Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity
A long thread combatting
the theological arsenal of John Morehead, an evangelical expert
on the New Age cult of Anthroposophy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 19:56:33
I don't know if we're getting anywhere, Tarjei,
but I'll try my best to respond.
I had said that we need to have a rational
foundation for truth claims, including religious truth claims,
especially when they move from subjective beliefs to publicly
proclaimed truth claims. You
responded:
In that case you are going beyond the realm
of religion based on faith and entering the approach taken by
spiritual science, anthroposophy. If you are not doing this,
you are within the limits of faith-religion, where any talk of
objective proof is inapplicable.
This is a common misunderstanding of the New
Testament's teaching on faith. Faith in a biblical sense is not
an irrational belief in something in spite of contradiction,
or a lack of reasons to believe. Rather, faith is a trust in
the Personal God of the Old and New Testaments, especially as
revealed through Jesus Christ. Orthodox Christianity holds that
one gains a right relationship with God by God's grace through
faith which is provided by God. This is *not* what is going on
in anthroposophy, where the emphasis is on psychic or supersensible
knowledge of occultic "higher worlds" of knowledge.
Although the term "spiritual science" is used, this
is certainly not scientific in the accepted uses of the term.
Orthodox Christianity, by contrast, should be open to the testing
of its truth claims, when and where possible, by applying tests
of history, science, philosophy and the like. How is this possible
with anthroposophical spiritual science? I claim that the marshalling
of evidence is possible with orthodox Christianity, but not so
with anthroposophy.
By the same token, nobody can set up a
boundary between subjective belief and "objective public
realm" unless they they are taking the step from faith to
knowledge, from religion to science.
Is faith in your understanding contradictory
to knowledge? I would hold that they are compatible, and that
religion and true science must be reconcilable as well.
Analysis is a part of the scientific method
and should be distinguished from traditional faith-religion.
Only if you put a wedge between reason and
religious truth claims. If you do this, why take the leap of
faith in the direction of anthroposophy, or orthodox Christianity,
and not Hitler's national socialism for example? There must be
some objective grounds for holding religious truth claims.
These contradictions, lack of substantiation,
and falseness is all in your subjective lack of understanding,
or of misunderstanding, which you may share with your peers.
I know this is your understanding, and your
affirmation, but with no examples, it is just a mere affirmation
and nothing more. Can you demonstrate how I, and my "peers",
whoever that may be, do have this misunderstanding?
The lady in question had integrated Catholicism
with anthroposophy. I saw the harmony in it, which made it valid.
So if you subjectively believe something,
that makes it valid? What about the racist who says he believes
in racial purity, but that he is not a racist. Since he sees
the harmony in that is it valid? Or perhaps he has an internal
contradiction which he hasn't noticed, thereby making his conclusions
invalid, despite his sincerity in holding his views. Roman Catholicism
and anthroposophy are not teaching the same thing. They are contradictory.
This can be easily demonstrated.
You dont see this harmony, but you cannot
borrow criteria from the rules of intellectual proof as used
in the laboratory and apply these to the religious philosophy
of a senior citizen. That is an arrogant lack of respect and
a total misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of religious
concepts, which are ultra-rational by their very nature.
You're losing me here. I'm simply trying to
apply the rules of rational thought that we all use each day,
often without realizing it. How is that an arrogant lack of respect
or a misunderstanding. I've tried very hard to understand Steiner,
anthroposopy and anthroposophists. That doesn't mean I have to
agree with them, or that anthroposophy is true, or that it should
be in public schools via Waldorf education. I realize that to
critique another's spiritual views, and to consider claims of
truth and falsity with regards to religion is not politically correct, but it simply must be done.
All roads to not lead to God. Consider the following short poem
by a colleage, Christian philosopher Frank Beckwith:
"All roads lead to God,
So many people say,
But when the get to Jonestown,
They beg to look away."
Evidence or intellectual proof has nothing
to do with subjective religious beliefs.
If this is your view then you are left with
a radical subjectivism in religious belief, with no way to share
with another the reasons why they should share in your religious
worldview. By contrast, the early Christians were encouraged
to "be ready always to give an answer for the reason for
the hope within you, but do this with gentleness and reverence"
(1 Peter 3:15). The word translated "reason" is "apologia"
in the Greek. It means a vigorous, rational defense of the faith.
Again, New Testament Christianity is at variance with Anthroposophy
and the a-rational, eastern-oriented spirituality of much of
the West.
Your evidence probably convinces yourself
and your peers, but the hyper-intellectuality you thus apply
to religion is actually killing the religion in the process.
Again, if you denigrate reason as applied
to religion, you are stuck in a swamp of subjectivism. A true,
biblical form of Christianity incorporates an emphasis upon the
development of the intellectual life as a vital part of the spiritual
life.
It surprises me that you call yourself
an evangelist, or an evangelical, when your line of reasoning
is actually virulently anti-religious.
It appears you are not familiar with evangelical
Christianity. Evangelicalism, and orthodox Christianity are historically
quite at home with intellectual endeavors. Case in point: the
brilliant Christian philosophical minds of Thomas Aquinas and
Augustine.
Orthodox Christianity runs into a very
big problem here in regard to two Gospel events. One is the Immaculate
Conception of Mary (fertilization without a male physical sperm);
I think you're referring her to the Virgin
Birth or Virgin Conception. The Immaculate Conception is a Roman
Catholic doctrine which holds that if Jesus was conceived without
original sin, then Mary must have been as well. The Virgin Birth
is the Lukan and Matthian Gospel accounts referring to the supernatural
conception of the child Jesus within the womb of Mary without
the usual sexual reproductive processes. For a defense of the
historicity of these narratives, see J.G. Machen, _The Virgin
Birth_, in a cogent and scholarly work written in the 1930s,
if memory serves me correctly. This treatise has never been adequately
addressed by Christian liberalism.
the other is the flesh-physical Resurrestion
and Ascension of christ. You may play around with as many intellectual
proofs as you want, but your creed is in blatant contradiction
with natural science; it is a scientific impossibility.
Contradiction with natural science? If the
God of Christian theism exists, then by definition He is omnipotent,
the Creator of the cosmos, and the Author of natural law. Thus,
as the Author, He can temporarily interrupt His creation to bring
about His sovereign purposes. These are called miracles. Only
if we assume that naturalism is true, and no supernatural exists,
are miracles false and at variance with natural science. There
have been some good expositions of the evidence for the existence
of God, and for the possibility of miracles, by Christian philosophers,
such as William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler and J.P. Moreland.
This is not problem for orthodox Christianity. Perhaps for anthroposophy...
I am not mentioning this to suggest that
your creed is wrong, but to illustrate that you cannot apply
scientific concepts to it, like "providing evidence."
Evidence is not limited to natural science.
One can also provide philosophical, legal, historical evidences
and the like. You seem to think that Steiner's esoteric Christianity
is compatible with orthodox Christianity. I'm asking you to provide
evidence, of whatever kind, for your assertions. Your assertions
by themselves tell us what you believe, but not why you believe
it, or why anyone else should believe it.
Your description of Steiner's Christology
is foggy and wishy-washy. He used the Bible to substantiate his
claims to a much greater extent than Gnosticism or hermiticism.
Yes. The Bible, read esoterically, in violation
of hermeneutical, historical or grammatical considerations. Further,
his interpretation of the Bible was influenced by Gnosticism,
hermeticism, Rosicrucianism, Spinoza's pantheism, Goethe, etc.
This esoteric grid was used to filter the New Testament texts
resulting in an esoteric Christianity contrary to the New Testament
author's world view and intended textual meanings. You've provided
not evidence to the contrary to counter my claims here.
Having read the entire Bible myself, and
having studied Christianity, church history, and anthroposophy
for more than thirty years, I may say with authority and conviction
Glad to see that you've studied these things
for a while, but as I tried to state earlier, this doesn't guarantee
accurate research or valid conclusions.
Steiner's esoteric Christianity have many
traits in common indeed, and that any individual may mold his
own cosmology and Christology from any combination of sources
of his choosing. And people are doing this all over Europe. And
it is extremely arrogant to say that you cannot do so, because
when you say that, you refuse to accept any line of reasoning
The differences outweigh any similiarity,
making them contradictory. It is not arrogant to point out contradiction.
It is closed mindedness not to recognize, or to consider, such
a possibility.
You are either ignorant of, or deliberately
overlooking, the fact that anthroposophical Christology also
affirms the unique nature of Christ, that He was the unique incarnation
of God in human flesh, who died a substitionary death for human
sin. This is one of the key concepts that anthroposophy holds
in common with traditional Christianity.
As Dan Dugan's post made clear, Steiner's
redefintion of the atonement is not the orthodox New Testament
understanding of a once-for-all sacrifice for human sin in fulfillment
of Old Testament prophecy and sacrificial types. Again, Steiner
opts for Christ as "unique" among other religious leaders,
marking his differences with theosophy, but still classifying
it as esoteric rather than orthodox.
You are also obviously unaware that there
are Buddhist monks who are members of the Anthroposophical Society.
The blending of Christianity and Buddhism is happening all over
the world along with the increase of believers in reincarnation,
also among traditional Christians.
The fact that it is done does not mean it
is not contradictory. You see such a synthesis more among naive
Westerners rather than Eastern Buddhist adherents. Even the Dalai
Lama, in his recent book of reflections on Christ's teachings,
acknowleges that Buddhism and Christianity are not compatible
and are separate religions. If the leader of a major sect of
Buddhism acknowledges this, it should give reason for pause by
errant Western "Christian-Buddhist" synretists.
