return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1212 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: prayer(was..brainwashed...)
002 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - my introduction (long)
003 - Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.co - Re: my introduction (long)
004 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Re: my introduction (long)/Reply(short)
005 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Re: my introduction
006 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: my introduction
007 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
008 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
009 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: my introduction (long)
010 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - Re: my introduction
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: prayer(was..brainwashed...)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:01:09 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904100225.TAA21009 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904110139.SAA14651 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman says:
)I do not recall ever posting anything hateful to this list. You must be
)projecting.
)
)Seriously though, your synopsis of my post boarders on the insane.
)
)I do not think there is any disagreement within the scientific community
)regarding the fate of
)someone taking AZT. It will kill them. Do you disagree with this
)simplest of propositions? (If you
)disagree I will be more than happy to buy your first harmless
)prescription.
Please cite the relevant scientific evidence that proves your assertion.
(g)) Whether or not AZT
)kills people before HIV is some matter of debate.
Well, it sure doesn't kill them AFTER they die of AIDS (not HIV). You can't
even get that much straight.
)
)Do not be surprised when I do not bother replying to your posts. You and
)I have a difference of
)opinion, leave it at that and you will be better off for it.
)e
Yeah, I fogot, you're a graduate of a Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical
school, so you're so much better a person in all respects than unworthy old
me that I will just shrivel in the light of your brilliance. As I've said
before, the one thing that is absolutely sure to be inculcatedin SWA
students is colossal arrogance.
We have more than a difference of opinion, Beeman. We have a completely
different outlook on life.
And I'm not about to stop posting my views of your lunacy. If you don't
want to reply to them, or prefer to sling shit at me, just remember that
some of it will stick to you in the process. And people will see you for
what you are.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
)
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)
)) Michael KOPP says:
))
)) Why don't you ask Ezra Beeman the question about AZT? He posted a hateful
)) rant against the science that developed AZT, preferring the views of
))Peter
)) Duesberg, who says AZT and other drugs are the CAUSE of AIDS, not the
))virus
)) HIV. To which I made a long and detailed reply with numerous literature
)) citations.
))
)) To date Ezra has failed to reply to my challenge to him.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.2 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 03:21:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello all,
I have been reading this list with interest for a few weeks. I finally have
a free moment (well, it's costing me sleep) to introduce myself and join
the discussion (fray?), so here goes (my apologies for the great length of
this post; in the future I will be brief!):
My name is Yael Resnick. I'm the mother of two small children, and the
publisher and editor of a small, independent magazine called *Natural
Jewish Parenting*. I would characterize the magazine as an exploration of
the intersection of traditional Judaism with "natural" living. (For
example, there is support in the Talmud and Torah for extended
breastfeeding, comforting babies during the night instead of leaving them
to cry, etc. Jewish law also requires that one guard one's health and cause
no harm to the health or safety of another person -- so it makes sense
that, according to Torah, one should eat healthy, natural foods, etc. This
may seem obvious, but then why are there kosher products that are basically
packaged chemistry experiments? (rhetorical))
I had no knowledge of Waldorf, beyond a few vague references to it in the
Natural Baby Catalog, until about a year ago when the topic came up on
another list I'm on; the discussion was in relation to WE's appropriateness
for Jewish children.
I have no interest whatsoever in criticizing anyone's religious (or
atheistic) beliefs. I have no bone to pick with Anthroposophy per se,
although I (morally) support the work of those who believe Waldorf has no
place in publicly-funded schools. I have strong religious beliefs of my
own, but I operate sincerely on a live-and-let-live basis (with the usual
disclaimers about nobody getting hurt).
The new issue of Natural Jewish Parenting (NJP) features a special section
questioning the appropriateness of Waldorf Schools for the education of
Jewish children. (Some of you may have heard about this when it was in the
research/writing stage months ago, but the new issue is so late that you
may have given up on ever seeing it or forgotten about it completely.)
Since I believe that Jewish children should be educated in a Jewish
setting, it follows that I believe WE is wrong *for Jewish children*. I
doubt this is a particularly controversial viewpoint (although some Jewish
parents would disagree with me -- and their views are included in the
special section I mentioned), but I want to state this clearly since it is
ONLY in this context that I have any personal interest in WE issues.
(In reading this list, I have learned to anticipate probable objections to
even the most neutral of statements, so I will add the disclaimer that I
understand that not everyone reading this would agree with me that Jewish
children should be educated in a specifically Jewish setting, or that
anyone should rightfully hold this view about anyone's children other than
their own -- but as Jewish knowledge, practice, identity, and population
continue their rapid decline, this is for me and for many others a matter
of community obligation. Please do not engage me in a debate about this.
Anyone is certainly entitled to disagree, but this is not what I am here to
discuss. Thanks...)
A little more personal background: I was brought up in a fairly traditional
("Conservative") Jewish home. I attended a private Jewish day school
through eighth grade (great academics, lots of skill acquisition -- fluent
Hebrew and all that -- but little sense of personal spirituality, and way
too much learning "about" Judaism without putting ideas into practice (as I
think John Morehead recently quoted, but without the quotation marks,
"ideas have consequences" -- an Alfred North Whitehead expression I learned
from my 12th grade physics teacher in high school and never forgot). This
inconsistency was unfortunately (and unwittingly) reinforced at home, where
we had a kosher kitchen but went out for Big Macs and spare ribs.
I went to public high school, then private university, where I received a
B.S. degree in Human Factors Engineering (a hybrid of engineering design
and psychology -- a cousin of ergonomics), magna cum laude. I also spent
half a year in Israel in a(nother) completely secular university
environment. During college I worked on my school's daily newspaper, and as
a technical writer/editor for a computer company. After graduation, I
worked for three years producing technical publications for a nonprofit
organization specializing in universal design (specifically, architecture
accessible to people with disabilities). I was a fairly typical (if
slightly more goal-oriented), fairly happy, fairly decent-and-moral member
of Generation-X.
Shortly before getting married at age 25 (almost six years ago), I returned
to a completely Torah-observant lifestyle, together with my then-boyfriend
and now-husband (I say "returned" because it is the translation of the
Hebrew word "teshuvah" which denotes the process of returning to one's
religious roots, coming closer to G-d after having been far away, etc.). I
can speak from personal experience about Lubavitch/Chabad (CH-B-D, an
acronym for the Hebrew words for wisdom, understanding, knowledge), since
that is the community I chose to become part of. In fact, in the interest
of accuracy, I think I will speak a bit about it, since Bob Jones brought
it up:
)In the Orthodox Jewish Community, the Lubovitchers,
)who are waiting for the re-incarnation of Rabbi Schneeson, are very
)close to the reverence Anthroposophists show for Steiner and his
)writings.
Chabad is one of many Chassidic groups. Chassidism dates back 300 years
(exactly), to Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov, who started the movement as a
reaction to the too-rote practice of Judaism prevalent at that time.
Chassidism brings joy, music, intellectualism, a strong sense of personal
spirituality, and a down-to-earth mysticism (oxymoron intended) to the
Jewish experience. Chabad Chassidism has as its core the philosophy that
each individual is responsible for perfecting himself or herself, and also
for doing his or her part to perfect the world. (That's an enormous
oversimplification, but I'm assuming you don't need or want more info than
this, since this whole post is already a digression from your discussion.)
