Anthroposophia

[The_Child]

---

hahaha. at some level? what does that mean?

the issues are priests. i am not a priest but i have this thick book on Gnostic Philosophy, from Hermes to Crowley et al.

im not into "impress people" mode, i joined this forum back 2006, i think if im into impressing people it would have been done in the first year.

anyways to the topic:
the point is that, theosophy, anthrosophy, is incompatible with catholic doctrine, which means, priests and anthroposophy is incompatible with each other. they should have experience all the sophy... out there while they were not priests yet. and now that they have commitments, not only to themselves, to the church and to others, but also to God, they decide to break it because they felt some esoteric pseudo-knowledge is made known to him. thats a break of promise.

a character like that is not yet ready for the priesthood. he has not fulfilled himself, isnt the priesthood a emptying onself before God and his creation, so how could you empty yourself if your not full yet?
thats my point.

i hope you dont make it too personal.

[patrizekirsten]

shall I say that its the catholic doctrine thats incompatible? It preaches to buddist, muslim etc..is it compatible?...what are your suggestions sir to make it compatible?

[flying fish]

hahaha. at some level? what does that mean?

the issues are priests. i am not a priest but i have this thick book on Gnostic Philosophy, from Hermes to Crowley et al.

im not into "impress people" mode, i joined this forum back 2006, i think if im into impressing people it would have been done in the first year.

anyways to the topic:
the point is that, theosophy, anthrosophy, is incompatible with catholic doctrine, which means, priests and anthroposophy is incompatible with each other. they should have experience all the sophy... out there while they were not priests yet. and now that they have commitments, not only to themselves, to the church and to others, but also to God, they decide to break it because they felt some esoteric pseudo-knowledge is made known to him. thats a break of promise.

a character like that is not yet ready for the priesthood. he has not fulfilled himself, isnt the priesthood a emptying onself before God and his creation, so how could you empty yourself if your not full yet?
thats my point.

i hope you dont make it too personal.

its incompatible to your opinion & of course from the church w/c educates you to act like one,
but for the priest I've known who have an open mind they say otherwise,
the issue is that as what you've said-priest who doesn't have that much faith are easily tempted to study ESOTERICISM,
is this a presumption that there something wrong w/ esotericism? or lack of understanding re the subject?
you claim to have thick book on gnostic gospel,I'm sorry i guess your one of those who watch the forest but not seeing a single tree,
it could be because your carrying along a prejudice about other system,as what you've said:BS,
kinsa man ni si crowley,si Aliester? pls dont confuse gnosticism w/ occult arts, adis2 to si crowley dodong ug nag practice ug orgey, plus ga practice ug black magick, esotericism/gnosticism is none of that
your not a priest? i didn't imply that your one, though your unsolicited denial speaks that your one,
i have nothing against faith, blind faith i questioned that,
What i mean about some common understanding on some level-

I prefer to see the similarities of every religion, philosophy & science, how? by studying the essence or the principle behind message that it tries to convey, differences occur usually at the the packaging only,

But you on the other hand prefer to see its incompatibilities, & of course you have your reason & above all you have your FAITH- that they are just incompatible, & as such considered as BS.

a forum is an exchange of ideas not necessarily agreement, & my bias is that it should be in a friendly atmosphere, a BS word is not "sincere" & friendly, you cite your opinion & i express my opinion that should be the implied ethics in a forum, not unless we agree from the start that we can openly say your sincere words: BS,stupid, idiot,etc.
I think your Jesus wont be happy w/ those sincere words that your using

so from now on w/ your permission, ill use your sincere words to you when i find it necessary, i will not use it to other people here cause i have a bias that its not sincere, ikaw lang,Father

& by the way we can make it personal, lets see how far your sincerity goes, father