Your main objection to the harmony of christianity
and Buddhism, which you base upon "the law of non-contradiction"
is an incomprehensible abstraction which is conveniently ignored
by the rising mumber of Buddhist Christians like myself.
You are self-refuting here. You must use the
law of non-contradiction to deny it. It is not an abstraction
but a basic rule of thought which you use every day. You must
use it to deny the assertions I've made in previous posts!
Your description of how Steiner developed
anthroposophy is false, but I'll skip my comments and corrections
for now.
See the scholarly reference works which mention
anthroposophy, such as the Encyclopedia of American Religions.
My understanding the influences on anthroposophy are accurate
and references can be provided.
What author? Moses? Luke? John? Since Steiner
obviously knew and understood those seers of old a lot better
than you or any spiritually blind grammarians and book-worms,
the "interpretation" was at variance not with the author,
but with the orthodox scribes and pharisees of modern times -
those who are blind to the living spirit and are choking in the
dust of libraries and headspins.
How do you know Steiner understood them when
he used a purely subjective, mystical method of interpretation?
When he quotes a biblical author, any of them, and arrives at
an esoteric understanding, he is scripture twisting and arriving
at a meaning contrary to the author. If you used an esoteric
interpretation of the Reader's Digest, TV Guide, TIME, or your
tax forms, you'd be in trouble quickly. Why do it with the biblical
texts?
In case of old documents, that cannot be
done without spiritual research independent of external documents.
After the spiritual investigation has been done, comparisons
can be made with the original documents to see if they are accurate.
So you have to access alleged occultic worlds
to ascertain the meaning of a New Testament text? Nonsense. One
can look at the original languages, the history, culture, grammar,
syntax, context of the text. This is responsible hermeneutics.
And who says that Judeo-Christian theism
is superior to Western esotericism if they are indeed in conflict?
And what about the Quabalah?
I maintain that Western esotericism, properly
classified within the New Age movement, is philosophically inferior
to Christian theism. In fact, I believe it cannot be demonstrated
philosophically that it is not true.
This may be the contemporary postmodern
understanding of history, but it can be demonstrated that the
process of defining the creeds arose in church history as a result
of a concern for theologically revealed truth in response to
heretical error, not as a power play of oppression.
[small snip] And from the perspective of
today, we can easily find that many insights proposed by the
Gnostics and other heretics are more compatible with the understanding
of our scientific age than are the orthodox dogma.
How is modern gnosticism more in touch with
modern science? Again, nice assertion, no evidence. Let me provide
a counter-example. Gnostic influence in alternative medicine.
Prime example: Deepak Chopra. The cure for aging, disease and
death? Simply change your consciousness, thereby bringing yourself
into harmony with the infinite Creative Intelligence, and viola.
No more sickness, because it was an illusion created by thinking.
I submit that Dr. Chopra will still age, and die, regardless
of his meditation, because reality is not as he perceives it.
He has a false worldview and ideas have consequences. Those who
follow Gnostic/New Age influences in alternative medicine are
taking their very lives into their hands. Why not apply reason
to this area? Why deny the advances of modern medicine in favor
of a superstitious and magical worldview? If you do your homework,
you'll see that historically, Christianity as life and world-affirming
helped provide the philosophical soil for the advent of the modern
scientific method, not gnosticism.
There is nothing wrong with defending truth
against error, but the church has been most busy doing the exact
opposite: Defending error against truth.
Nice assertion. Care to provide some examples
and evidence for that assertion?
I think you would agree with me since you
are defending your view of truth against my own. And I assure
you, even though we disagree, I won't burn you at the stake,
and neither will the rest of orthodox Christendom. :)
That's because they no longer have that
legal option.
I'll have to ask you to try to leave the chip
on your shoulder on the side when we chat. You insinuate that
I'd burn you at the stake if it wasn't for the legal prohibitions.
I wouldn't because that isn't sound Christian ethical teaching.
It is immoral. To question my moral integrity is not the best
way to build bridges of communication and understanding.
...and belief is subjective - *merely*
subjective.
Not veridical? With corresponding objective
object of that faith? Then how does this differ from self-deception,
illusion or wish fulfillment? Why be an anthroposophist and not
create a subjective religion of one's one design?
You're referring to the faith-religion
that the evangelists, and the apostle Paul, taught the uneducated
masses. But if this should have remained the essence of Christianity
forever, there would have been no critical, self-dependent thinking,
and subsequently no human freedom. There would only be blind
obedience to the decrees from a metaphysical dictator.
Huh? I was describing the essence of historic
orthodoxy. You have reinterpreted it according to postmodern
sensibilities with notions of an oppressive orthodoxy. And how
can you have a "critical, self-dependent thinking"
within esoteric Christianity since you deny the law of non-contradiction
and rational thought as applied to religious truth claims?
The latter is a totally superficial and
uneducated rendition of the anthroposophical approach to the
Mystery of Golgotha. There is talk of a physical body (resurrection
body) that should not be confused with the flesh and blood, the
shell around the physical "phantom." this is an extremely
difficult thing to understand, requiring a lot of study and deep
meditation. And it cannot be brushed aside and dismissed as a
wishy-washy, metaphysical etheric, "subjective" nonsense
kind of thing.
Where in historic Christian anthropology do
the biblical texts refer to a "phantom" let alone an
etheric or astral body? Biblical anthropology teaches that human
nature is comprised of a physical and immaterial nature, but
this is not anthroposophical. The physical body is essential
to Judeo-Christian anthropology.
Rudolf Steiner says precisely the same
thing. Did you know that?
Could you provide the references? I'd like
to see them. It would be nice if he interpreted one major Christian
doctrine correctly.
You obviously have no knowledge or understanding
of anthroposophical Christology. You don't know what it has in
common with other varieties of the Christ-idea.
This is your assumption, with no evidence.
It would be nice if you could throw in a few reasons for your
assertions, Tarjei. Christ is not a "Christ-idea,"
but the Greek term from the Hebrew Messiah, referring to a prophesied
historical individual realized in Jesus of Nazareth. Your very
assertion above demonsrates your acceptance of an esoteric worldview
imposed upon Judeo-Christian theism.
You know that Christ said, "Let the
little chiuldren come to me, and don't hinder them, for theirs
is the Kingdom of God" (my paraphraze). But isn't that what
you're doing, chasing Christ out of the schools and away from
the children?
I support private Christian education, and
the legal discussion of religion in public schools. I do not
support the furtherance of a religious group at the expense of
another or of no religion in violation of the Constitution.
John
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 07:34:20 -0400
Tarjei and John are having a discussion:
It surprises me that you call yourself
an evangelist, or an evangelical, when your line of reasoning
is actually virulently anti-religious.
It appears you are not familiar with evangelical
Christianity. Evangelicalism, and orthodox Christianity are historically
quite at home with intellectual endeavors. Case in point: the
brilliant Christian philosophical minds of Thomas Aquinas and
Augustine.
A title of interest which goes right to the
heart of this matter: "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind",
by Mark A. Noll, William Erdmans Publishing Company, 1994.
Noll is a self-described evangelist, a professor
of Christian Thought at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois.
From his preface: "This book is an epistle from a wounded lover.
As one who is in love with the life of the mind but who has also
been drawn to faith in Christ through the love of evangelical
Protestants, I find myself in a situation where wounding is commonplace.
Although the thought has occurred to me regularly over the past
two decades that, at least in the United States, it is simply
impossible to be, with integrity, both evangelical and intellectual,
this epistle is not a letter of resignation from the evangelical
movement. It intends rather to be a cri du coeur on behalf of
the intellectual life by one who, for very personal reasons,
still embraces the Christian faith in an evangelical form."
Here's what Noll has to say about Thomas Aquinas
(page 45):
"The work of Aquinas
and like-minded friars left an extremely important legacy. He
provided a model for reconciling the knowledge we gain through
the senses with the truths we discover in Scripture. He proposed
a theoretical explanation for some of the mysteries of the faith
like the Lord's Supper. And he offered a model for apologetics
that respected both the intellect of non-Christians and the missionary
mandate for believers. In an age where the thought forms of Aristotle
had come to dominate learned discourse, Aquinas taught Aristotle
to 'speak like a Christian' and so preserved the conceptual power
of Christian faith.
Thomas Aquinas did not
provide the last word on any of these matters. Luther and Calvin,
for example, felt that he had overemphasized what we learn about
God from nature at the expense of what we learn from Scripture.
Yet what Thomas did provide was a formulation of the faith that
has encouraged generations of believers to labor with their minds
for the glory of God. In so doing, he left an intellectual perspective
that has helped sustain the wider Christian church to this very
day."
Here are some of Noll's thoughts on Augustine
(pages 202-203):
"One of the earliest
full statements of the problem involved in carrying self-evident,
literal, normal, simple or common-sensical interpretations of
the Bible into the arena of science is also one of the earliest.
It was written by Augustine in the fifth century toward the end
of his life, and after several decades of nearly constant toil
at interpreting the Scripture. When Augustine wrote the work
entitled "The Literal Meaning of Genesis", it represented
a substantial revision of his earlier attempts to understand
the first book of the Bible. Now, sobered by his own earlier
speculations and by repeated contact with learned individuals
of his own age, Augustine, while defending the need to interpret
Genesis 'literally' (as he defined the term), nonetheless had
no patience with those who used the early chapters of Genesis
to promote views about the natural world that contradicted the
best science of his day:
'Usually, even a non-Christian
knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements
of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even
their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses
of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons,
about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and
this knowledge he holds as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a dangerous and disgraceful thing for an infidel to
hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture,
talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means
to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show
up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame
is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that
people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers
held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose
salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized
and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken
in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining
his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe
those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead,
the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they
think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they
themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold
trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught
in one of their mischevious false opinions and are taken to task
by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue
statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof
and even recite from memory many passages which they think support
their position, although *they understand neither what they say
nor the things about which they make assertion* [quoting 1 Tim. 1:7].'