Chabad, like all Chassidic groups, has a rebbe (literally, teacher). Chabad
is NOT a cult; it is purely Judaism. A rebbe is also known as a "Grand
Rabbi," and is considered to be one's spiritual role model -- because he is
someone greatly admired (yes, even revered) for his personal level of
spiritual (Torah) understanding and practice. HOWEVER, one does not pray to
a Rebbe (although one may ask for his blessing or advice on personal
matters), nor give any of one's money or possessions to a Rebbe (he
wouldn't accept it anyway), nor is one obligated or coerced to obey him or
accept his teachings without question (a major theme in Chassidism is the
concept of free will in moral matters), nor does a Rebbe ask anything from
his "followers" other than to strive to be true to Jewish law, to Torah, to
G-d -- NOT to the Rebbe. A Rebbe is supposed to be humble, a servant of his
community (not the other way around) and of G-d. This is precisely what
makes him an appropriate role model. A Rebbe inspires one to strive to
achieve one's own potential (materially and spiritually).
Many people get a bit hung up on Lubavitch (synonymous with Chabad;
Lubavitch is the town in Russia where Chabad originated), probably because
it is the most well-known Chassidic group. That's OK; it's well-known
because, unlike some other Chassidic communities, Lubavitch is *not*
insular (and I'm not knocking insularity either; it has its advantages and
disadvantages). It is known for outreach -- to educate Jews about their OWN
heritage. Lubavitch does not prosyletize.
Lubavitch has also, of late (no pun intended) become a bit infamous for the
differences of opinion among Lubavitchers as to the meaning of the Rebbe's
passing, five years ago. (When I say "Rebbe," I am referring to Rabbi
Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the seventh of a line of rebbes dating back 200
years.) Jewish tradition holds that Moshiach ("messiah") has not yet come
(apologies to those who believe otherwise, no offense meant), and that in
every generation, there is one perfectly righteous person who is a
potential Moshiach. When the time is right for Moshiach to be revealed,
that "candidate" will become the actual Moshiach, ushering in an era of
lasting peace for people of *all* faiths. Many Lubavitchers believe that
the Rebbe is our generation's potential Moshiach. There is a precedent in
the Talmud for the opinion that Moshiach may be selected even from those no
longer living.
(For those who hold radically different views of the world -- thank you in
advance for not debating these subjects here... For anyone who has opinions
about Chabad/Lubavitch formed through reading the mainstream press, rather
than through personal in-depth experience or at least through reading the
biographical or autobiographical writings of the Rebbes of Lubavitch, you
may be misinformed... e-mail me privately if you'd like another
viewpoint.)
That's all I will say on the subject (unless asked to elaborate, preferably
off-list). Please don't debate my personal beliefs; I won't debate yours.
Full circle back to my interest in WE, then I'll sign off:
I published the section on the question of Waldorf and Jewish children in
order to educate Jewish parents involved in WE of some of aspects of
WE/Anthroposophy that they may be unaware of. If you read the magazine (it
should be in most Barnes & Nobles and Jewish bookstores by now, or very
soon), I would be interested in your response. (If you're not in the U.S.,
or if you are and can't find it in your bookstore, you can order a single
copy if you like; please e-mail me privately. A long-overdue web site is in
the works but is not up yet; sorry for the inconvenience.)
That's all. If you don't hear from me for a while, I'm here but lurking --
probably wanting to respond but too busy to sit down to do it. (I'm with my
kids full-time during the day, and I do my work at night.) I will try to
keep up as much as I can.
I do appreciate a lively exchange of views; I'm not interested in getting
personally involved in any negativity (I'll just experience the negativity
vicariously, thank you! :) In that spirit, I'll end here for now. Thanks
for making it to the end of my novel.
Be well,
Yael
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish Parenting
mailto:njpmail mindspring.com
173 Speedwell Ave., Suite 127, Morristown, NJ 07960
phone (973) 538-3737 fax (973) 539-5454
The only magazine dedicated to a holistic Jewish perspective on
childraising and health!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.3 ---------------
From: Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 06:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- Yael Resnick (njpmail mindspring.com) wrote:
) Hello all,
)
)(snip)
)
) )
) Shortly before getting married at age 25 (almost six
) years ago), I returned
) to a completely Torah-observant lifestyle, together
) with my then-boyfriend
) and now-husband (I say "returned" because it is the
) translation of the
) Hebrew word "teshuvah" which denotes the process of
) returning to one's
) religious roots,
) of accuracy, I think I will speak a bit about it,
) since Bob Jones brought
) it up:
)
) )In the Orthodox Jewish Community, the Lubovitchers,
) )who are waiting for the re-incarnation of Rabbi
) Schneeson, are very
) )close to the reverence Anthroposophists show for
) Steiner and his
) )writings.
)
) Chabad is one of many Chassidic groups. Chassidism
) dates back 300 years
) (exactly), to Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov, who
) started the movement as a
) reaction to the too-rote practice of Judaism
) prevalent at that time.
) Chassidism brings joy, music, intellectualism, a
) strong sense of personal
) spirituality, and a down-to-earth mysticism
) (oxymoron intended) to the
) Jewish experience. Chabad Chassidism has as its core
) the philosophy that
) each individual is responsible for perfecting
) himself or herself, and also
) for doing his or her part to perfect the world.
) (That's an enormous
) oversimplification, but I'm assuming you don't need
) or want more info than
) this, since this whole post is already a digression
) from your discussion.)
)
) Chabad, like all Chassidic groups, has a rebbe
) (literally, teacher). Chabad
) is NOT a cult;
(snip)
Hello, Yael:
My intention in mentioning the Lubovitchers in connection to "cults" &
Steiner was _NOT_ to imply giving away one's money or following someone
to destruction. However, the reverence for this particular Rebbe has
seemed to many, of all faiths, to be excessive. It is my understanding
that, in Judaism, no one may give a *blessing* any more than anyone
else. Rabbi Schneerson's voluminous writings are, I have read, taken to
be on par with Talmud by many of the Lubovitcher Chassidim. He differs
radically from mainstream Judaism in his views of "The Days of the
Moshiach" (please make allowances for my spellings, here)and
re-incarnation, at least in mainstream Conservative Judaism, is not a
tenent. The mystical element of this branch of Chassidim, in the view
of many, is divergent from mainstream Orthodoxy (if there is such) and
definitely from the Conservatives.
Please excuse any ignorance I may have shown. It was only my intention
to draw a parallel between the reverence for one man & his writings
that went beyond the usual practices within any given faith.
That said: you are right: there is no place in anthroposophy for a
practicing believer of any World Religion. While the Waldorfians will
tell you of the Anthroposophical Kibuttz in Israel and the numbers of
Jews in Waldorf, they are not telling anyone that the goal of all the
*practical* paths of Anthroposophy are alchemical. The goal is to
develop inner esoteric & occult sensibilities. It is basically a
divergent path to all the montheisms, including those which believe in
a Trinity. The New Age spiritualism an,d eco-awareness is just bait for
those of your generation who yearn for a relationship with God &
community. Kashruth has moral ethical, & historical elements, as well
as elements of obediance and of the "setting apart" of a people. I
believe the vague Vegetarians and Organic devotees found in the New Age
is simply a way for _them_ to set themselves apart. Without an
historical basis for this, moral/ethical/political reasons are
substituted.
In 20 years of living among anthroposophically-inclined hippies,
Christians, and Anthroposophists I and the rest of my community have
noticed that there are no practicing Christians or Jews within the
Waldorf School. Those who leave Waldorf often do so because they have
found their faith again & realize it cannot be practiced within
Anthroposophy. These have been Jews, Protestants, Roman & Orthodox
Catholics.
