Morality and Racism
Fear of God?
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:59 pm
Subject: Fear of God?
[link to anchor in "Morality and Racism"]
I wrote:
I'm not afraid of "spirits" but
I do feel fear at the prospect that "the culture of the
future [would] be dominated by an understanding of the spirit
that is akin to Anthroposophy." I fear the things humans
have so often shown they can justify in the name of God or spirits
or various spiritual programs.
And Tarjei replied with a straight face:
What you're saying is reminiscent of what
Martin Luther called fear of God.
Fascinating!
I say I'm not afraid of God/spirits, you say,
"Hm I guess that means you're afraid of God." That's
what belief will do for you. You can't even hear that there are
people who don't believe what you believe.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:09 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fear of God?
At 03:59 15.03.2004, Diana wrote:
I wrote:
I'm not afraid of "spirits" but
I do feel fear at the prospect that "the culture of the
future [would] be dominated by an understanding of the spirit
that is akin to Anthroposophy." I fear the things humans
have so often shown they can justify in the name of God or spirits
or various spiritual programs.
And Tarjei replied with a straight face:
What's the alternative to replying "with
a straight face"?
What you're saying is reminiscent of what
Martin Luther called fear of God.
Fascinating!
I say I'm not afraid of God/spirits,
You say you fear "God or spirits or various
spiritual programs," i.e. God.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:24 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fear of God?
I wrote:
You say you fear "God or spirits or
various spiritual programs," i.e. God.
Let me spell this out: You say you fear what
people can do under the influence of "God or spirits or
various spiritual programs," or God. So God must be very
dangerous for people, and to people, so God is what you really
fear.
Jesus would probably have said that if you
fear God's servant or emissary, you're bound to fear God Himself
a lot more. It's elementary theology and psychology, my dear.
If Nietzsche doesn't do the trick, try Satan:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3282
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: Fear of God?
Tarjei:
You say you fear "God or spirits or
various spiritual programs," i.e. God.
That is not what I said. That is what
I said I do not fear. As before I said the opposite of
what you attribute to me.
Let me spell this out: You say you fear
what people can do under the influence of "God or spirits
or various spiritual programs," or God.
No. I did not say "under the influence"
of God, I said "in the name of" God etc. You do not
believe there is a difference, by which you show that you do
not respect the beliefs of other people, or their right to non-belief.
You will not even grant me the right to say what I believe or
don't believe. When I say what I believe you explain patronizingly
to me that in fact I believe the opposite.
So God must be very dangerous for people,
and to people, so God is what you really fear.
If I'm reading you right, there is no such
thing, actually, as not believing in God. It isn't even
possible.
In which case, there is really no such thing
as believing in Him/Her, either. If non-belief isn't possible,
belief is meaningless.
I was always told in church that faith took
work. You don't agree? (Anthroposophists are always talking about
doing the work, so I'd have thought so.) Faith wasn't a given
thing, but an activity. You are telling me I am believing in
God just by sitting here in my chair. It comes pretty cheap then.
You can't figure out that not everyone in
the world shares your religious beliefs. And yet you guys want
to tell non-anthroposophists, or people criticizing Rudolf Steiner's
doctrines, that we are "immature." I have never in
my life encountered such ignorance as this list boasts. (And
"boast" is the word, you're all quite proud of yourselves.)
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:13 am
Subject: Nietzsche and anthro-hillbillies (was: Fear of God?)
At 04:36 16.03.2004, Diana wrote:
No. I did not say "under the
influence" of God, I said "in the name of" God
etc. You do not believe there is a difference, by which you show
that you do not respect the beliefs of other people, or their
right to non-belief. You will not even grant me the right to
say what I believe or don't believe. When I say what I believe
you explain patronizingly to me that in fact I believe the opposite.
If you've said what you believe, I've missed
it. I suggested Nietzsche for possible clarity.
If I'm reading you right, there is no such
thing, actually, as not believing in God. It isn't even
possible.
Nietzsche showed that it's possible. "Thus
Spake Zarathustra":
http://www.eserver.org/philosophy/nietzsche-zarathustra.txt
"Once blasphemy against
God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and therewith also
those blasphemers."
"Neither is Zarathustra
indignant at a convalescent who looketh tenderly on his delusions,
and at midnight stealeth round the grave of his God; but sickness
and a sick frame remain even in his tears."
