens with any greater frequency than in any other type of
school. I don't know of any justification for pedophilia to be
found in Rudolf Steiner's writings. I have never heard a Waldorf
teacher or anthroposophist say anything remotely related to a
justification of pedophilia.
That was not my point. My point was that you
associated an anthroposophical understanding of genealogy in
the OT with stoning of adulterers and with child slavery, that
today, child slavery is associated with pedophelia, and that
this is how such associations are created.
I have never, in any way, shape, or form,
suggested or hinted that anthroposophy or anthroposophists have
a connection to pedophilia or would approve of pedophilia.
I'm happy to hear that.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:08 am
Subject: Re: Diana's Sick Jesus (was: There will be no funeral)
I wrote:
Many Christians don't take it as literal
prescriptions for how they should behave today or understand
history today.
[Tarjei:]
Behavior and understanding history is one
and the same thing then, and it's prescribed? How can understanding
of history be prescribed when history as a field of research
is only a few centuries old? The Bible is used as a tool, a source,
not a "prescription".
I agree, and in my view it is a "tool"
for understanding how early Christians thought, and a "source"
of information of this sort – I don't read it as either
literal truth or some kind of elaborate code for "occult"
truths as anthroposophists do. I think it's possible to read
the stories of Jesus's genealogy and the stories of Yahweh's
directives to "his people" as just that, stories of
how the ancient Hebrews understood their god. They are not necessarily
directives for how we today must understand God and to
me, they are not full of "hidden messages," though
there's always the possibility that I am just not capable of
understanding those messages. Tarjei, same as with the Saddam
Hussein example, you have a tendency to see your own arguments
as coming from me when I've merely pointed them out.
My implication was that since you do not
keep such company, either literally or philosophically, you might
want to reconsider this point on which you would appear to agree
with literal interpretations of the Bible.
I cannot reconsider something on the sole
basis of how it appears to you. Secondly, there is more than
one way to read the Bible "literally." Thirdly, the
original point here was not any specific reading of the Bible,
but a summary of the OT, which stresses the genealogy of Jesus
and is repeated in the Matthew and Luke gospels.
Well, we were working on 2 things I think
– the idea of the Jews having a mission to provide a "suitable
body" for Christ, and the idea of "racial missions"
in general as something instituted by the God of the Old Testament.
I meant to suggest that from what I know
of you, any such association should appear undesirable to you.
The associations other people make are
beyond my immediate control. You cannot use associations based
upon misconceptions as an argument for others to change their
viewpoints or positions. That's manipulation."
It was not manipulation, it was a logical
argument. It was a case of using an extreme example to illustrate
a general principle, and it's a common form of argumentation.
If you cannot defend the most extreme examples (defense of slavery,
for instance) with reference to the general principle (literal
interpretation of the Bible), then it should give you cause to
reexamine the general principle. Likewise I cannot control
what you read into things. Especially when you take the
extra step of sharing an association in your mind which
isn't even in the original, i.e., the Bible does not support
pedophilia.
Really? Do you remember some time ago when
you talked about infants being hurled off mountains in the Middle
Ages, and you linked this to Waldorf teachers switching lefties
into righties? You do things like this once in a while. I merely
point it out to you when it happens.
A good example. I recall it upsetting other
people too. It was used to suggest that the origin of such practices
is ancient superstitions, and their evolving from an earlier
era with many practices that we could not support today. Because
Waldorf teachers wouldn't, I don't think, like the idea
of tossing someone off a cliff, they need to realize that switching
of lefthanders has little better justification. Their methods
today are not as cruel but are steps along a continuum that they
seem to prefer not glancing back on. I think they should
glance back, and consider stepping off that path.
you associated an anthroposophical understanding
of genealogy in the OT with stoning of adulterers and with child
slavery, that today, child slavery is associated with pedophelia,
and that this is how such associations are created.
"that is how such associations are created"
– baloney. You created that association, it was never
in my mind in the first place, and you can't expect me to take
responsibility for your thoughts or what anyone might
think on reading my words and associating from them to things
that weren't there.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:57 am
Subject: Intellectual ping-pong (was: Diana's Sick Jesus)
At 15:08 29.03.2004, Diana wrote:
It was not manipulation, it was a logical
argument. It was a case of using an extreme example to illustrate
a general principle, and it's a common form of argumentation.
If you cannot defend the most extreme examples (defense of slavery,
for instance) with reference to the general principle (literal
interpretation of the Bible), then it should give you cause to
reexamine the general principle.