If it is difficult for a mainstream believing Christian to find
resonance within Anthroposophy, it is impossible for a believing Jew,
IMO. While Judaism professes the singularity of God, denies the
Trinity, and is still waiting for the prophesised Messiah,
Anthroposophy professes an multitude of spitirual beings in heirarchies
and has some confusing tenets that appear to co-mingle a Messianic,
Risen Christ with Lucifer or Luciferic elements. The image of Lucifer
is that of the "Light Bringer", not a fallen angel.
Please be welcome to our conversation. You bring a needed viewpoint due
to your age, education, faith and community. You are to be commended
for returning to your roots. I believe this is happening more & more
within your generation and will be the salvation of this spiritually
deprived society. Only when the hunger for God is assuaged within the
younger generation, will the spiritual countrfeit of Anthroposophy be
apparent.
To have you _&_ John Moorehead on our list, gives the conversation
depth. The secular humanists also bring a dimension of morality and
clear thought. Only the Anthroposophists, who have undoubtably written
to you off-list to plug their agenda, have prostelyzing goals here.
Will your article be on-line?
If not, could you post it to the list? If broken into segments, it
won't overwhelm anyone's mail.
Otherwise, I would like a copy via e-mail, broken into segments if
necessary.
BJ
)
=
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.4 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)/Reply(short)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 99 22:27:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Yael Resnick writes:
) I was brought up in a fairly traditional
)("Conservative") Jewish home. I attended a private Jewish day school
)through eighth grade (great academics, lots of skill acquisition -- fluent
)Hebrew and all that -- but little sense of personal spirituality, and way
)too much learning "about" Judaism without putting ideas into practice (as I
)think John Morehead recently quoted, but without the quotation marks,
)"ideas have consequences" -- an Alfred North Whitehead expression I learned
)from my 12th grade physics teacher in high school and never forgot). This
)inconsistency was unfortunately (and unwittingly) reinforced at home, where
)we had a kosher kitchen but went out for Big Macs and spare ribs.
Yael,
It is in these "fairly traditional" Jewish homes that a Waldorf
education is often so effective.
Many have found(Hebrew-school teachers included) that the reverence and
spirituality that a child gains through a Waldorf education gives a deep
meaning to the study of Judaeism, and makes "putting ideas into practice"
a much more natural progression.
I also understand, of course, that more orthodox forms of Judaeism
require education to take place in a more specialized setting. The
Waldorf school that my son attends is a short walk from one of the
largest Chassidic communities on earth, and it is clear to me why none of
the members of that community attend Waldorf school.
Shalom,
Charlie Frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.5 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 99 23:07:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Bob Jones writes:
)there is no place in anthroposophy for a
)practicing believer of any World Religion.
This is clearly absurd.
Anthroposophy has enabled me, after many years of not being able, to call
myself a Christian.
Statments like Mr. Jones's are inflammatory and born of ignorance.
)...the goal of all the
)*practical* paths of Anthroposophy are alchemical. The goal is to
)develop inner esoteric & occult sensibilities. It is basically a
)divergent path to all the montheisms, including those which believe in
)a Trinity.
Although I am not sure I understand your use of the word "alchemical", I
will say that the proposal that the idea that the development of "inner
esoteric & occult sensibilities" is somehow contrary to religion, is
ridiculous.
)The New Age spiritualism an,d eco-awareness is just bait for
)those of your generation who yearn for a relationship with God &
)community.
"New Age" is a term that I have never heard used in the context of
Anthroposophy, and don't get me started on anything being used as "bait".
The only "bait" Anthroposophy offers is the possibility of improving
one's self, thereby contributing to the improvement of all.
Again---inflammatory and foolish.
Mr. Jones, to his credit, appears to be among the most intelligent and
well-informed of all the critics on this list; but, like most of the more
outspoken critics, cannot avoid shooting himself in the foot with his own
mean-spiritedness.
Peace,
Charlie Frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.6 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 17:47:11 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904111505.IAA09099 lists1.best.com)
Bob Jones wrote:
))there is no place in anthroposophy for a
))practicing believer of any World Religion.
Charlie Frey replied:
)
)This is clearly absurd.
I agree. I have already mentioned that there are Buddhist monks among the
members of the Anthroposophical Society. But again, the compatibility or
absence of such is a question to be answered by the believer or
practitioner of the religion in question, and by that individual alone.
Period. It's like those who say that a Christian cannot believe in
evolution - something I've heard innumerable times. Nobody has the right to
set boundaries for the spiritual lives of others, or to decide what
organizations or movements or philosophies other people may combine with
their religion. Absolutely nobody.
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.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.7 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 20:11:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199904072225.PAA04277 lists1.best.com)
(199904070102.SAA12430 lists1.best.com)
(199904061441.HAA03629 lists1.best.com)
(199904061627.JAA26570 lists1.best.com)
(199904070102.SAA12430 lists1.best.com)
(199904071211.FAA07472 lists1.best.com)
(199904072225.PAA04277 lists1.best.com) (199904082228.PAA15014 lists1.best.com)
To Stephen„s question:
) )Please give an inclusive/exclusive definition of "religion", i.e. one
) )which will include all things which are religion and will exclude all
) )those which aren't.
John & Wendy Morehead answered in two parts, the first on Thursday, 8
April, the second on Friday, 9 April.
For other Europeans, that like me maybe aren„t very well aquainted with
the specific problems relating to the First Amendment of the
Constitution of the US and the support, non support or prohibition of
religious elements and teaching in public schools, a not bad overview of
the problem seems to be one at
http://thomasash.hypermart.net/bnet/items/00022.html.
On Thursday John Morehead answered in terms of how it was understood in
one case, in 1977, specifically concerning the teaching of
Transcendental meditation in a public school(s?) in New Jersey:
) As was pointed out in the Malnak v. Yogi case,
(http://www.trancenet.org/law/nj/nj4.html, the end:)
) "the subjective
) characterizations by individuals of teachings as religious or not religious
) in their systems of categorization cannot be determinative of whether or
) not the teachings are religious within the meaning of the first amendment"
) (Malnak v. Yogi, 440 F. Supp. 1284 [1977]).
) So regardless of whether the
) case can be made from a religious studies perspective that Anthroposophy
) meets a religious definition, subjective definitions of such are not
) necessarily determinative in a court of law. The court went on to state
) that it
(http://www.trancenet.org/law/nj/nj9.html, Summary judgement, middle of
page:)
) "is interested in the term religion as it is used in the
) Constitution and has no interest in attempting to decide an academic
) dispute among theologians as to the best approach to defining religion for
) their professional purposes...None of these [religiously defining] elements
) need be present, however, for a court to determine that a practice or
) belief is religious within the meaning of the first amendment."
The note to the last sentence unexpectedly however refers, not to
Transcendental Meditation, but to _atheism_ as something that "may be a
religion under the establishment clause in that the government cannot
aid the propagation of a belief in the nonexistence of a supreme being.
See Abington School District v. Schempp. supra, at 225; Zorach v.
Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314(1952).
Judging from the case, it seems that teaching in public schools that
"science is an argument for the nonexistence of a supreme being", a
position probably held by a number of the WC on this list is a violation
of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Also, if it does, where does that put the majority of the schools in US?
Not an easy situation, it seems.
) "While expert opinion is invaluable in certain cases, a court, in dealing
) with a constitutional term, must be governed more by prior judicial
) findings than by the opinions of experts."