Augustine's claim is nothing less than that
a Christian who attempts to interpret passages of the Bible with
cosmological implications will *misinterpret* the Bible if that
believer does not take account of what can be learned 'from reason
and experience'. To limit oneself only to the Scriptures in such
instances, says Augustine, is to misread the Bible."
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 18:04:56 +0200
John W. Morehead wrote:
Faith in a biblical sense is not an irrational
belief in something in spite of contradiction, or a lack of reasons
to believe. Rather, faith is a trust in the Personal God of the
Old and New Testaments, especially as revealed through Jesus
Christ.
If one tries to adopt the concept of faith
in the Biblical sense and then sets it up as a standard to be
emulated today, it is easy to fall victim to a common misconception
arising from ignorance of evolution. What has to be kept in mind
is that the epistemological foundation of anthroppsophy, as spelled
out in "A Theory of Knowledge Impicit in Goethe's World
Conception" (1886), "Truth and Knowledge (1892), and
"Philosophy of Freedom" (1994), uses Darwinism, not
theology, as a major point of departure. (Hence the title of
Chapeter 12 in POF, "Moral Imagination - Darwinism and Morality.")
All subsequent dissemination of anthroposophy must be seen in
this light.
Because evolution involves not only the metamorphoses
of plants, animals, and humans biologically, but also psychically
and spiritually, there is a vital difference between how "faith"
was understood in Biblical times and how it is understood today.
The same applies to the relation between faith and knowledge,
and between physics and metaphysics. On the one hand, the apostle
Paul wrote that "Faith is evidence of things not yet seen...",
and on the other hand, the Indian proverb says that "Faith
in knowledge from within," the modern understadning of faith
has become something like "Faith is trust in something that
cannot be proven or demonstrated, and that may even contradict
scientific evidence and common sense." And this is why dogmatically
correct traditional religion (orthodox theology adhering to the
law of non-contradiction if you like) is rapidly losing support
these days.
Orthodox Christianity holds that one gains
a right relationship with God by God's grace through faith which
is provided by God. This is *not* what is going on in anthroposophy,
where the emphasis is on psychic or supersensible knowledge of
occultic "higher worlds" of knowledge.
The reason for this is very simple: Anthroposophy
was developed for those who cannot accept orthodox Christianity
as a foundation for religious truth because it is irrational,
illogical, and at odds with Darwinism and other branches of natural
science.
Although the term "spiritual science"
is used, this is certainly not scientific in the accepted uses
of the term.
That is well-known, and it has been discussed
quite extensively on this list, on the Anthropos-Science list
and elsewhere. The reason for this is that the epistemology laid
out in the books mentioned above provide for a redemption of
science, broadening its definition. The "accepted use"
you refer to is identical with the restrictions imposed by the
Scientific Community, which never has been, and never will be,
an authority for the culturally heretical anthroposophical community.
Orthodox Christianity, by contrast, should
be open to the testing of its truth claims, when and where possible,
by applying tests of history, science, philosophy and the like.
If orthodox Christianity were a scientific
theory, you would have a point. It isn't.
How is this possible with anthroposophical
spiritual science? I claim that the marshalling of evidence is
possible with orthodox Christianity, but not so with anthroposophy.
Anthroposophy is an integration, or rather
a re-integration, of science, religion, art, and philosophy.
The tests you mention may be applicable to the natural-scientific
branch of Anthroposophy. Orthodox Christianity has no such branch.
All it has is theology, old faith, and old books.
By the same token, nobody can set up a
boundary between subjective belief and "objective public
realm" unless they they are taking the step from faith to
knowledge, from religion to science.
Is faith in your understanding contradictory
to knowledge?
As a personal question: No. As a general question:
Not ipso facto.
I would hold that they are compatible,
and that religion and true science must be reconcilable as well.
That is also the premise for most anthroposophists.
But the attempt made by orthodox Christians to go scientific
has resulted in absurdities like "creation science."
Again, ignorance of Darwinism and evolution is a key issue here.
Analysis is a part of the scientific method
and should be distinguished from traditional faith-religion.
Only if you put a wedge between reason
and religious truth claims.
That wedge was put by the German philosopher
Immanuel Kant. His argument was that the objects of religious
faith belonged to a category that would remain forever hidden
to cognition based upon knowledge. Rudolf Steiner disagreed and
argued that the dualism of Kant should be replaced by a monism
based upon empirical experience.
If you do this, why take the leap of faith
in the direction of anthroposophy, or orthodox Christianity,
and not Hitler's national socialism for example?
Dietrich Eckart did the latter. He is also
the father of WE criticism and the primeval enemy of anthroposophy.
There must be some objective grounds for
holding religious truth claims.
They are offered by anthroposophy.
These contradictions, lack of substantiation,
and falseness is all in your subjective lack of understanding,
or of misunderstanding, which you may share with your peers.
I know this is your understanding, and
your affirmation, but with no examples, it is just a mere affirmation
and nothing more. Can you demonstrate how I, and my "peers",
whoever that may be, do have this misunderstanding?
I was referring to the marked tendency in
all literature that I have seen from the camp of Protestant Christian
theology when they attack New Age, heresies, etc. When it comes
to Rudolf Steiner, they frequently manage to de-Christianize
Anthroposophy through distortions. If I had kept those books
and carried them across the Atlantic, I should have given you
quotes. But my father was dying when I jumped on the plane from
Houston to Oslo, leaving behind my old car, my kitchen utensils,
some anthroposophical books, and *all* my fiction and orthodox
Christian books, including the Concordance. What I did not leave
behind was the books and lectures by Steiner.
The lady in question had integrated Catholicism
with anthroposophy. I saw the harmony in it, which made it valid.
So if you subjectively believe something,
that makes it valid?
It was valid for her, and I could see how.
I am not a Catholic, so I cannot judge this any further than
that.
What about the racist who says he believes
in racial purity, but that he is not a racist.
He reminds me of the orthodox Christian who
says he believes in religious tolerance while at the same time
attacking other religions and philosophies.
Since he sees the harmony in that is it
valid?
You are attempting to compare the old lady
in Houston who was a Catholic and an Anthroposophist with a racist
who believes in racial purity? Naughty. (She was a Republican
and a political conservative, and I didn't get to know her well
enough to find out exactly how she stood on racial questions,
but she was a dear friend. She was the last friend I went to
see in America before I left.)
Your insinuation deserves no further comment
except another note about Dietrich Eckart. What initiated his
attacks against Steiner and anthroposophy was a certain blunder
made by some anthroposophists, who approached him about the Threefold
Social Order. Eckart was a man with political clout with an active
interest in esoteric Christianity and mysticism. He used all
this knowledge in his attempt to discredit and destroy anthroposophy.
And Adolf Hitler was one of his friends.
Or perhaps he has an internal contradiction
which he hasn't noticed, thereby making his conclusions invalid,
despite his sincerity in holding his views. Roman Catholicism
and anthroposophy are not teaching the same thing. They are contradictory.
This can be easily demonstrated.
I suggest that you demonstrate this to anthroposophists
who are also Catholics. If no such person belongs to this list
of subscribers, I believe it would be off-topic. But there were
Catholic priests who approached Steiner after listening to his
lectures and asked him why he didn't join the church and spoke
on its behalf. And the theosophists accused him of being a Catholic
agent and a Jersuit. And there is Valentine Tomberg, who joined
the Catholic chirch with Steiner's books under his arm, writing
his "Catholic Anthroposophy." And in the Vatican library,
the works of Steiner are available to the Cardinals. The current
pope discovered Steiner's Mystery dramas when working with theater
in Poland.
You're losing me here. I'm simply trying
to apply the rules of rational thought that we all use each day,
often without realizing it.
This is precisely what anthroposophy is doing.
How is that an arrogant lack of respect
or a misunderstanding.
The Houston-lady explained to me that she
had to hide her Steiner-books even from her own daughter, who
treatened with the index and excommunication and the like. When
she saw my reaction to this, she asked me if I disagreed with
the way she was handling it. If I had been her, I would have
left the church. But I recognized that this lady had a life-long
attachment to the Catholic rituals, and that she had discovered
anthroposophy in her later years. So I told her that I could
not advise her what to do, and that I respected the way she chose
to handle it. You, on the other hand, are saying that she has
no right to such a spiritual life (Catholic-Anthroposophy) because
it contradicts *your* logic. That is arrogant lack of respect
in my book.
<Poem about Jonestown snipped>
Evidence or intellectual proof has nothing
to do with subjective religious beliefs.
If this is your view then you are left
with a radical subjectivism in religious belief, with no way
to share with another the reasons why they should share in your
religious worldview.
Every individual must seek out his or her
own reasons for adopting any religious world view of his or her
own choosing. When it comes to spiritual matters and religion,
absolute freedom must reign. Any attempt on my behalf to persuade
another person to share my convictions in this area would be
a violation of personal freedom. This dialogue is no such attempt;
it is merely a defense against attacks - attacks where misrepresentations
are involved.
By contrast, the early Christians were
encouraged to "be ready always to give an answer for the
reason for the hope within you, but do this with gentleness and
reverence" (1 Peter 3:15). The word translated "reason"
is "apologia" in the Greek. It means a vigorous, rational
defense of the faith. Again, New Testament Christianity is at
variance with Anthroposophy and the a-rational, eastern-oriented
spirituality of much of the West.