That's what I call intellectual ping-pong.
So-called "critics" like yourself and Peter S. - I
always write "critics" in quotation marks when referring
to you people, because sincere and legitimate criticism (without
quotation marks) is always welcome. You're unable to grasp the
concepts behind the words when it comes to Anthroposophy, so
you play on the words and convolute the sentences and say you
enjoy continuing this charade because I'm indulging in your intellectual
ping-pong. And then you want to introduce theology into it. I've
discussed theology with pastors and fundies and Catholics and
agnostics with an interest in the Bible, but you want to drag
me into this scriptural-theological ping-pong without knowing
the rules: When you play scriptural-theological ping-pong, you
counter a chapter and verse I cite with another chapter and verse
that says the opposite. That's what theologians do, and it's
boring and absurd. And so is this ping-pong right here. Boring.
There isn't a single exchange of thoughts or ideas going on,
which makes the whole thing meaningless.
Likewise I cannot control what you
read into things. Especially when you take the extra step
of sharing an association in your mind which isn't even
in the original, i.e., the Bible does not support pedophilia.
Why did you bring up child slavery and warned
me that I wouldn't want to become associated with it by talking
about Yahve's mission for the Hebrews?
"that is how such associations are
created" – baloney. You created that association,
it was never in my mind in the first place, and you can't expect
me to take responsibility for your thoughts or what anyone
might think on reading my words and associating from them to
things that weren't there.
You have to take responsibility for your own
thoughts, not mine. I didn't create the association; I discovered
it and exposed it. It's all there in your own words.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Mar 30, 2004 5:57 am
Subject: Re: Intellectual ping-pong (was: Diana's Sick Jesus)
Tarjei:
Why did you bring up child slavery and
warned me that I wouldn't want to become associated with it by
talking about Yahve's mission for the Hebrews?
I've explained myself very thoroughly. I understand
now that there is bad faith on your end of this discussion. You
not only want me to have smeared you, you are attempting to manufacture
these so-called "smears" for your own purposes.
You have to take responsibility for your
own thoughts, not mine.
Not all of my thoughts are on this board,
that's for sure. I think we'd better stick to what's actually
been said, `cus what I'm thinking is not nearly so nice.
I didn't create the association; I discovered
it and exposed it. It's all there in your own words.
You know that what you are saying is untrue.
There is NOTHING in my words that I am ashamed of, and I am not
a person who tries to smear people.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:08 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Intellectual ping-pong
(was: Diana's Sick Jesus)
At 15:57 30.03.2004, Diana wrote:
I've explained myself very thoroughly.
I understand now that there is bad faith on your end of this
discussion. You not only want me to have smeared you, you are
attempting to manufacture these so-called "smears"
for your own purposes.
I don't 'want you to have smeared me.' I'm
simply pointing out that you've been creating associations from
time to time that are in effect smearing anthroposophically oriented
spiritual science.
You know that what you are saying is untrue.
You're calling me a liar? As science officer
Spock would have said, that's fascinating.
There is NOTHING in my words that I am
ashamed of, and I am not a person who tries to smear people.
I wouldn't expect you to be ashamed of anything
you write, especially when you don't seem to be quite aware of
what you're writing.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Deborah
Date: Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:36 am
Subject: Re: Intellectual ping-pong (was: Diana's Sick Jesus)
Tarjei,
You don't like being seen as a "typical
anthroposophist" rather than your complete self. Is it fair
to Diana to see her as a "typical critic?"
See past the genus waldorfiana criticus!
No, I don't agree with her arguments. I do
agree with her right to discern what she meant by a particular
statement. When you provide your "interpretation" and
claim that it "trumps" her own statement of what she
meant it reminds me of someone else on this list...
Nana
From: Steiner, Rudolf. Intuitive Thinking
as a Spiritual Path. Translated by Michael Lipson. Translation
of Die Philosophie der Freiheit. Hudson, N.Y.: Anthroposophic
Press, 1995.
Page 228
Those who judge human beings
according to generic characteristics stop before the boundary
beyond which people begin to be beings whose activity is based
on free self-determination. What lies short of that boundary
can, of course, be an object of scientific investigation. Racial,
tribal, national, and sexual characteristics form the content
of specific sciences. Only persons who want to live merely as
examples of a genus can fit themselves into a generic picture
derived from such scientific investigation. But all these sciences
together cannot penetrate to the specific content of single individuals.