)
) It would seem that expert testimony in defining religion and Anthroposophy
) will be reviewed by the court, prior judicial findings may be the deciding
) factor in this case.
How complicated the problem of defining "religion" is in terms of of how
it is understood by the first amendment is described by an article at
http://harvardhope.simplenet.com/law/1stAmdtLRArticle.htm on THE SUPREME
COURT'S PROBLEMATIC ACT OF DEFINING CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RELIGION
„A PRECIS OF HER PAST DEFINITIONS.
According to the paper, "The intention of the First Amendment religion
clauses was not to prevent governmental aid to religion but to assure
governmental neutrality toward different sects." (1 Annals of Congress
434, 731 (J. Gales ed. 1789).).
If this becomes the central understanding of the First Amendment, I see
few other better ways of doing justice to the intention than the way it
is handled in waldorf schools, trying to create the basis for relating
to the whole range of religious experiences in a general ordered way out
of the developing inner relation to the world of the growing child, from
the maybe more pantheistic stage in early childhood to the secular
humanist stage developing out of the more rationally dominated thinking
in adolescence.
To _my_ understanding, few other pedagogies do better justice to the
possibility of a real freedom in relation to the total range of
religious experience, that seems to be the intention of the First
Amendment, than WE.
Sincerely,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.8 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 20:30:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199904072225.PAA04277 lists1.best.com)
(199904070102.SAA12430 lists1.best.com)
(199904061441.HAA03629 lists1.best.com)
(199904061627.JAA26570 lists1.best.com)
(199904070102.SAA12430 lists1.best.com)
(199904071211.FAA07472 lists1.best.com)
(199904072225.PAA04277 lists1.best.com) (199904082228.PAA15014 lists1.best.com) (199904111815.LAA16515 lists1.best.com)
P.S
According to http://thomasash.hypermart.net/bnet/items/00022.html, the
position taken in my posting as the - to me - most reasonable one seems
to correspond to the position of a non-preferentialist.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.9 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:16:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199904111359.GAA22004 lists1.best.com)
Bob Jones wrote:
) To have you _&_ John Moorehead on our list, gives the conversation
) depth. The secular humanists also bring a dimension of morality and
) clear thought. Only the Anthroposophists, who have undoubtably written
) to you off-list to plug their agenda, have prostelyzing goals here.
Dear Bob,
Do you really think any "Anthroposophist" participating on this list
participates with the primary goal of _"proselytizing"_ anyone, and
especially the WC„s on the list. I think you completely misunderstand
and misdescribe the situation.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1212.10 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 11:11:31
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904111505.IAA09099 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904111547.IAA20490 lists1.best.com)
At 05:47 PM 4/11/99 +0200, you wrote:
)Nobody has the right to
)set boundaries for the spiritual lives of others, or to decide what
)organizations or movements or philosophies other people may combine with
)their religion. Absolutely nobody.
And nothing can set a boundary for such decisions? What about critical
thinking which we all use?
For example: Hypothetically, let's say that I now announce that I am now
both an atheist (believing in the existence of no supernatural or
supernormal spiritual worlds or reality), while at the same time affirming
that I am an adherent of anthroposophy and spiritual science. Is this claim
valid? Well, if nobody or nothing can set a boundary for my beliefs, and if
I can combine any elements of the plethora of worldviews, surely this must
be valid for me. Right?
But surely this is self-contradictory, and therefore false. To claim that
their both is, and is not (at the same time and in the same relationship),
a supernatural or supernormal spiritual reality, is to engage in
self-contradiction. It is a nonsensical belief, just as the "concept" of
square circles, or married bachelors. So while we may not like individuals
taking issue with our personal beliefs, perhaps the laws of logical and
critical thinking can help fine tune our thinking about such things, and
thus set some boundaries for what can and cannot be harmonized.
John Morehead
=========================
John W. Morehead
Executive Vice President
TruthQuest Institute
http://www.truthquest.org
(tqi quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 652-7804
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1212 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1213 --------------
001 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: my introduction (long)
002 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: my introduction
003 - John & Wendy Morehead (mo - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthr
004 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
005 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anth
006 - Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.co - Re: my introduction
007 - Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.co - Re: my introduction (long)
008 - Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.co - Re: my introduction (long)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.1 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:33:25 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (199904111359.GAA22004 lists1.best.com)
Bob Jones wrote (to Yael Resnick):
)To have you _&_ John Moorehead on our list, gives the conversation
)depth. The secular humanists also bring a dimension of morality and
)clear thought. Only the Anthroposophists, who have undoubtably written
)to you off-list to plug their agenda, have prostelyzing goals here.
Sune has already responded to this pearl of a remark, but I would also like
to contibute my 2¢.
I just made it clear in a recent exchange with John W. Morehead that I have
never been a proselytizer, because such behavior would mean an infringement
of the personal freedom of another person in spiritual matters.
Are you calling me a liar and a hypocrite, Bob?
Your remark above also infers, ever so subtly, that I have no morality
because I am an anthroposophist, in contradistinction to secular humanists.
I call that bigotry by the book.
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.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.2 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:59:01 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904111547.IAA20490 lists1.best.com)
(199904111505.IAA09099 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904111917.MAA15965 lists1.best.com)
I wrote:
))Nobody has the right to set boundaries for the spiritual lives of others,
))or ))to decide what organizations or movements or philosophies other
))people may ))combine withtheir religion. Absolutely nobody.
John Morehead wrote:
)
)And nothing can set a boundary for such decisions? What about critical
)thinking which we all use?
Nobody has the right to define the limits of other people's religious
philosophies. Nobody.
)
)For example: Hypothetically, let's say that I now announce that I am now
)both an atheist (believing in the existence of no supernatural or
)supernormal spiritual worlds or reality), while at the same time affirming
)that I am an adherent of anthroposophy and spiritual science. Is this claim
)valid? Well, if nobody or nothing can set a boundary for my beliefs, and if
)I can combine any elements of the plethora of worldviews, surely this must
)be valid for me. Right?
Correct.
)
)But surely this is self-contradictory, and therefore false.
You have no right to to call someone else's religious philosophy false for
the sole reason that it contradicts your personal logic. It does not make
sense to you - fine. But you must accept that it can make sense to other
people.
)To claim that their both is, and is not (at the same time and in the same
))relationship), a supernatural or supernormal spiritual reality, is to
)engage in
)self-contradiction.
John Lennon, whom I would call a true anarchosophist (in the second
definition of the term), held a view very similar to this description. And
his philosophy was beautiful.
)It is a nonsensical belief, just as the "concept" of square circles, or
)married )bachelors.
Your metaphors reveal that you don't understand paradoxes.
To paraphraze the apostle Paul: It may be foolishness to the natural man,
but wisdom to God. Again, the higher truth may be contained in the apparent
self-contradictory paradox.
)So while we may not like individuals taking issue with our personal
)beliefs, )perhaps the laws of logical and critical thinking can help fine
)tune our )thinking about such things, and thus set some boundaries for
)what can and )cannot be harmonized.
If your personal opinion about what is logical and compatible and what is
not coincided one hundred per cent with objective, inviolable laws of
critical thinking and logic, you might have a point. But that does not seem
to be the case. You may set such boundaries for yourself, but not for me. I
am the judge of the latter - not you, simply because I do not regard your
understanding of logic to be better than mine. I respect you for accepting
the consequences of your own reasoning what *your* personal philosophy and
religion is concerned, but I cannot accept that you judge the thinking of
*others* when it comes to the deepest and most intimate riddles of
existence. That would be a violation of spiritual freedom, which you have
no right to infringe upon.