On the contrary: In the intellectual realm,
anthroposophy is closer to New Testament Christianity than any
other variety of Christianity. A point in question is that Protestant
orthodox Christianity in America is bogged down in Old Testament
ethics that are in the sharpest variance with the Sermon on the
Mount in the New Testament. What I'm getting at is the cult of
the Religious Right, where every expression of compassion, forgiveness,
tolerance, etc. is scorned as "bleeding heart liberalism."
In addition to this, the Christian bookstore chains in America
are packed with arguments for competitive capitalism as being
the best vehicle for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A sharp contrast
indeed to the communism practiced by the early church.
Your evidence probably convinces yourself
and your peers, but the hyper-intellectuality you thus apply
to religion is actually killing the religion in the process.
Again, if you denigrate reason as applied
to religion, you are stuck in a swamp of subjectivism. A true,
biblical form of Christianity incorporates an emphasis upon the
development of the intellectual life as a vital part of the spiritual
life.
And that is where it falls flat on its face
- like in "creation science."
It appears you are not familiar with evangelical
Christianity. Evangelicalism, and orthodox Christianity are historically
quite at home with intellectual endeavors. Case in point: the
brilliant Christian philosophical minds of Thomas Aquinas and
Augustine.
Which reminds me of the fact that Rudolf Steiner
hailed "Thomism" as he called it, and incorporated
it in Anthroposophy.
The Virgin Birth is the Lukan and Matthian
Gospel accounts referring to the supernatural conception of the
child Jesus within the womb of Mary without the usual sexual
reproductive processes. For a defense of the historicity of these
narratives, see J.G. Machen, _The Virgin Birth_, in a cogent
and scholarly work written in the 1930s, if memory serves me
correctly. This treatise has never been adequately addressed
by Christian liberalism.
The fact remains that the conception of Jesus
Christ as explained by orthodox Christianity contradicts biological
and medical science.
Contradiction with natural science? If
the God of Christian theism exists, then by definition He is
omnipotent, the Creator of the cosmos, and the Author of natural
law. Thus, as the Author, He can temporarily interrupt His creation
to bring about His sovereign purposes.
The idea of a lonely, "omnipotent"
super-dictator who contradicts the natural laws of his own making
falls as flat on its face as "creation science" does.
I rest my case.
These are called miracles. Only if we assume
that naturalism is true, and no supernatural exists, are miracles
false and at variance with natural science.
When the explanations of "miracles"
defy natural scientific laws, they are false.
There have been some good expositions of
the evidence for the existence of God, and for the possibility
of miracles, by Christian philosophers, such as William Lane
Craig, Norman Geisler and J.P. Moreland. This is not problem
for orthodox Christianity. Perhaps for anthroposophy...
It sounds more like a suitable topic for yourself
and the hardcore skeptics on this list. You would have a ball
with it.
Evidence is not limited to natural science.
One can also provide philosophical, legal, historical evidences
and the like.
Even within philosophy, all talk of evidence
must at least include some science and mathematics. Still, philosophy
always includes personal conclusions where equally erudite thinkers
may be at variance.
You seem to think that Steiner's esoteric
Christianity is compatible with orthodox Christianity.
I have not said that. I have said that Steiner's
esoteric Christianity has many traits in common with orthodox
Christianity. To the extent that any individual combines and
incorporates these elements, it may be more or less compatible
to that individual. The Houston-lady is a perfect example.
I'm asking you to provide evidence, of
whatever kind, for your assertions. Your assertions by themselves
tell us what you believe, but not why you believe it, or why
anyone else should believe it.
The request for evidence would be valid only
if I made specific *scientific* claims or assertions. Besides,
I have no reason to suggest that anyone else should believe anything
whatsoever. I have never been a proselytizer.
Your description of Steiner's Christology
is foggy and wishy-washy. He used the Bible to substantiate his
claims to a much greater extent than Gnosticism or hermiticism.
Yes. The Bible, read esoterically, in violation
of hermeneutical, historical or grammatical considerations. Further,
his interpretation of the Bible was influenced by Gnosticism,
hermeticism, Rosicrucianism, Spinoza's pantheism, Goethe, etc.
This esoteric grid was used to filter the New Testament texts
resulting in an esoteric Christianity contrary to the New Testament
author's world view and intended textual meanings. You've provided
not evidence to the contrary to counter my claims here.
The Bible consists of 66 books or so, and
almost as many authors. In the New Testament, we have Mark, Matthews,
Luke, John, Paul, and some more. But you seem to suggest that
the New Testament was written by *one* author. Who? Some lonely
omnipotent dictator using the miracle of automatic writing? Or
some editor-in-chief in the Roman Church?
You suggest that you know the "world
view" of this mysterious author. How? This absurdity again
falls flat on its face and needs no evidence to push it.
The differences outweigh any similiarity,
making them contradictory. It is not arrogant to point out contradiction.
It is closed mindedness not to recognize, or to consider, such
a possibility.
The arrogance is that because the contradictions
that represent themselves to you exclude your understanding of
those who integrate them harmoniously, you are actually saying
that they have no right to call themselves Christians
As Dan Dugan's post made clear, Steiner's
redefintion of the atonement is not the orthodox New Testament
understanding of a once-for-all sacrifice for human sin in fulfillment
of Old Testament prophecy and sacrificial types.
Dan's post did not make this clear. It was
a request for clarification, which was in part provided by my
answer.
Again, Steiner opts for Christ as "unique"
among other religious leaders, marking his differences with theosophy,
but still classifying it as esoteric rather than orthodox.
So? Perhaps you need your orthodoxy. I don't.
You are also obviously unaware that there
are Buddhist monks who are members of the Anthroposophical Society.
The blending of Christianity and Buddhism is happening all over
the world along with the increase of believers in reincarnation,
also among traditional Christians.
The fact that it is done does not mean
it is not contradictory. You see such a synthesis more among
naive Westerners rather than Eastern Buddhist adherents. Even
the Dalai Lama, in his recent book of reflections on Christ's
teachings, acknowleges that Buddhism and Christianity are not
compatible and are separate religions. If the leader of a major
sect of Buddhism acknowledges this, it should give reason for
pause by errant Western "Christian-Buddhist" synretists.
The Dalain Lama has no more authority over
an anthroposophist than does the Pope in Rome or some Jerry Falwell
in America.
Your main objection to the harmony of christianity
and Buddhism, which you base upon "the law of non-contradiction"
is an incomprehensible abstraction which is conveniently ignored
by the rising mumber of Buddhist Christians like myself.
You are self-refuting here. You must use
the law of non-contradiction to deny it. It is not an abstraction
but a basic rule of thought which you use every day. You must
use it to deny the assertions I've made in previous posts!
The problem is that when it comes to spiritual
matters, there are many paradoxes. In the Bible, these paradoxes
are also known as contradictions. For this reason, the Bible
may easily be torn to shreds by "the law of non-contradiction".
The ability to see through a paradox and discern the truth within
it prevents you from falling into the trap of dismissing it because
of its apparent contradiction.
Your description of how Steiner developed
anthroposophy is false, but I'll skip my comments and corrections
for now.
See the scholarly reference works which
mention anthroposophy, such as the Encyclopedia of American Religions.
My understanding the influences on anthroposophy are accurate
and references can be provided.
The falsehoods are based upon misuderstanding.
This is why in Norwegian encyclopaedia and reference works, anthroposophy
and related terms have always been defined by anthroposophists.
How do you know Steiner understood them
when he used a purely subjective, mystical method of interpretation?
On the contrary, he used objective spiritual-scientific
research.
When he quotes a biblical author, any of
them, and arrives at an esoteric understanding, he is scripture
twisting and arriving at a meaning contrary to the author.
Your identification of the author is diffuse
enough as it is, because you are obviously not referring to the
writer of the Biblical book in question, but to some nebulous
omnipotent dictator or some equally obscure editor-in-chief.
If you used an esoteric interpretation
of the Reader's Digest, TV Guide, TIME, or your tax forms, you'd
be in trouble quickly. Why do it with the biblical texts?
Because the Biblical texts are antique, occult
documents. The TV guide isn't.
So you have to access alleged occultic
worlds to ascertain the meaning of a New Testament text? Nonsense.
One can look at the original languages, the history, culture,
grammar, syntax, context of the text. This is responsible hermeneutics.
Still, ignoring evolution, which has affected
our comprehension of language considerably, especially during
the last centuries.
And who says that Judeo-Christian theism
is superior to Western esotericism if they are indeed in conflict?
And what about the Quabalah?
I maintain that Western esotericism, properly
classified within the New Age movement, is philosophically inferior
to Christian theism.
I call that religious-philosophical fascism.
In fact, I believe it cannot be demonstrated
philosophically that it is not true.
And you are perfectly entitled to believe
what you want.
How is modern gnosticism more in touch
with modern science?
I did not write that. I wrote: "And from
the perspective of today, we can easily find that many insights
proposed by the Gnostics and other heretics are more compatible
with the understanding of our scientific age than are the orthodox
dogma." What is meant by "the understanding of our
scientific age" is the kind of reaoning and cognition that
has evolved since the dawn of modern science in the 15th century,
and as a result of it since the Enlightenment of the 19th century,
not modern science per se.
Again, nice assertion, no evidence.
Ditto.
Let me provide a counter-example. Gnostic
influence in alternative medicine. Prime example: Deepak Chopra.
The cure for aging, disease and death? Simply change your consciousness,
thereby bringing yourself into harmony with the infinite Creative
Intelligence, and viola. No more sickness, because it was an
illusion created by thinking. I submit that Dr. Chopra will still
age, and die, regardless of his meditation, because reality is
not as he perceives it.