In which case, there is really no such
thing as believing in Him/Her, either. If non-belief isn't possible,
belief is meaningless.
I was always told in church that faith
took work. You don't agree? (Anthroposophists are always talking
about doing the work, so I'd have thought so.)
I haven't seen anything on this list about
"doing the work" except from you. Neither have I heard
anthroposophists talking about "doing the work". Perhaps
I haven't paid enough attention, but they can't possibly be talking
about it always.
What is the meaning of this? Doing your Nietzsche?
Faith wasn't a given thing, but an activity.
You are telling me I am believing in God just by sitting here
in my chair. It comes pretty cheap then.
I don't know what you believe in, sitting
in your chair or not. You talk about this wonderful religious
school your son attends and about your good friends trying hard
to get you into New Age cults, so you don't seem to be choosing
atheists for companionship. If you read Nietzsche, your have
someone to quote next time your friends are trying to shove God
down your throat.
You can't figure out that not everyone
in the world shares your religious beliefs.
Nietzsche didn't.
And yet you guys want to tell non-anthroposophists,
or people criticizing Rudolf Steiner's doctrines, that we are
"immature."
I don't know id you're immature or not, but
you seem confused. I thought perhaps Nietzsche might clear that
up for you just a little.
I have never in my life encountered such
ignorance as this list boasts. (And "boast" is the
word, you're all quite proud of yourselves.)
Most listmates here are proud and uneducated
simpletons then I guess. Are we hillbillies?
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 5:25 am
Subject: Re: Nietzsche and anthro-hillbillies (was: Fear of God?)
A perfect example of how threads drift, earlier
pieces which show the context are snipped - and yet, this is
not because someone is "lying" or deliberately taking
things "out of context" to put the other person in
a bad light. Tarjei and I are having this confusing little discussion
that even the 2 of us can barely remember what the point was
and I doubt the rest of the list could reconstruct if they tried.
If you've said what you believe, I've missed
it.
The point of this was, someone accused Peter
S. of "fear" - fear that a program akin to anthroposophy
would eventually become more widespread or culturally accepted
- smtg like that. I said I personally am afraid of such
a thing. Tarjei believes this is because I am afraid of God.
When I said I was not afraid of God, he replied more emphatically
than ever that I had actually said I was afraid of God
- when I had in fact said the opposite. Attempts to clear this
up become more and more comical as he assures me that no matter
what I think I believe, he can see that I believe what he is
quite certain the whole world believes. (except for Nietzsche)
I suggested Nietzsche for possible clarity.
And I've been politely ignoring the referrals
to Nietzsche, since I didn't find them relevant, and am not seeking
clarity as I am not confused. Now we need Daniel to accuse me
of "not reading the posts."
I said:
If I'm reading you right, there is no such
thing, actually, as not believing in God. It isn't even
possible.
and you refer me back to Nietzsche. I was
following your logic not stating myself that disbelief
in God is not possible. Yes, thank you - let's clear this up,
Tarjei, I get that Nietzsche said God is dead. The point again:
When you insist that even when people say they don't believe
in God, that shows they really do believe in God, you suggest
that there is no logical possibility of not believing
in God. Why don't you comment on what I actually said rather
than on what other writers have said on the subject.
I said that, if there is no such thing as
non-belief, then:
In which case, there is really no such
thing as believing in Him/Her, either. If non-belief isn't possible,
belief is meaningless.
Why don't you comment on that?
I said:
I was always told in church that faith
took work.
And you talk around this, either not getting
what I said or pretending not to. Is faith work? Is faith an
active choice, a path to pursue, or do I "believe in God"
whether I like it or not, as you are claiming I do? If I have
no choice but to believe in God and anything I write stating
that I don't, serves merely to convince you that I do - then
what is belief in God exactly? It is rendered meaningless.
I said:
Faith wasn't a given thing, but an activity.
You are telling me I am believing in God just by sitting here
in my chair. It comes pretty cheap then.
you said:
I don't know what you believe in, sitting
in your chair or not.
