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

Search this site powered by FreeFind