The most deluded quackery of this kind comes
from evangelical circles and their faith healing. this is based
upn the simple command given by Christ to a sick person, "Take
your bed and walk." The way this is being practiced today,
with magical circus trickery, mass-suggestion and the like, is
a prime gift for the Skeptics Society. Anthroposophical doctors
have never engaged in this kind of nonsense, but orthodox Christians
are notorious for it.
He has a false worldview and ideas have
consequences.
A false world view he obviously shares with
evangelical Christians.
Those who follow Gnostic/New Age influences
in alternative medicine are taking their very lives into their
hands.
I was referring to religious cosmology, not
medicical practice, when I said that Gnostic thought was understood
in our scientific age.. Because evangelical Christian movements
best fit the bill of the trap you describe, you are shooting
at your own cause.
Why not apply reason to this area? Why
deny the advances of modern medicine in favor of a superstitious
and magical worldview?
Anthroposohical doctors are educated in regular
medicine just like any other doctors. They don't practice Gnosticism.
This is outside my scope of expretise, but you seem to be completely
off target here.
If you do your homework, you'll see that
historically, Christianity as life and world-affirming helped
provide the philosophical soil for the advent of the modern scientific
method, not gnosticism.
The orthodox church has done everything to
prevent the advance of modern science. Gnosticism is not useful
for science, and I have never claimed that it is. Religion and
cosmology is a different matterr.
Nice assertion. Care to provide some examples
and evidence for that assertion?
Suppression of modern science, like heliocentric
astronomy.
I'll have to ask you to try to leave the
chip on your shoulder on the side when we chat. You insinuate
that I'd burn you at the stake if it wasn't for the legal prohibitions.
I wouldn't because that isn't sound Christian ethical teaching.
It is immoral. To question my moral integrity is not the best
way to build bridges of communication and understanding.
I wasn't questioning *your* moral integrity.
Anyway, i's nice to know that you wouldn't put me to death for
my heresy.
...and belief is subjective - *merely*
subjective.
Not veridical? With corresponding objective
object of that faith? Then how does this differ from self-deception,
illusion or wish fulfillment? Why be an anthroposophist and not
create a subjective religion of one's one design?
My point is that the subjective inherent in
religious beliefs, which is present everywhere what religion
is concerned, also in anthroposophy, excludes the applicability
of intellectual proof. What anthroposophy is concerned, I am
venturing my own conclusions and insights here, which may be
disputable, but I think a line can be drawn between objective
spiritual-scientific facts on the one hand (that may still be
identified by outsiders as objects of subjective faith), and
personal conclusions and beliefs on the other.
You're referring to the faith-religion
that the evangelists, and the apostle Paul, taught the uneducated
masses. But if this should have remained the essence of Christianity
forever, there would have been no critical, self-dependent thinking,
and subsequently no human freedom. There would only be blind
obedience to the decrees from a metaphysical dictator.
Huh? I was describing the essence of historic
orthodoxy. You have reinterpreted it according to postmodern
sensibilities with notions of an oppressive orthodoxy.
Are you suggesting that the oppressive element
in the orthodox church is a postmodern invention, a re-writing
of history? Come on.
And how can you have a "critical,
self-dependent thinking" within esoteric Christianity since
you deny the law of non-contradiction and rational thought as
applied to religious truth claims?
As I have already pointed out, the appreciation
and understanding of paradoxes is not tantamount to turning a
blind eye to apparent contradictions.
Where in historic Christian anthropology
do the biblical texts refer to a "phantom" let alone
an etheric or astral body?
I have never stated that Biblical texts refer
to these things. Neither does the Bible teach reincarnation.
Nor does the Bible contain the whole truth about existence, but
only a part of it.
Biblical anthropology teaches that human
nature is comprised of a physical and immaterial nature, but
this is not anthroposophical. The physical body is essential
to Judeo-Christian anthropology.
Body, soul, and spirit.
Could you provide
the references? I'd like to see them. It would be nice if he
interpreted one major Christian doctrine correctly.
Off the top of my head (there are plenty more):
"The Fifth Gospel"'lectures held in Oslo, later in
Cologne, in October and December, 1913 (GA 148) The first of
these lectures (Oslo, 1st October, 1913) answers your question
(that Steiner also said that belief in a literal, physical resurrection
was responsible for the origin of the Christian faith).
This is your assumption, with no evidence.
It would be nice if you could throw in a few reasons for your
assertions, Tarjei. Christ is not a "Christ-idea,"
but the Greek term from the Hebrew Messiah, referring to a prophesied
historical individual realized in Jesus of Nazareth. Your very
assertion above demonsrates your acceptance of an esoteric worldview
imposed upon Judeo-Christian theism.
There is no natural-scientific or historical
conclusive evidence that Jesus Christ ever lived, or that the
events recorded in the Gospels ever took place. That is why "the
Christ-idea" is an accurate term.
Cheers
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 12:17:35
At 06:04 PM 4/10/99 +0200, you wrote:
If one tries to adopt the concept of faith
in the Biblical sense and then sets it up as a standard to be
emulated today, it is easy to fall victim to a common misconception
arising from ignorance of evolution. What has to be kept in mind
is that the epistemological foundation of anthroppsophy
So once again, we commit the fallacy of worldview
confusion. We impose an esoteric, pantheistic grid upon a series
of documents (biblical) which came from a Judeo-Christian monotheistic
worldview. It is the syncretist and the esotericism which arrives
at the misconception through this worldview confusion.
The reason for this is very simple: Anthroposophy
was developed for those who cannot accept orthodox Christianity
as a foundation for religious truth because it is irrational,
illogical, and at odds with Darwinism and other branches of natural
science.
How can orthodox Christianity be irrational,
and illogical if the laws of logic, such as non-contradiction,
are invalid? You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Eschewing logic when it suits anthroposophy, using logic when
you want to denigrate Christian orthodoxy. You can't have your
logical cake and eat it too.
If orthodox Christianity were a scientific
theory, you would have a point. It isn't.
I never claimed it was a scientific theory.
It obviously isn't, anymore than anthroposophy is. However, both
worldviews make claims which can be judged with reference to
various disciplines and evidences. Thus, their truth claims should
be test for truth or falsity.
Anthroposophy is an integration, or rather
a re-integration, of science, religion, art, and philosophy.
The tests you mention may be applicable to the natural-scientific
branch of Anthroposophy. Orthodox Christianity has no such branch.
All it has is theology, old faith, and old books.
See my point above. Many of the truth claims
of orthodox Christianity can be tested (e.g., the historical
existence of Jesus of Nazareth, claims of an empty tomb, a finite
universe, etc.). The same is true of anthroposophy when it makes
truth claims. Anthroposophy may claim to be a reintegration of
science, religion, art and philosophy, but it surely isn't testable
in terms of empirical scientific methods. Is this what you are
claiming? I think you may be equivocating in your definition
of science.
That is also the premise for most anthroposophists.
But the attempt made by orthodox Christians to go scientific
has resulted in absurdities like "creation science."
Again, ignorance of Darwinism and evolution is a key issue here.
Well please don't assume that all orthodox
Christians hold to young-earth creation science. I don't. But
my personal views are irrelevant here. Orthodox Christians are
free to evaluate the various theories of origins and choose the
one which best meets the evidence in natural revelation (nature)
and special revelation (the biblical texts). This means orthodox
Christians run the gamut from theistic evolutionists to young-earth
creationists. The mantra of evolution cited as a proof of the
falsity of orthodox Christianity is a red herring. And it does
nothing to substantiate the cosmology of Steiner and anthroposophy.
That wedge was put by the German philosopher
Immanuel Kant. His argument was that the objects of religious
faith belonged to a category that would remain forever hidden
to cognition based upon knowledge. Rudolf Steiner disagreed and
argued that the dualism of Kant should be replaced by a monism
based upon empirical experience.
If monism is the worldivew undergirding anthroposophy,
and I believe Steiner taught so, then how can you disagree with
me? To disagree with me means there must be duality, otherwise,
if all is one then orthodox and esoteric Christianity, despite
any perceived differences, really dissolve under closer analysis
since all is ultimately one.
I believe it can be demonstrated that monism
is philosophically untenable. Even monists live as dualists,
often without recognizing this is so.
Dietrich Eckart did the latter. He is also
the father of WE criticism and the primeval enemy of anthroposophy.
But you didn't answer my question. Why *not*
move in the subjective direction of national socialism vs. esoteric
Christianity? If you cut yourself off from all testability of
truth claims, and the applicability of logic to the same, you
have not means of knowing whether your beliefs are objectively
true or self-deception.
There must be some objective grounds for
holding religious truth claims.
They are offered by anthroposophy.
And those are objectively what?
I was referring to the marked tendency
in all literature that I have seen from the camp of Protestant
Christian theology when they attack New Age, heresies, etc.
If you'd be so kind as to point out how these
criticisims, philosophically and theologically, are in error,
that would be appreciated so we could make sure the critics are
accurate. No one wants to misrepresent. For example, my colleage,
philosophy professor Francis Beckwith, co-wrote a book with Stephen
Parrish, called _See the Gods Fall_, where they philosophically
critique various worldviews, including the New Age. If you could
point out how their critique fails philosophically, I'd be happy
to pass along your corrections for the next edition of the book.
Otherwise, it sounds like sour grapes in that you mischaracterize
a sound critique as an "attack."
When it comes to Rudolf Steiner, they frequently
manage to de-Christianize Anthroposophy through distortions.
Steiner "de-Christianized" himself
through the adoption of a monistic, pantheistic, esoteric worldview
which put him at variance with the orthodox monotheistic worldview
of the biblical writers. You can hardly blame orthodox Christian
critics of Steiner for that.