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.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.3 ---------------
From: John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 12:17:35
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
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 irrationa, 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 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.
)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 demonstraetd 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 thise 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-cristianize 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 were 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 dictarot 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 "thge Chriust-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
http://www.truthquest.org
(tqi quiknet.com)
P.O. Box 227
Loomis, CA 95650
(916) 652-7804
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.4 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:43:27 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199904072225.PAA04277 lists1.best.com)
(199904070102.SAA12430 lists1.best.com)
(199904061441.HAA03629 lists1.best.com)
(199904061627.JAA26570 lists1.best.com)
(199904070102.SAA12430 lists1.best.com)
(199904071211.FAA07472 lists1.best.com)
(199904072225.PAA04277 lists1.best.com)
(199904082228.PAA15014 lists1.best.com)
(199904111815.LAA16515 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904111815.LAA16515 lists1.best.com)
Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se) wrote:
)John & Wendy Morehead answered in two parts, the first on Thursday, 8
)April, the second on Friday, 9 April.
For some reason I didn't receive the second one (typical, since it's the
aspect I'm most interested in -- the legal stuff is mostly the concern
of US residents and, as I have shown quite adequately in the past, is
beyond my understanding) -- could you (Sune) or John send it to me by
private email, please.
Thanks.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.5 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 18:48:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
)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.
Where is Joel Wendt when you need him?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.6 ---------------
From: Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 16:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com) wrote:
) Bob Jones writes:
) )there is no place in anthroposophy for a
) )practicing believer of any World Religion.
)
) This is clearly absurd.
) Anthroposophy has enabled me, after many years of
) not being able, to call
) myself a Christian.
And which denomination of Christian do you profess?
) Statments like Mr. Jones's are inflammatory
I will acknowledge that I seem to have hit a nerve.
and born
) of ignorance.
You may not agree with my conclusions, which are born of observation &
participation.
) )...the goal of all the
) )*practical* paths of Anthroposophy are alchemical.
) The goal is to
) )develop inner esoteric & occult sensibilities. It
) is basically a
) )divergent path to all the montheisms, including
) those which believe in
) )a Trinity.
)
) Although I am not sure I understand your use of the
) word "alchemical",
"Alchemical" refers to the metaphor of ancient alchemy
where the visible & open search for a "philosopher's stone" that would
transmute lead to gold was a reference to the "hidden" (ie:
occult)search for inner development in esoteric matters. "Esoteric
matters", I believe, was really the practice of white magic based upon
Babylonian, Chaldean, and Egyptian cosmologies, with some Christian
overtones.
) will say that the proposal that the idea that the
) development of "inner
) esoteric & occult sensibilities" is somehow contrary
) to religion, is
) ridiculous.
Religion. My dictionary defines it as:(from Latin religio) piety;
conscientiousness; scrupulousness. From religare: to bind back/to bind
together. Refers to acknowledgement of _a_ Divine or superhuman Power
or Powers,to be obeyed and worshiped as the Creator(s) & Ruler(s) of
the Universe; 2) expression of this belief in conduct & ritual; 3) any
specific system of belief, worship,conduct, etc, often involving a code
of ethics & a philosophy.
Inner esoteric & occult sensibilities are aimed at elevating humans to
the level of God or gods and, thru diligent "inner work", becoming the
God within.
)
) )The New Age spiritualism an,d eco-awareness is just
) bait for
) )those of your generation who yearn for a
) relationship with God &
) )community.
)
) "New Age" is a term that I have never heard used in
) the context of
) Anthroposophy,
Then you haven't studied the problem. "New Age" is seen by religious
scholars as being hugely influenced by Anthroposophy & Steiner. The New
Age folks whom I see involved in Anthroposophy say that they are
attracted by the lack of a Supreme Being, a lack of Divine Authority,
and the credo:"The whole of the law is do as thou wilt." Perhaps
Steiner never said those exact words; I don't know. But those who call
themselves New Age find Steiner a verification of what they believe &
practice: a pastiche of Buddhism, pantheism, Christianity, Wicca,
Shamnanism, and Neo-Paganism.
and don't get me started on anything
) being used as "bait".
) The only "bait" Anthroposophy offers is the
) possibility of improving
) one's self, thereby contributing to the improvement
) of all.
Yes. Inner esoteric development. Gnosis: the ability to rise to the
level of God (or gods) and to become the God within.
) Again---inflammatory
Perhaps.
and foolish.
How so?
) Mr. Jones, to his credit, appears to be among the
) most intelligent and
) well-informed of all the critics on this list;
Albeit:ignorant,inflammatory and foolish.
but,
) like most of the more
) outspoken critics, cannot avoid shooting himself in
) the foot with his own
) mean-spiritedness.
I did not mean to offend anyone. I do not see any mean-spiritdness in
stating the truth as I have managed to apprehend it from study,
observation, and conversation with Anthroposophists who do not hide
what they believe or what their goals are. I will grant that such
Anthroposophists are few, at least in my experience.
)
) Peace,
)
And to you.
BJ
)
)
)
)
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.7 ---------------
From: Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 16:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no) wrote:
) Bob Jones wrote (to Yael Resnick):
)
) )To have you _&_ John Moorehead on our list, gives
) the conversation
) )depth. The secular humanists also bring a dimension
) of morality and
) )clear thought. Only the Anthroposophists, who have
) undoubtably written
) )to you off-list to plug their agenda, have
) prostelyzing goals here.
(snip)
) Are you calling me a liar and a hypocrite, Bob?
No.
)
) Your remark above also infers, ever so subtly, that
) I have no morality
) because I am an anthroposophist, in
) contradistinction to secular humanists.
No. The speaker *implies*; the hearer *infers*. I implied nothing. I am
not a subtle man. You have inferred what you wished. You are much
subtler than I.
)
) I call that bigotry by the book.
I am neither narrow-minded nor intolerant. I do, however, have a
mustache. (see the dictionary)
BJ
)
)
)
)
) 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.
)
)
)
)
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1213.8 ---------------
From: Bob Jones (b2251 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 16:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
--- Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se) wrote:
) Bob Jones wrote:
)
) ) To have you _&_ John Moorehead on our list, gives
) the conversation
) ) depth. The secular humanists also bring a
) dimension of morality and
) ) clear thought. Only the Anthroposophists, who have
) undoubtably written
) ) to you off-list to plug their agenda, have
) prostelyzing goals here.
)
) Dear Bob,
)
) Do you really think any "Anthroposophist"
) participating on this list
) participates with the primary goal of
) _"proselytizing"_ anyone, and
) especially the WC„s on the list.
Often, in the time I have been subscribed, as well as in the archives,
when a parent posted doubts or outright problems with Waldorf &
Anthroposophy, they were e-mailed off list & told that the problems
were minor and that Waldorf would not be detrimental to their child.
On list, many of you have spoken glowingly of the benefits derived from
Waldorf and from Anthroposophy, or , at the least, from studying
Steiner.
Joel Wendt, who professes having done "the inner work", has constantly
exhorted the critics to "do the work", which, in my interpretation
translates to *doing* Anthroposophy.
I believe that the agenda of the *defenders* on this list is to engage
the sympathy of the undecided lurkers, on one hand, and to make the
list a negative and contentious experience, on the other hand, that
will quickly deter many people who wish to explore the possibility or
not of Waldorf education.
I think you
) completely misunderstand
) and misdescribe the situation.