So you turn it back to me personally, and
re-state your confusion that a person like me who tells you they
don't believe in God even exists. You reply with non sequiturs
about the school my son attends. The discussion of my son's school
was in an earlier discussion about the PLANS lawsuit and separation
of church and state and why religious schools are acceptable
constitutionally in the US, as long as they are private schools,
and I noted that my son even attends one in order to point out
to you that I don't personally have an objection to the mere
existence of religious schools. I did not bring up my son's school
to suggest to you that, deep down, I am actually a religious
person. I explained, after you questioned it specifically, that
he attends that school for its academics, that neither he nor
my husband and I selected it in order to provide him with a religious
education. You still seem to believe it must mean I am religious
deep down. That is what you are looking to impose on me and so
determined to find it that direct statements to the contrary
leave you totally perplexed and unable to follow the train of
thought.
So at one more attempt to put the train back
on the track, the question about whether I am a believer in God
just by "sitting in my chair" is a question to you
about whether belief or faith in God or any spiritual reality
is something that one tries to do, or something that is
bestowed upon one merely by sitting in a chair. In which case,
as I said, it all seems a bit hollow.
about your good friends trying hard to
get you into New Age cults, so you don't seem to be choosing
atheists for companionship.
To refresh your memory one more time, the
point of that discussion was not to give you ammunition to prove
I am actually a religious person after all, based on what school
my child attends or who my friends are. (Though I admit it is
tempting to give you more and more evidence of this nature that
you will misinterpret. Like distractor options on a multiple
choice test. Which of the following would prove Diana is religious
- and the child in a religious school or the friend doing Feng
Shui are distractor items.)
When I was talking about my friends it was
because you said the US was very secular and there were lots
of atheists. I was saying that no, there aren't really that many
atheists around. As for me personally, no, of course I don't
"choose atheists for companionship." Why would I do
that? I could care less. You have a peculiar notion of atheism,
perhaps you honestly believe atheists meet in little clubs to
enjoy planning a funeral for God.
If you read Nietzsche, your have someone
to quote next time your friends are trying to shove God down
your throat.
The point there was more about the prevalence
of all things spiritual and the ubiquitousness of the New Age.
I never said my friends are trying to shove God down my throat.
(Feng Shui, yes) :)
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:18 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Nietzsche and anthro-hillbillies
Tarjei writes:
Most listmates here are proud and uneducated
simpletons then I guess. Are we hillbillies?
Cheers,
Hey! I resemble that remark :^\
I like to think of myself as a New Hampsha
country Hick though. The "hillbillies" metaphore has
been to tainted by corporate TV.
And yes, I am proud of my uneducated (acidemically
anyway, I've learned much from the school of Life, but we just
can't measure and catagorize that) simpleton stattus.
I'm also a proud Recovered Dope-fiend who
tried real hard to be an athiest but just couldn't quite get
there. Oh Well :^( I guess I'm stuck with all this silly metaphorical
understanding for now.
But hey, who knows, I may mature into a full
blown intellectual/atheist someday :^)
[sung to the theme of the "Oscar Meier
Weiner" jingle]
"Oh I wish I were an intellectual atheist,
that is what I'd truly like to be...
cause if I were an intellectual atheist, then everyone would
pay attention to me..."
Yes, yes, I know....:^( sorry!
"Humor - It is a difficult concept."
[yearning with big teary puppy-dog eyes for
intellectual understanding]
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 10:31 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Nietzsche and anthro-hillbillies
(was: Fear of God?)
At 14:25 16.03.2004, Diana wrote:
The point of this was, someone accused
Peter S. of "fear" - fear that a program akin to anthroposophy
would eventually become more widespread or culturally accepted
- smtg like that. I said I personally am afraid of such
a thing. Tarjei believes this is because I am afraid of God.
Your fear of what God-related beliefs may
lead to reminds me of Martin Luther's concept of God-fear.
When I said I was not afraid of God, he
replied more emphatically than ever that I had actually said
I was afraid of God - when I had in fact said the opposite.
OK, so no deity can intimidate Diana the Warrior
Princess, Daughter of Zeus.
Attempts to clear this up become more and
more comical as he assures me that no matter what I think I believe,
he can see that I believe what he is quite certain the whole
world believes. (except for Nietzsche)
I still don't know what you believe.
I suggested Nietzsche for possible clarity.