So if you subjectively believe something,
that makes it valid?
It was valid for her, and I could see how.
I am not a Catholic, so I cannot judge this any further than
that.
But you missed the point of my question. Does
merely believing something subjectively make it true, regardless
of contradiction or incomprehensibility?
What about the racist who says he believes
in racial purity, but that he is not a racist.
He reminds me of the orthodox Christian
who says he believes in religious tolerance while at the same
time attacking other religions and philosophies.
An ad hominem attack, Tarjei. Please answer
my question and don't engage in personal attacks. If you don't
want to respond, fine. We'll cease the exchange. But please don't
question my motives. I have said in previous posts that I support
the freedom of religion. That is not incompatible with pointing
out errors in your posts when you claim harmony between orthodox
and esoteric Christianity. You can believe whatever you want
but that doesn't make it true, and it does not immunize your
claims for analysis. I don't attack other religions and philosophies.
I try to understand them, enter into dialogue with their adherents,
and then analyze them as well. If criticism is attack then you
ar intolerant because you take issue with my orthodox Christianity.
It cuts both ways.
You are attempting to compare the old lady
in Houston who was a Catholic and an Anthroposophist with a racist
who believes in racial purity? Naughty. (She was a Republican
and a political conservative, and I didn't get to know her well
enough to find out exactly how she stood on racial questions,
but she was a dear friend. She was the last friend I went to
see in America before I left.)
Naughty? Come on, Tarjei. I was making no
comparison. I was using an example of another situation using
your logic to demonstrate that it doesn't hold water. If, as
you said, believing Catholicism was compatible with anthroposophy
was true for that woman, then does a racist who believes in racial
equality mean that it is true for him/her. Or is this a contradiction,
which would mean that logical thinking is valid, and that one
shouldn't hold contradictory views?
Your insinuation deserves no further comment
except another note about Dietrich Eckart
It wasn't an insinuation, it was a question
based upon your method of thinking. If you don't think such questions
deserve a response, perhaps this means you are more interested
in anthroposophical evangelism and intolerance against skepticism
and orthodox Christianity, than about honest dialogue over truth
and falsehoood as it relates to Waldorf in public education.
I suggest that you demonstrate this to
anthroposophists who are also Catholics.
I'd be happy to talk to them. One example
should suffice: It is impossible to be a Roman Catholic and believe
in a Personal Transcendent God, while at the same time believing
in monism and a form of modern Gnosticism. They are contradictory
and both cannot be true at the same time.
You're losing me here. I'm simply trying
to apply the rules of rational thought that we all use each day,
often without realizing it.
This is precisely what anthroposophy is
doing.
What? Using the rules of rational thought
(I thought they were invalid)?
You, on the other hand, are saying that
she has no right to such a spiritual life (Catholic-Anthroposophy)
because it contradicts *your* logic. That is arrogant lack of
respect in my book.
Logic is no more *my* logic that it was Aristotle's
when he discovered the laws of logic. We all use the same logic.
Some of us are more willing to apply it to our worldviews and
spirituality than others I guess. This does not boil down to
arrogance or lack of respect.
Every individual must seek out his or her
own reasons for adopting any religious world view of his or her
own choosing. When it comes to spiritual matters and religion,
absolute freedom must reign. Any attempt on my behalf to persuade
another person to share my convictions in this area would be
a violation of personal freedom. This dialogue is no such attempt;
it is merely a defense against attacks - attacks where misrepresentations
are involved.
I would argue that we use a variety of means
to influence others to accept things we believe in (food products,
restaurants, politics, etc.) and we still recognize and support
personal freedom. It is just as true for spiritual questions.
They are not immune from rational thought and should not be left
to the whims of subjectivism.
On the contrary: In the intellectual realm,
anthroposophy is closer to New Testament Christianity than any
other variety of Christianity.
You keep making this claim, but you have not
demonstrated this. I've asked about monism and the Gnostic reinterpretation
of Christ by Steiner and you haven't responded as to how these
things are the original Christian teaching.
A point in question is that Protestant
orthodox Christianity in America is bogged down in Old Testament
ethics that are in the sharpest variance with the Sermon on the
Mount in the New Testament. What I'm getting at is the cult of
the Religious Right, where every expression of compassion, forgiveness,
tolerance, etc. is scorned as "bleeding heart liberalism."
In addition to this, the Christian bookstore chains in America
are packed with arguments for competitive capitalism as being
the best vehicle for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A sharp contrast
indeed to the communism practiced by the early church.
I'm afraid you can't validly raise the specter
of the evil "Religious Right" as a characterization
of the original New Testament teaching. They are a modern expression
of Christian thought in the area of politics and cultural influence.
I submit that the doctrinal teachings and worldview of the original,
historic Christian church are at variance with Steiner's esoteric
reinterpretation, and you have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise.
You are free to hold your views and deny you want anything to
do with Christian orthodoxy, but you aren't free to misrepresent
it at will contrary to all historical and theological evidences.
Which reminds me of the fact that Rudolf
Steiner hailed "Thomism" as he called it, and incorporated
it in Anthroposophy.
Really? He incorporated Thomistic logical,
and perhaps philosophical reasoning in his books? If so, he imposed
the foreign grid of monism upon Thomas Aquinas. And why emulate
Aquinas' logical reasoning as applied to theology? I thought
we had to transcend rational thought in favor of a subjective
experience?
The fact remains that the conception of
Jesus Christ as explained by orthodox Christianity contradicts
biological and medical science.
*If* the God of Christian theism does not
exist, yes. If He does, there is no problem whatsoever.
The idea of a lonely, "omnipotent"
super-dictator who contradicts the natural laws of his own making
falls as flat on its face as "creation science" does.
I rest my case.
One can't rest a case, when one hasn't presented
a sound one to begin with. Why is an omnipotent Supreme Being
a "lonely...super-dictator"? This is a subjective mischaracterization
put forward without *any* philosophical or theological reasons
to sustain it. And you have demonstrated no parallel with creation
science. If your case is closed then the God of Christian orthodoxy
is acquitted.
When the explanation of "miracles"
defy natural scientific laws, they are false.
Natural scientific laws are only immutable
if the God of Christian theism does not exist. You assume this
to be the case, but it is possible to provide sound reasons to
the contrary, thus providing a satisfactory worldview background
making miracles possible. And if you want to push natural law,
I would submit that it is hostile to the "scientific"
"supersensible" worlds of anthroposophy as well, and
I have seen no argumentation to substantiate that to the satisfaction
of naturalism.
There have been some good expositions of
the evidence for the existence of God, and for the possibility
of miracles, by Christian philosophers, such as William Lane
Craig, Norman Geisler and J.P. Moreland. This is not problem
for orthodox Christianity. Perhaps for anthroposophy...
It sounds more like a suitable topic for
yourself and the hardcore skeptics on this list. You would have
a ball with it.
Sorry you are not interested in exploring
new ideas which may strenghten your current worldview, or challenge
it to the contrary.
I have not said that. I have said that
Steiner's esoteric Christianity has many traits in common with
orthodox Christianity. To the extent that any individual combines
and incorporates these elements, it may be more or less compatible
to that individual. The Houston-lady is a perfect example.
So we are back to mere subjectivism and experience
without reference to tests for veridicality? Is that it?
The Bible consists of 66 books or so, and
almost as many authors. In the New Testament, we have Mark, Matthews,
Luke, John, Paul, and some more. But you seem to suggest that
the New Testament was written by *one* author. Who? Some lonely
omnipotent dictator using the miracle of automatic writing? Or
some editor-in-chief in the Roman Church?
Where did I say there was only one human author?
Nowhere. And then we go back to your charicature of the God of
Christian theism.
The Dalain Lama has no more authority over
an anthroposophist than does the Pope in Rome or some Jerry Falwell
in America.
You completely missed my point. Ignorant American
Buddhists try to synthesize Buddhism with Christianity. But knowledgeable
Buddhists, such as the Dalai Lama, while acknowledging similar
ethical codes and that each tradition can learn much from the
other, at least the Dalai Lama stops short of trying to combine
the two because he recognizes their incompatibility on foundational
matters.
The problem is that when it comes to spiritual
matters, there are many paradoxes. In the Bible, these paradoxes
are also known as contradictions.
A paradox or a mystery is something which
goes beyond the limits of human reason, but not contrary to it.
I submit there are no genuine violations of the law of noncontradiction
in orthodox Christianity. But you merely skirt criticism here.
Are the laws of logic applicable to spiritual truth claims or
not? If so, they must be applied to orthodox and esoteric Christianity.
If not, then you can't criticize orthodox Christianity for alleged
contradictions. The sword of logic is two edged, Tarjei.
For this reason, the Bible may easily be
torn to shreds by "the law of non-contradiction". The
ability to see through a paradox and discern the truth within
it prevents you from falling into the trap of dismissing it because
of its apparent contradiction.
If there is a genuine contradiction, then
it is falsified. Why look for alleged "deeper or hidden
truth" when you find contradiction. Nonsense.
The falsehoods are based upon misuderstanding.
This is why in Norwegian encyclopaedia and reference works, anthroposophy
and related terms have always been defined by anthroposophists.
So Western scholars of religion cannot adequately
understand or classify anthroposophy? Is that it? Hmmm. Then
I guess only an orthodox Christian can truly understand orthodox
Christianity and these believers alone must define it. Cool.
Your criticisms are all invalidated by your misunderstanding?
Do you accept this line of reasoning?
On the contrary, he used objective spiritual-scientific
research.
How is a subjective investigation of supersensible
higher worlds "scientific" in the accepted meaning
of the term?