That is entirely possible. However, if taken from a Christian
perspective, it seems to me to amount to witnessing & evangelizing.
That is, when you are not heaping abuse upon our ignorant, demented,
bullying,foolish, and inflammatory selves.
BJ
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1213 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1214 --------------
001 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anth
002 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: my introduction (long)
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anth
005 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Ant
006 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Re: my introduction
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
An
008 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: my introduction (long)
009 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposophi
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.1 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 03:15:51 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
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 irrationa, 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 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 on 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 relionist, because your reasoning
process resempbles more that of a materialistic science freak who wahts 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 demonstraetd 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 an an expert
on anthroposophy from an evangelical perspective, you ought to read them.
)If you'd be so kind as to point out how thise 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-cristianize 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 presonal
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 ewhatsoever.
)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 peoiple 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 then the God of Christian
)orthodoxy is acquitted.
No god is on trial here. Only theologians. The "lonely super-dictator" is
my expression to illustrate that I find the concept absurd and untenable. I
am not interested in demonstrating, and I have no ambition to persuade you
or anybody else to share my insight.
)
))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.
Natural law is not hostile to anthroposophically oriented spiritual
science, but it IS hostile to the idea of a deity breaking this law like
some circus magician, which is found in Christian fundamentalist orthodoxy.
(snip)
))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 were are back to mere subjectivism and experience without reference to
)tests for veridicality? Is that it?
Ypu're incredible. First you distort my statement, and then when I correct
your distortion, you start chanting your totally irrelevgant
science-test-song.
)
))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 dictarot 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.
Your memory fails. You wrote: "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."
(snip)
)Ignorant American Buddhists try to synthesize Buddhism with Christianity.
There may be ignorant Buddhists all over the world. But if harmonizing
Buddhism with Christianity is evidence of ignorance in your view, you are
calling all Anthroposophists, including Yours Truly, ignorant.
Anthropopsophy is Christian Buddhism, or Buddhist Christianity. So much for
your religious tolerance and your respect for other philosophies.
)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.
Now you are implying quite clearly that anthroposophists are not
knowledgeable because they do not share YOUR view that Buddhism and
Christianity are compatible. Your prejudice and bigotry is exposed.
))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.
The contradictions in orthodox Christianity are clear what natural laws
versus the metaphysical circus magician is concerned. In esoteric
christianity there are no logical contradictions, except those of your own
making.
))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.
If you don't look for "the deeper hidden truth," you are stuck with two
choices: You either reject the Bible altogether as imaginative fiction, or
you take it at surface face-value, as inerrant and literally true in the
simpleton-sense. Pick your own 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?
You're missing one crucial point here: I have been an orthodox Christian of
the Protestant variety. I even taught Bible classes according to orthodox
theology. If you had been an ex-anthroposophist and lectured about the
spiritual evolution of humanity from a spiritual-scientific viewpoint
before you became an orthodox christian, you might have a point.
)
))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?
The investigation is objective, not subjective. Read "Outline of Occult
Science." Don't ask me to spoon any of it out to you, because I've already
done that for Dan Dugan.
)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?
He checks out the author's sources before examining the text to see if it
matches his own independent findings. You can't beat that.
)))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.
If you don't know how to classify literature,if you don't know the
difference between the TV guide and the Bible, I'm afraid I can't help you.
If my reasoning sounds circular to you, it's because you're stuck in that
labyrinth of yours.
)
)))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.
When you call your own subjective judgement objective tests in the
capricious name of philosophy and use it as a platform to throw dirt on
esoteric Christianity, it's arrogant religious 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.
Every single time I catch you red-handed in throwing bricks from your
glass-house, you cry "ad hominem." And this time you say I'm doing an ad
hominem against Christianity - against Christ? Come on.
On top of this, you add something about lack of evidence for
anthroposophical science, which has nothing whatsoever to do with modern
evangelical healing-circuses.
)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.
Your sentence lacks clarity of reference. EXACTLY WHAT does not establish
the alleged scientific status of anthroposophical medicine, or New Age
alternative medicine?
)You will find out very quickly that New Age monism is deadly to the
)Western )dualistic worldview that modern medicine is based upon.
You are making a scientific claim here, namely that philosophical monism
will undermine medical practice, medical research, and the art of healing.
This is indeed a claim that you are required to test, to demonstrate, and
to prove if it is to be taken seriously.
)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.
To you perhaps. But there are many atheists who with good reason claim that
this evidence is elusive and inconclusive, and that the entire story may be
a fable, a myth, a legend.
)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.
You have totally misunderstood and misconstrued what I meant by the
christ-Idea. I did not call it the Christ-Idea *because* the Mystery of
Golgotha eludes physical evidence, but because the history of Christianity
is the history of an Idea arising from the event in question.
)
)I don't know that we're getting anywere, Tarjei, and we're probably boring
)this list to death.
Right. Anyway, I'm bored with it. On the other hand, so far, at least since
I've joined the list, all the critics have been more or less secular
humanists, and there haven't been any fundies to play with.
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.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.2 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:40:47 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904112359.QAA14805 lists1.best.com)
Bob Jones, answering a question from Sune Nordwall:
)Often, in the time I have been subscribed, as well as in the archives,
)when a parent posted doubts or outright problems with Waldorf &
)Anthroposophy, they were e-mailed off list & told that the problems
)were minor and that Waldorf would not be detrimental to their child.
I've been here a long time, and I don't recall such descriptions in any
posts.
Anyway, if I've missed something and it's happening, it's not happening
often enough to say we proselytize. I'd be surprised--it goes against the
grain of everything I know about anthroposophy.
If this was a trend in either waldorf or anthroposophy, I wouldn't be
associated with either.
(snip)
)I believe that the agenda of the *defenders* on this list is to engage
)the sympathy of the undecided lurkers, on one hand, and to make the
)list a negative and contentious experience, on the other hand, that
)will quickly deter many people who wish to explore the possibility or
)not of Waldorf education.
I like to think that most of the things I post here help people see a more
complete and accurate picture of waldorf education. No one has to do a
thing to make this list contentious--as John Moreland pointed out the other
day, we're talking about core values here.
When you use the term "agenda", are you implying or suggesting that waldorf
supporters on this list are working in an organized fashion, according to
some plan?
In any case, what would a waldorf supporter have to gain by driving
undecided people away from the schools?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: First Amendment and WE (Was: Re: What is ...)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:25:24 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sune Nordwall on science as religion:
[snip]
Regarding a court judgement:
)The note to the last sentence unexpectedly however refers, not to
)Transcendental Meditation, but to _atheism_ as something that "may be a
)religion under the establishment clause in that the government cannot
)aid the propagation of a belief in the nonexistence of a supreme being.
)See Abington School District v. Schempp. supra, at 225; Zorach v.
)Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314(1952).
)
)Judging from the case, it seems that teaching in public schools that
)"science is an argument for the nonexistence of a supreme being", a
)position probably held by a number of the WC on this list is a violation
)of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
)
)Also, if it does, where does that put the majority of the schools in US?
)Not an easy situation, it seems.
Michael KOPP says:
Sune, you have already admitted to ignorance of the U.S. Constitution,
legal and cultural framework. Perhaps you are also ignorant of what goes on
in U.S. public schools, particularly in regard to the teaching of "science".
To my knowledge (it was certainly never true for my own education there
from 1955 to 1975) the teaching of science does not include "the
propagation of a belief in the nonexistence of a supreme being".