And I've been politely ignoring the referrals
to Nietzsche, since I didn't find them relevant, and am not seeking
clarity as I am not confused.
I was only hoping that Nietzsche might be
a source of comfort to your soul.
Now we need Daniel to accuse me of "not
reading the posts."
Why do we need Daniel to do that?
I said:
If I'm reading you right, there is no such
thing, actually, as not believing in God. It isn't even
possible.
and you refer me back to Nietzsche.
I believe Nietzsche can help you better than
I can.
I was following your logic not stating
myself that disbelief in God is not possible. Yes, thank
you - let's clear this up, Tarjei, I get that Nietzsche said
God is dead. The point again: When you insist that even when
people say they don't believe in God, that shows they really
do believe in God,
That's completely new to me. When and where
did I insist upon that?
you suggest that there is no logical possibility
of not believing in God.
When did I suggest that? Quote me please.
Why don't you comment on what I actually
said rather than on what other writers have said on the subject.
Because other writers are more coherent.
I said that, if there is no such thing
as non-belief, then:
In which case, there is really no such
thing as believing in Him/Her, either. If non-belief isn't possible,
belief is meaningless.
Why don't you comment on that?
For the same reason you don't reply to my
question about the alternative to responding "with a straight
face".
I said:
I was always told in church that faith
took work.
And you talk around this, either not getting
what I said or pretending not to.
No need to pretend. Getting what you say is
challenging enough, especially for proud and ignorant anthro-hillbillies
like myself.
Is faith work? Is faith an active choice,
a path to pursue, or do I "believe in God" whether
I like it or not, as you are claiming I do?
If I claimed that you believe in God wiether
you like it or not, please quote me, because my memory (or the
Daughter of Loke) is playing tricks on me.
I said:
Faith wasn't a given thing, but an activity.
You are telling me I am believing in God just by sitting here
in my chair. It comes pretty cheap then.
you said:
I don't know what you believe in, sitting
in your chair or not.
So you turn it back to me personally,
Of course. I still don't know what you believe.
To refresh your memory one more time, the
point of that discussion was not to give you ammunition to prove
I am actually a religious person after all, based on what school
my child attends or who my friends are. (Though I admit it is
tempting to give you more and more evidence of this nature that
you will misinterpret. Like distractor options on a multiple
choice test. Which of the following would prove Diana is religious
- and the child in a religious school or the friend doing Feng
Shui are distractor items.)
Feng Shui? That's Nazism, Diana. Didn't you
know? The Nazis called it state magic, theorizing that all resistance
in an occupied country would seaze once they controlled its psychic
center. That's why they did Nazi rituals in Didarosdomen in Trondheim.
Your friend should be aware that she flirting with Heinrich Himmler's
dreams and trying to lure you into them.
When I was talking about my friends it
was because you said the US was very secular and there were lots
of atheists. I was saying that no, there aren't really that many
atheists around. As for me personally, no, of course I don't
"choose atheists for companionship." Why would I do
that? I could care less.
No, you seem to choose religious zealots for
companionship and declare atheists almost extinct in America.
You have a peculiar notion of atheism,
perhaps you honestly believe atheists meet in little clubs to
enjoy planning a funeral for God.
That would have to be a Nietzschean Society
or something. A cult of sorts I
guess.
If you read Nietzsche, your have someone
to quote next time your friends are trying to shove God down
your throat.
The point there was more about the prevalence
of all things spiritual and the ubiquitousness of the New Age.
I never said my friends are trying to shove God down my throat.
(Feng Shui, yes) :)
They're trying to shove the God of the Nazis
down your throat?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
Message 3430 of 5820 | Previous | Next [ Up
Thread ] Message Index
Msg #
From: Tarjei Straume <elfuncle@chello.no>
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 10:35 am
Subject: Errata: Nietzsche and anthro-hillbillies (was: Fear
of God?)
I wrote:
>That's why they did Nazi rituals in Didarosdomen
in Trondheim.
Please read: Nidarosdomen
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Nietzsche and anthro-hillbillies
(was: Fear of God?)
Now we need Daniel to accuse me of "not
reading the posts."
Why do we need Daniel to do that?
Did I miss a poll that elected me list conscience?
I'll have to decline the honor. I don't have the time to read
every last thing that closely. Thanks for thinking of me, though.
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