Your identification of the author is diffuse
enough as it is, because you are obviously not referring to the
writer of the Biblical book in question, but to some nebulous
omnipotent dictator or some equally obscure editor-in-chief.
Please don't dodge the question. How can Steiner
arrive at a proper interpretation of any biblical writer by denying
scholarly methods of literary interpretation in favor of subjective
esotericism?
If you used an esoteric interpretation
of the Reader's Digest, TV Guide, TIME, or your tax forms, you'd
be in trouble quickly. Why do it with the biblical texts?
Because the Biblical texts are antique,
occult documents. The TV guide isn't.
So the literary interpretive techqnique one
uses is determined by the age of the documents in question, at
least in part? How old do they have to be before one uses an
esoteric technique, and how do you know the biblical texts are
occult documents, whose true meaning is hidden beneath the surface
of the actual words unless one assumes this to be the case? Sounds
like circular reasoning.
I maintain that Western esotericism, properly
classified within the New Age movement, is philosophically inferior
to Christian theism.
I call that religious-philosophical fascism.
I call this philosophical analysis, and the
willingness to submit the Christian theistic worldview to the
tests of philosophical reasoning in contrast with a Western esoteric
worldview. Tests for truth and falsehood with regards to worldviews
is not fascism.
Let me provide a counter-example. Gnostic
influence in alternative medicine. Prime example: Deepak Chopra.
The cure for aging, disease and death? Simply change your consciousness,
thereby bringing yourself into harmony with the infinite Creative
Intelligence, and viola. No more sickness, because it was an
illusion created by thinking. I submit that Dr. Chopra will still
age, and die, regardless of his meditation, because reality is
not as he perceives it.
The most deluded quackery of this kind
comes from evangelical circles and their faith healing. this
is based upn the simple command given by Christ to a sick person,
"Take your bed and walk." The way this is being practiced
today, with magical circus trickery, mass-suggestion and the
like, is a prime gift for the Skeptics Society. Anthroposophical
doctors have never engaged in this kind of nonsense, but orthodox
Christians are notorious for it.
Another ad hominem against Christianity, which
provides no evidence for the alleged scientific status of anthroposophy.
I don't agree with the abuses of alleged evangelical faith healers
either, but that doesn't mean the whole world view is false.
And regardless of Christian faith healing, it does not establish
the alleged scientific status of anthroposophical medicine, or
New Age alternative medicine either. You will find out very quickly
that New Age monism is deadly to the Western dualistic worldview
that modern medicine is based upon.
[large snip]
There is no natural-scientific or historical
conclusive evidence that Jesus Christ ever lived, or that the
events recorded in the Gospels ever took place. That is why "the
Christ-idea" is an accurate term.
How about some historic evidence, from non-Christian
sources, for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Josephus,
a Jewish historian, has at least one reference to him that is
undisiputed, and possibly another that may have experienced,
Christian interpolation. Additionally, he is mentioned in the
writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Jewish Talmud.
And one cannot discount the testimony of the early Pauline epistles,
nor the Gospels, written, quite likely according to the latest
scholarly concensus, prior to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70,
within a generation of the events they described. That's good
historical evidence. The earliest critics did not deny his historical
existence, they denied the identity with which the early Christians
associated him, as Messiah. The "Christ-idea" concept
ignores the historical evidence and the Judeo-Christian framework
that it originated from, in favor of a monistic and esoteric
framework. You can create a fictionalized Christ-idea if you
want, but please don't claim that is the historical concept.
I don't know that we're getting anywere, Tarjei,
and we're probably boring this list to death.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposophical
Influence?)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 22:51:53 +0100
John & Wendy Morehead wrote:
Tarjei:
I suggest that you demonstrate this to
anthroposophists who are also Catholics.
I'd be happy to talk to them. One example
should suffice: It is impossible to be a Roman Catholic and believe
in a Personal Transcendent God, while at the same time believing
in monism and a form of modern Gnosticism. They are contradictory
and both cannot be true at the same time.
A former colleague is a devout Roman Catholic
and a member of the Anthroposophical Society. I very much doubt
that she is the only person who is comfortable in this position.
Perhaps those who believe that such a situation is impossible
misunderstand Roman Catholicism, anthroposophy (most likely),
or both. Perhaps the solution to this conundrum lies in the fact
that being an anthroposophist does not require a belief in anything
(although I grant that I cannot imagine an anthropop who does
not believe in the existence of a spiritual reality -- but it
is not *required* -- this, IMHO, is one of the distinctions between
anthroposophy and religion).
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy
Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 03:15:51 +0200
I wrote:
If one tries to adopt the concept of faith
in the Biblical sense and then sets it up as a standard to be
emulated today, it is easy to fall victim to a common misconception
arising from ignorance of evolution. What has to be kept in mind
is that the epistemological foundation of anthroppsophy
John Morehead wrote:
So once again, we commit the fallacy of worldview confusion.
We impose an esoteric, pantheistic grid upon a series of documents
(biblical) which came from a Judeo-Christian monotheistic worldview.
It is the syncretist and the esotericism which arrives at the
misconception through this worldview confusion.
The imposition of an abstract monotheistic
theology upon barely understood ancient scriptures by scholars
who get lost in word-definitions because they cannot evoke a
living relationship to them, results in a fallacy where such
self-appointed authorities are blind to their own confusion,
which they suppress in order to project the illusion of insight.
When the evolution of conceptualizing arising
from language is conveniently ignored and ancient languages are
approached with the consciousness of today in the belief that
the texts were written by and for individuals with the same consciousness,
the result is self-delusion due to soul-spiritual anachronisms.
How can orthodox Christianity be irrational,
and illogical if the laws of logic, such as non-contradiction,
are invalid? You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Eschewing logic when it suits anthroposophy, using logic when
you want to denigrate Christian orthodoxy. You can't have your
logical cake and eat it too.
In the first place, comprehension of divine-spiritual
truth requires a higher logic, an extra-rational logic. Secondly,
orthodox Christianity claims that their lonesome, monotheistic
dictator intervenes in history with miracles that contradict
the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, and mathematics. It
is required that one makes a leap of faith to accept such things
and ignores intellectual honesty. For someone whose acceptance
of reality is dependent upon the scientific intellect, this is
irrational and illogical. This irrationality and illogic is not
identical with what you call a violation of non-contradiction
because it is not a paradox. Or if it is a paradox to you, which
makes it possible for you to hold the contradictory views of
natural laws on the one hand, and the unheard-of violations of
such laws on the other, it is not acceptable to the more science
oriented thinker, for whom Anthroposophy was developed.
<snip>
Many of the truth claims of orthodox Christianity
can be tested (e.g., the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth,
Nope. There is no conclusive scientific evidence
that he ever lived.
claims of an empty tomb,
No scientific evidence of any resurrection
either. You're referring to the accounts by the evangelists,
who were "eyewitnesses," seers, who perceived these
events clairvoyantly. (Luke, for example, was never physically
present.)
Natural science does not support Christianity
in any form.
a finite universe, etc.).
Oh, try that one on talk.origins.
The same is true of anthroposophy when
it makes truth claims. Anthroposophy may claim to be a reintegration
of science, religion, art and philosophy,
Correction: Anthroposophy does NOT CLAIM to
be THE reintegration of science, religion, art and philosophy,
as if it had a monopoly on such integration. I merely stated
that Anthroposophy does integrate these fields.
but it surely isn't testable in terms of
empirical scientific methods.
You don't test the composition of a culture
by scientific methods any more than you test a song, a non-scientific
thought experiment, a poem, or a religious feeling. The testing
of the scientific aspect of anthroposophy, i.e. goethean science,
bidynamic agriculture etc. is a different matter, and that is
one of the key topics being discussed on this and other lists.
Again, it suprises me that you are a religionist,
because your reasoning process resembles more that of a materialistic
science freak who wants to make even the validity of a work of
art subject to scientific testing.
<snip>
Well please don't assume that all orthodox
Christians hold to young-earth creation science. I don't. But
my personal views are irrelevant here. Orthodox Christians are
fee to evaluate the various theories of origins and choose the
one which best meets the evidence in natural revelation (nature)
and special revelation (the biblical texts). This means orthodox
Christians run the gamut from theistic evolutionists to young-earth
creationists. The mantra of evolution cited as a proof of the
falsity of orthodox Christianity is a red herring. And it does
nothing to substantiate the cosmology of Steiner and anthroposophy.
The criticism of anthroposophical Christology
as erroneous and false falls flat on its face when confronted
with the consideration of psychic-spiritual evolution and its
effect upon present-day orthodox interpretation of old literature.
Beyond this, the consideration in question is not intended to
substantiate anything, but to encourage more comprehensive research
and less condescending arrogance.
If monism is the worldivew undergirding
anthroposophy, and I believe Steiner taught so, then how can
you disagree with me? To disagree with me means there must be
duality, otherwise, if all is one then orthodox and esoteric
Christianity, despite any perceived differences, really dissolve
under closer analysis since all is ultimately one.
It's no miracle that you can believe in miracles
that go contrary to physical causality.
I believe it can be demonstrated that monism is philosophically
untenable. Even monists live as dualists, often without recognizing
this is so.
Granted. Dualism is very pervasive in our
culture, and hardly anyone is unaffected by it. But monism makes
perfect sense, and it is worth striving for.
If you do this, why take the leap of faith
in the direction of anthroposophy, or orthodox Christianity,
and not Hitler's national socialism for example?
Dietrich Eckart did the latter. He is also
the father of WE criticism and the primeval enemy of anthroposophy.
But you didn't answer my question.