You are taking the court's words about atheism -- a true rejection of the
supernatural -- and applying it to science, which *says nothing about the
existence or otherwise of the supernatural*.
I have seen nothing in anything I have ever read about science that
supports your contention. Science is neutral on supernature, because
science is based on emperical evidence, and there is no evidence of
anything supernatural.
Perhaps you are confusing -- intentionally or not -- science's neutral
statement that there is no evidence of anything supernatural with atheism's
absolute statement (based on belief, not evidence) that there is no
supernatural realm.
The proper teaching of science (and I might agree that science is often
poorly taught, or taught more with a bias towards theism than towards
atheism, in the U.S.) is that is evidence based, and therefore has nothing
to do with belief or non-belief in things supernatural.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:45:29 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
John Morehead has been having a long ... conversation ... with Tarjei
Straume about the differences (if I understand the arguments, which is
debatable, given my lack of theological education) between two world-views,
Christianity and Anthroposophy.
I don't need to quote any of the discussion ... let's cut to the chase:
)I don't know that we're getting anywere, Tarjei, and we're probably boring
)this list to death.
)
)John Morehead
Michael KOPP says:
On the contrary, I fing the discussion extremely illuminating of two
things: the facts of the matter as seen by the two sides; and a
confirmation of something I (along with most other Steiner/ Waldforf/
Anthroposophical (SWA) critics) have been saying for three-and-one-half
years.
And that is the impossibility of holding a rational discussion between an
adherent of SWA and a critic of SWA.
For the Anthroposophist, it is impossible that one who disagrees with any
of Steiner's teachings can have enough understanding of Anthroposophy to
hold such a discussion. This is contrary to all scholarship principles of
which I have been aware throughout my life.
Critics (even mild questioners, like parents of children in an SWA school
who find something their children are being taught to be strange,
incomprehensible, or at variance with their own understanding of the world)
are told that the issues are quite complicated and that only by long study
would one understand them.
They are further told that if they study Anthroposphy according to
Steiner's prescriptions, they will come to understand. Invariably, people
who do this become as convinced of Anthroposophy's tenets as those who have
told them the path to understanding. In other words, to study according to
the master's teachings is to become what the master had in mind in the
first place, despite his guru-trick pronouncement that each should come to
his or her own conclusions.
As I understand SWA, there has not been one critic from within who has
published any kind of major difference of opinion with Steiner. (We have
seen some people on this list who call themselves apostates of some sort,
but they mostly say it is the _practice_ of SWA today which bothers them,
not Steiner's original world view and cosmology.) Anthroposophy has not
progressed, despite the myriad books purporting to explain it or build on
it or employ it.
This seems to me to be at variance with Mr Morehead's and other Protestant
Christian religions, at least, and with most others, like Catholicism,
Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, which have extremely lively intellectual
arguments and schisms. (Some too lively, at the moment, leading to
authoritarian, patriarchal fascism.)
To my knowledge -- despite the claim of the SWA apologists on this list --
there is no such process, no such schisming, in SWA.
Now isn't this curious?
And isn't it fun to see the emperor's new clothes paraded so elegantly in
the eloquent and erudite chatting of two such obvious authorities as Mr
Morehead and Mr Straume?
Please don't get me wrong: I am not religious, and I see no more "proof" of
the existence of a "God" in Mr Morehead's arguments and history and
documents, (or those of any other religion) than I do for the existence of
a spiritual higher plane as proposed by Mr Straume's. And I think religion
-- an invention of humans for their own comfort and politics in the early
days of sentience in the face of great unknowns -- has much to answer for
in the history of human conflict. Disagreements of theology have not always
been polite parlour talk or disembodied, physically remote, cybernetic
gabble.
But I think I Mr Morehead's discussions with Mr Straume make it
transparently obvious that for the purposes of the those who are
challenging SWA in public education SWA is, in fact, a religion under the
definitions of the U.S. Constitution and its legal interpretation for 250
years.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.5 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 22:32:57 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904120153.SAA00786 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp says:
)But I think I Mr Morehead's discussions with Mr Straume make it
)transparently obvious that for the purposes of the those who are
)challenging SWA in public education SWA is, in fact, a religion under the
)definitions of the U.S. Constitution and its legal interpretation for 250
)years.
Now why is it so obvious? I don't believe they've touched on the practice
of waldorf education once in the course of their discussion.
Also, your use of the SWA acronym is really unwieldy here: are you
claiming their dialogue proves Steiner a religion, or Waldorf, or
Anthroposophy, or all three?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.6 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 10:56:55 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Bob Jones writes:
)
)And which denomination of Christian do you profess?
)
I'm sorry. You've got me. I didn't realize that one is obliged to profess
a denomination in order to be a Christian. That is precisely the kind of
narrow-minded attitude that turned me away from mainstream Christianity.
)
)Religion. My dictionary defines it as:(from Latin religio) piety;
)conscientiousness; scrupulousness. From religare: to bind back/to bind
)together. Refers to acknowledgement of _a_ Divine or superhuman Power
)or Powers,to be obeyed and worshiped as the Creator(s) & Ruler(s) of
)the Universe; 2) expression of this belief in conduct & ritual; 3) any
)specific system of belief, worship,conduct, etc, often involving a code
)of ethics & a philosophy.
)
)Inner esoteric & occult sensibilities are aimed at elevating humans to
)the level of God or gods and, thru diligent "inner work", becoming the
)God within.
I don't understand. Is this meant to illustrate something about
Anthroposophy vs. Christianity?
I am all in favor of your etymological definition of religion.
"Ligios"= connection, as in "ligament"--- so re-ligion= re-connection to
the spirit.
It seems that there was a severance of Man from Spirit, and religion aims
to re-connect the two.I feel that Anthroposophy and the inner work to
which you refer have assisted me in this process, although I have NEVER
harbored any aspirations toward elevating myself to the level of God.
That is absurd.
)... you haven't studied the problem. "New Age" is seen by religious
)scholars as being hugely influenced by Anthroposophy & Steiner. The New
)Age folks whom I see involved in Anthroposophy say that they are
)attracted by the lack of a Supreme Being, a lack of Divine Authority,
)and the credo:"The whole of the law is do as thou wilt." Perhaps
)Steiner never said those exact words; I don't know. But those who call
)themselves New Age find Steiner a verification of what they believe &
)practice: a pastiche of Buddhism, pantheism, Christianity, Wicca,
)Shamnanism, and Neo-Paganism.
)
If I may be so presumtious as to speak for Anthroposophy:...ahem.....
What the heck does Anthroposophy have to do with people outside of it who
claim to be influenced by it?
John Hinckley claimed to be influenced by Jody Foster.
The Rastafarians base their entire religion on worship of Haile Selassie,
who knew nothing about his supposed flock; and invoking the name of
Rudolph Steiner in order to somehow validate one's beliefs does not an
Anthroposophist make.
So, please spare us the assumption that Anthroposophy is somehow "New
Age".
)I do not see any mean-spiritdness in
)stating the truth as I have managed to apprehend it from study,
)observation, and conversation with Anthroposophists who do not hide
)what they believe or what their goals are. I will grant that such
)Anthroposophists are few, at least in my experience.
))
I, on the other hand, see a majority of Anthroposophists as being
completely honest about their beliefs and goals, although I acknowledge
the possibility that you have encountered a different environment.
As for myself, I consider myself positively militant about honesty and
integrity in everything that I do. If you ever notice me being false to
my claim, I invite you to bring it to my attention.