Where the region of freedom (in thinking and action) begins,
determination of individuals by the laws of the genus comes to
an end. The conceptual content that, in order to have full reality,
human beings must connect with a percept through thinking cannot
be fixed once and for all, and bequeathed in finished form to
humanity. Individuals must gain their concepts through their
own individual intuitions. How an individual should think cannot
be derived from some generic concept. Each individual must set
the standard all alone. Nor is it possible to tell, from general
human traits, which concrete goals an individual chooses to seek.
Anyone who wishes to understand a particular individual must
penetrate to that individual's particular being, not remain at
the level of typical characteristics. In this sense, every single
human being is a separate problem. All science concerned with
abstract thoughts and generic concepts is only a preparation
for the kind of cognition imparted to us when a human individuality
communicates to us its way of viewing the world. And all such
science is only preparatory for the kind of cognition we attain
from the content of a human individuality's willing. When we
have the sense that we are dealing with the aspect of a person
that is free from typical styles of thought and generic desires,
then we must make use of no concept from our own mind if we want
to understand that person's essence. Cognition consists in linking
a concept with a percept through thinking. For all other objects,
the observer must penetrate to the concept by means of his or
her own intuition. Understanding a free individuality is exclusively
a question of bringing over into our own spirit in a pure form
(unmixed with our own conceptual content) those concepts by which
the individuality determines itself. People who immediately mix
their own concepts into any judgment of others can never attain
understanding of an individuality. Just as a free individuality
frees itself from the characteristics of the genus, cognition
must free itself from the approach appropriate to understanding
what is generic.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Mar 30, 2004 9:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Intellectual ping-pong
(was: Diana's Sick Jesus)
At 19:36 30.03.2004, Deborah wrote:
No, I don't agree with her arguments. I
do agree with her right to discern what she meant by a particular
statement. When you provide your "interpretation" and
claim that it "trumps" her own statement of what she
meant it reminds me of someone else on this list...
I haven't "trumped" any statement
or intention by Diana. What she has in mind when she writes that
a view of the OT as a preparation for the Christ Incarnation
with a special emphasis on lineage involving eugenics, makes
me look like I'm joining people who condone stoning for adultery
and things like that, is frankly beyond me. I'm clueless about
what she means. But I'm tellling her about the effects of those
kinds of associations and what conclusions can most easily be
drawn from them.
I'm also clueless about Diana's take on health
and illness regarding the body of Christ when she actually spells
out that she doesn't know the difference between resisting temptation
and resisting arrest at the hands of Romen soldiers!
Perhaps you or someone else could please take
over this "dialogue" with Diana and show me how it
should be conducted, because I'm terribly bored with its utter
stupidity.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 7:55 pm
Subject: Re: Intellectual ping-pong (was: Diana's Sick Jesus)
Tarjei whines:
I don't 'want you to have smeared me.'
I believe you do, as this is at least the
third time we've been through this.
You know that what you are saying is untrue.
You're calling me a liar?
I believe you know that my post made no mention
of pedophilia and that nothing I wrote could reasonably be construed
as suggesting a connection between you and pedophilia.
If you just don't want to be "associated"
with Biblical literalism, then you could reconsider interpreting
the Bible literally. Duh. Nevertheless, since pedophilia isn't
condoned anywhere in the Bible, to my knowledge, criticizing
someone for interpreting the Bible literally can't be taken to
suggest they approve of pedophilia. This leap did not occur to
me and from your listmates' responses, it wouldn't have occurred
to most people.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 1:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Intellectual ping-pong
(was: Diana's Sick Jesus)
At 05:55 03.04.2004, Diana wrote:
If you just don't want to be "associated"
with Biblical literalism, then you could reconsider interpreting
the Bible literally.
In the first place, you don't seem to have
much of a notion about how I interpret the Bible, Diana, whether
it is "literate" or not, or what a "literal"
reading of the Bible implies. Secondly, you cannot be serious
about expecting me to adjust my interpretation of the Bible in
accordance with your associations and your definition
of "Biblical literalism."
Nevertheless, since pedophilia isn't
condoned anywhere in the Bible, to my knowledge, criticizing
someone for interpreting the Bible literally can't be taken to
suggest they approve of pedophilia. This leap did not occur to
me and from your listmates' responses, it wouldn't have occurred
to most people.
You mentioned child slavery, which
today is closely linked to pedophelia and child pornography,
just like stoning people to death for sexual indiscretions, which
you also mentioned as something you would be associate me with
if I didn't interpret the Bible in a manner more to your liking,
is linked to certain "varieties" of Islam.
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