Yes I did - in the affirmative with Dietrich
Eckart as an example.
Why *not* move in the subjective direction
of national socialism vs. esoteric Christianity? If you cut yourself
off from all testability of truth claims, and the applicability
of logic to the same, you have not means of knowing whether your
beliefs are objectively true or self-deception.
This discrimination is a continuous process.
It is of crucial importance to recognize how much of our perceive
reality is in fact illusion, self-deception. This is a struggle
that drives every true artist - to get deeper and deeper in touch
with reality, with one's real self.
There must be some objective grounds for
holding religious truth claims.
They are offered by anthroposophy.
And those are objectively what?
It's all in the basic books, from scratch.
Start with "Truth and Science" (or "Truth and
Knowledge"). As a specialist in new religions and an expert
on anthroposophy from an evangelical perspective, you ought to
read them.
If you'd be so kind as to point out how
these criticisims, philosophically and theologically, are in
error, that would be appreciated so we could make sure the critics
are accurate. No one wants to misrepresent. For example, my colleage,
philosophy professor Francis Beckwith, co-wrote a book with Stephen
Parrish, called _See the Gods Fall_, where they philosophically
critique various worldviews, including the New Age. If you could
point out how their critique fails philosophically, I'd be happy
to pass along your corrections for the next edition of the book.
Otherwise, it sounds like sour grapes in that you mischaracterize
a sound critique as an "attack."
First, I have not read the book you mention,
so I cannot comment on it. Secondly, the very title of the book
makes it clear that my corrections would not be included in the
next edition. Anyway, an error I have already mentioned from
another book was that Buddhism was supposed to be the invention
of Satan to confuse the Christians - that because Satan knew
Christ was coming, he came up with Buddha as his own disciple.
That's just one example.
When it comes to Rudolf Steiner, they frequently
manage to de-Christianize Anthroposophy through distortions.
Steiner "de-Christianized" himself
through the adoption of a monistic, pantheistic, esoteric worldview
which put him at variance with the orthodox monotheistic worldview
of the biblical writers.
What you mean is that because esotericism
is unpalatable to you, and because Steiner's view collides with
your Bible-interpretation and your Christianity, you have the
right to judge Rudolf Steiner's personal relation to Christ,
and mine. You have no such right by no authority whatsoever.
The "authority" you represent is a paper tiger of no
consequence whatsoever.
But you missed the point of my question.
Does merely believing something subjectively make it true, regardless
of contradiction or incomprehensibility?
I have not declared, suggested, nor implied
anything of the kind.
What about the racist who says he believes
in racial purity, but that he is not a racist.
He reminds me of the orthodox Christian
who says he believes in religious tolerance while at the same
time attacking other religions and philosophies.
An ad hominem attack, Tarjei. Please answer
my question and don't engage in personal attacks.
I wasn't attacking you at all; I was comparing
your hypocritical racist with a hypocritical Christian. If you
are not a hypocritical Christian, it was not a personal attack.
If you are, I apologize.
If you don't want to respond, fine. We'll
cease the exchange. But please don't question my motives. I have
said in previous posts that I support the freedom of religion.
That is not incompatible with pointing out errors in your posts
when you claim harmony between orthodox and esoteric Christianity.
This is the SECOND time you distort my point
here. I said that orthodox and esoteric Christianity have many
traits in common. I said nothing about them being in harmony,
and I certainly didn't CLAIM their harmony. I said that any individual
is free to harmonize any religious streams of his or her choosing.
You can believe whatever you want but that
doesn't make it true,
Ditto.
and it does not immunize your claims for
analysis.
People may analyze everything I write to this
list until their faces turn blue for all I care. And they may
call every word from my keyboard a "claim" for that
matter.
I don't attack other religions and philosophies.
You call them falsehoods and errors.
I try to understand them, enter into dialogue
with their adherents, and then analyze them as well. If criticism
is attack then you ar intolerant because you take issue with
my orthodox Christianity. It cuts both ways.
That is only a partial truth. I am not taking
issue with orthodox Christianity, because it has too much in
common with Anthroposophy for that - obviously a lot more than
you are aware of. What I am taking issue with is the arrogant
labelling of Anthroposophy as a false and erroneaous Christianity
- even a de-Christianized Christianity. When I point to flaws
in orthodox logic, it is to demonstrate that attacks against
Anthroposophy from an orthodox chair is tantamount to hurling
bricks from a glass-house.
You are attempting to compare the old lady
in Houston who was a Catholic and an Anthroposophist with a racist
who believes in racial purity? Naughty. (She was a Republican
and a political conservative, and I didn't get to know her well
enough to find out exactly how she stood on racial questions,
but she was a dear friend. She was the last friend I went to
see in America before I left.)
Naughty? Come on, Tarjei. I was making
no comparison. I was using an example of another situation using
your logic to demonstrate that it doesn't hold water. If, as
you said, believing Catholicism was compatible with anthroposophy
was true for that woman, then does a racist who believes in racial
equality mean that it is true for him/her. Or is this a contradiction,
which would mean that logical thinking is valid, and that one
shouldn't hold contradictory views?
When you conclude from the philosophy of the
Houston-lady that a racist can believe in racial equality, your
logic is, in my opinion, seriously flawed at this point.
Your insinuation deserves no further comment
except another note about Dietrich Eckart
It wasn't an insinuation, it was a question
based upon your method of thinking. If you don't think such questions
deserve a response, perhaps this means you are more interested
in anthroposophical evangelism and intolerance against skepticism
and orthodox Christianity, than about honest dialogue over truth
and falsehoood as it relates to Waldorf in public education.
I suggest that you demonstrate this to
anthroposophists who are also Catholics.
I'd be happy to talk to them. One example
should suffice: It is impossible to be a Roman Catholic and believe
in a Personal Transcendent God, while at the same time believing
in monism and a form of modern Gnosticism. They are contradictory
and both cannot be true at the same time.
It's because you're getting lost in an intellectual
labyrinth with no exit. Anthro-Catholics don't. If Christ is
real, and if He meets those who seek Him, He doesn't care about
such nonsense. If the Catholic church and Anthroposophy are both
paths to Christ, only the Devil would pose an intellectual objection
of this kind.
You're losing me here. I'm simply trying
to apply the rules of rational thought that we all use each day,
often without realizing it.
This is precisely what anthroposophy is
doing.
What? Using the rules of rational thought
(I thought they were invalid)?
I have made no such statement. I said that
intellectual proof and scientific evidence has no validity outside
natural science and mathematics.
Logic is no more *my* logic that it was
Aristotle's when he discovered the laws of logic. We all use
the same logic.
This very exchange testifies to the opposite.
I would argue that we use a variety of
means to influence others to accept things we believe in (food
products, restaurants, politics, etc.) and we still recognize
and support personal freedom. It is just as true for spiritual
questions. They are not immune from rational thought and should
not be left to the whims of subjectivism.
I am still left with the distinct impression
that spiritual views that do not conform with your own rational
understanding are dismissed as "whims of subjectivism."
And when you now say that spiritual questions should not be left
to such whims, you are in a sense setting yourself up as an authority
over other people what such questions are concerned.
You keep making this claim, but you have
not demonstrated this. I've asked about monism and the Gnostic
reinterpretation of Christ by Steiner and you haven't responded
as to how these things are the original Christian teaching.
There isn't enough room in these posts for
me to quote entire lecture-cycles by Steiner on the four Gospels.
Monism is dealt with in POF, Gnosticism in "Christ and the
Spiritual World and the Search for the Holy Grail" (GA 149).
As an inquisitive bookworm, you shouldn't ask me to spell it
all out for you under the guise of "demonstrating claims."
Save that for talk.origins or another ng that is strictly limited
to science.
I'm afraid you can't validly raise the
specter of the evil "Religious Right" as a characterization
of the original New Testament teaching. They are a modern expression
of Christian thought in the area of politics and cultural influence.
I submit that the doctrinal teachings and worldview of the original,
historic Christian church are at variance with Steiner's esoteric
reinterpretation, and you have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise.
I have made myself perfectly clear all the
way, and your repeated demands for demonstrations appear to be
expressive of your needing a hand to pull you out of those intellectual
labyrinths of your own making - your own cerebral spider-webs.
You are free to hold your views and deny
you want anything to do with Christian orthodoxy, but you aren't
free to misrepresent it at will contrary to all historical and
theological evidences.
I have not misrepresented Christian orthodoxy,
because I haven't even presented it. What I have done is to poke
holes in your misrepresentation of Anthroposophy at the expense
of your version of orthodoxy.
Which reminds me of the fact that Rudolf
Steiner hailed "Thomism" as he called it, and incorporated
it in Anthroposophy.
Really? He incorporated Thomistic logical,
and perhaps philosophical reasoning in his books? If so, he imposed
the foreign grid of monism upon Thomas Aquinas. And why emulate
Aquinas' logical reasoning as applied to theology? I thought
we had to transcend rational thought in favor of a subjective
experience?
You have misunderstood my point altogether.
What I have tried to explain is that a higher level of reasoning,
which Steiner called "sense-free thinking," should
be supplemented to the logical intellectualizing that is fettered
to the physical brain cells. I did not say that the former should
replace the latter.
As for Thomism, read the three RS lectures
"The Redemption of Thinking, a Study in the Philosophy of
Thomas Aquinas" (GA 605). Again, don't ask me to spell everything
out for you.
One can't rest a case, when one hasn't
presented a sound one to begin with. Why is an omnipotent Supreme
Being a "lonely...super-dictator"? This is a subjective
mischaracterization put forward without *any* philosophical or
theological reasons to sustain it. And you have demonstrated
no parallel with creation science. If your case is closed t