Peace,
Charlie Frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:09:58 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199904120153.SAA00786 lists1.best.com)
(199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
(199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904120225.TAA17416 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery says:
)Michael Kopp says:
)
))But I think I Mr Morehead's discussions with Mr Straume make it
))transparently obvious that for the purposes of the those who are
))challenging SWA in public education SWA is, in fact, a religion under the
))definitions of the U.S. Constitution and its legal interpretation for 250
))years.
)
)
)Now why is it so obvious? I don't believe they've touched on the practice
)of waldorf education once in the course of their discussion.
KOPP:
Which are you challenging: that their discussions make it obvious SWA is a
religion; or their discussions make it obvious SWA is practiced in "Waldorf
education"?
The former is obvious on its own. The latter doesn't have to be discussed
by them; it's already been thoroughly thrashed out on this list.
It's obvious because copious evidence on this list, and statements by "SWA"
adherents, have already established that Steiner's pedagogical religiosity,
and Anthroposophy holus-bolus, are practiced by SWA teachers and school
upon their students. I will no longer be drawn into debate on this issue.
)Also, your use of the SWA acronym is really unwieldy here: are you
)claiming their dialogue proves Steiner a religion, or Waldorf, or
)Anthroposophy, or all three?
KOPP:
It is impossible to separate the three, and any attempt to artificially do
so by defenders of one or the other of them are doomed. They are all three
integral to the educational enterprises under discussion here and under
litigation elsewhere.
Some Anthroposophists -- and some Anthroposophical apostates, like Tarjei
the "anarchosophist" -- may claim that Anthroposophy can be divorced from
SWA educational practice in their own lives. That is, that they have
nothing to do with the schools, and simply use (or whatever word you or
they choose to employ to describe their relationship with it) Anthroposophy.
But Steiner made no such distinction, and in fact said that they were
inseperable.
I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding my meaning just because of the
employment of the abbreviation for the triumverate subjects of this list.
But I think it's been in use here long enough for most people to know what
I mean.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.8 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: my introduction (long)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 05:25:31 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199904112351.QAA08708 lists1.best.com)
Bob Jones wrote:
)The speaker *implies*; the hearer *infers*.
Thank you for that simple clarification of my "Achilles' Heel" in English
usage.
Cheers,
Tarjei
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.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1214.9 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthroposophical Influence?)
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 22:51:53 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199904101605.JAA16177 lists1.best.com)
(199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199904112103.OAA11017 lists1.best.com)
John & Wendy Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com) 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) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1214 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1215 --------------
001 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - Re: my introduction
002 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Defining Religion; Including Anthroposophy
003 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: my introduction (long)
004 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is
A
005 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - See ya
006 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity (Was: What is Anthr
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: prayer(was..brainwashed...)
008 - redon (redon geocities.co - Charter and Choice was re: Dan's book, discussion, scientific
009 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Esoteric vs. Orthodox Christianity
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1215.1 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: Re: my introduction
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 03:01:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Bob,
Thanks for the welcome. I'll move onto more on-topic things, but I feel I
should respond to your comments:
)My intention in mentioning the Lubovitchers in connection to "cults" &
)Steiner was _NOT_ to imply giving away one's money or following someone
)to destruction. However, the reverence for this particular Rebbe has
)seemed to many, of all faiths, to be excessive.
I don't really think one should put oneself in the position of judging
whether someone else's reverence is excessive. And I disagree with the
generalization that "many, of all faiths" judge the reverence for the Rebbe
to be excessive. On the contrary, those *of all faiths* who had personal
contact with him tended instead to feel that same awe and admiration --
reverence -- for the Rebbe's genuinely lofty level of Torah and secular
learning (besides knowing the whole body of Jewish thought inside and out,
he spoke at least seven languages fluently, had an excellent grasp of the
sciences, medicine, law, etc.), his deep and insightful understanding of
human nature and relationships (people from ALL religions and walks of
life, from everywhere in the world, including world leaders, came to him or
wrote to him for guidance in personal, spiritual, political and business
matters), his devout commitment to G-d, to his wife (they had no children,
yet their marriage was faithful, peaceful and loving by all accounts, and
he had the deepest respect for her opinions), to his mother (he visited her
daily throughout her lifetime) and to the welfare of the Jewish people and
of all humankind (as one of countless examples: until past his 90th
birthday, the Rebbe spent hours upon hours every Sunday greeting and
blessing literally thousands of people who stood in line to be face to face
with him -- again, people of all types, not just Lubavitchers -- and giving
a dollar to each one so that his blessing would be connected to a mitzva, a
good deed [it was expected that each person who received a dollar would
give it, or more than that amount, to charity], since it is the Jewish
belief that spiritual matters are best grounded in physically tangible
things), and I could go on but I am starting to go on and on, and I have a
feeling my words are going to come back to me!
The point is that it's not just Lubavitchers subjectively or irrationally
revering their Rebbe to some arbitrary point of "excess." Judaism doesn't
agree with the concept of infallibility as applied to religious leaders,
but if there were ever someone who could be called a tzaddik -- a truly
righteous person -- the Rebbe is certainly one. I, for one, revere him for
the example he sets of what a human being is capable of. And I teach my
children to look to him as a role model of what they are capable of
striving for: becoming a giving, charitable, moral, devoted, idealistic,
committed, capable, confident, vibrantly and joyously spiritual person with
a strong sense of their own personal power and an equally strong sense of
humility and responsibility to something much greater than themselves. Who
do some people revere? Sports heroes, movie stars, academics, artists or
musicians... While some of these may be worthy of respect, reverence is an
entirely valid feeling and is absolutely appropriate when the object of the
reverence is deserving of it. (Some people have similar feelings, I am
sure, for the Pope, or the Queen of England??? And I wouldn't dare tell
them they shouldn't.)
)It is my understanding
)that, in Judaism, no one may give a *blessing* any more than anyone
)else.
It's true that anyone may bless anyone else any time they like. But certain
people, or people in certain circumstances, are considered to have more
powerful blessings and prayers; these include tzaddikim (perfectly
righteous people), brides and grooms, women while they are lighting the
Shabbat (Sabbath) candles on Friday night, women who are in labor, women in
general (who are, according to Jewish thought, innately more connected to
G-d; men have to work harder at their connection), anyone on their
birthday, and certain others.
)Rabbi Schneerson's voluminous writings are, I have read, taken to
)be on par with Talmud by many of the Lubovitcher Chassidim.
Well, close. The writings of ALL respected commentators, both Chassidic and
non-Chassidic, since the time of the Talmud until today, are considered to
be part of Torah and are as valid and essential as the Talmud itself. (This
is not a Chassidic belief, but a plain-old Jewish one.) Certainly, a
Rebbe's Chassidim must learn his particular commentaries, but they also
must learn the Talmud until they know it like the backs of their hands, and
they also learn everything else! (This is in contradistinction to a group
like the Kabbalah Centre, for example, which is a pseudo-Jewish cult based
on the very shallow writings of Dr. Philip Berg, whose books are virtually
the only source of "Jewish" learning for his Torah-ignorant followers --
who include Madonna and other gullible celebrities who have no clue.)
)He differs
)radically from mainstream Judaism in his views of "The Days of the
)Moshiach" (please make allowances for my spellings, here)and
)re-incarnation, at least in mainstream Conservative Judaism, is not a
)tenent. The mystical element of this branch of Chassidim, in the view
)of many, is divergent from mainstream Orthodoxy (if there is such) and
)definitely fro