[The_Child]

im not taking this personal, but it seems that you are.
the word BS is no longer considered pejorative, as it is already used to refer to something that is 'unbelievably true' a 'non-fact shrouded with spectacle'

i claim to have a thick book on Gnostic Philosophy, as my attempt to point out that there is nothing wrong with studying it, even with priests, but the point is if priests embraces it, then there must be something wrong with the priest. (you have an unbelievable talent for misinterpretation to the point that your are leading a conversation towards hostility)

dont confuse occultic sciences with estoricism and gnosticism? so please enlighten me, with teh lack of rigid scholarship in the definition of these "sciences" do tell me, what is the difference between each one of them as if the parameters of their study and their epistemology does not overlap with each other.

again, your magnificent unintended (i hope) attempt to misinterpret my statements. What i considered BS was the point in which pseudo-intellectuals present their claims as scholarship but trimmed down the rigidity and depth of the study which is not a quality of scholarship - that is what i was referring to as BS.

i never said "stupid." Let me explain, so taht people wont mis-contextualize "bad words" BS is not pejorative when used properly. It is again use to refer to something that is non-fact, but much ballyhooed. i dont think i mentioned that word "idiot" in this thread.

so, as a free-thinking person and also a catholic christian, i argue from my reason and principles. That priesthood is incompatible with such things. If you have a problem with taht, then counter it, logically and reasonably, dont go around criticizing the style of people and considering them as "bad" because if youve read the latest books around, BS already moved its pejorative term to something that refers to what i referred earlier. you should also scold most atheists here in this forum because msot of them are very tactless with their statements, but no you prefer to scold me.
Why do you take my argument so hard, that you go so far as to consider making this exchange being "personal" in nature? im sorry to disappoint you but im not good with socializing.

as a catholic, do i want our priests to be embracing those things? of course not, they run counter to our teachings. Why do you insist so much otherwise?

and p.s, dont call me father, im yet to finish my days in the university.

[flying fish]

im not taking this personal, but it seems that you are.
the word BS is no longer considered pejorative, as it is already used to refer to something that is 'unbelievably true' a 'non-fact shrouded with spectacle'

i claim to have a thick book on Gnostic Philosophy, as my attempt to point out that there is nothing wrong with studying it, even with priests, but the point is if priests embraces it, then there must be something wrong with the priest. (you have an unbelievable talent for misinterpretation to the point that your are leading a conversation towards hostility)

dont confuse occultic sciences with estoricism and gnosticism? so please enlighten me, with teh lack of rigid scholarship in the definition of these "sciences" do tell me, what is the difference between each one of them as if the parameters of their study and their epistemology does not overlap with each other.

again, your magnificent unintended (i hope) attempt to misinterpret my statements. What i considered BS was the point in which pseudo-intellectuals present their claims as scholarship but trimmed down the rigidity and depth of the study which is not a quality of scholarship - that is what i was referring to as BS.

i never said "stupid." Let me explain, so taht people wont mis-contextualize "bad words" BS is not pejorative when used properly. It is again use to refer to something that is non-fact, but much ballyhooed. i dont think i mentioned that word "idiot" in this thread.

so, as a free-thinking person and also a catholic christian, i argue from my reason and principles. That priesthood is incompatible with such things. If you have a problem with taht, then counter it, logically and reasonably, dont go around criticizing the style of people and considering them as "bad" because if youve read the latest books around, BS already moved its pejorative term to something that refers to what i referred earlier. you should also scold most atheists here in this forum because msot of them are very tactless with their statements, but no you prefer to scold me.
Why do you take my argument so hard, that you go so far as to consider making this exchange being "personal" in nature? im sorry to disappoint you but im not good with socializing.

as a catholic, do i want our priests to be embracing those things? of course not, they run counter to our teachings. Why do you insist so much otherwise?

and p.s, dont call me father, im yet to finish my days in the university.

The priest may study esotericism but there something wrong w/ them if they embrace it?
And your argument is coming from your "reason & principles"? now this claim is a perfect example of BS, just because a priest embrace another system & see something in there as his personal truth then the person is "wrong"?
where is the logical understanding in this principle?
if you could have said that according to your "faith" then it might have been acceptable as your premise,
And also your style was the style of the church during the dark ages, spanish inquisition, etc,
That anybody who read books or any literature other than the one approved by the church are considered as witch & or heretics, & what they did to people who read other books?, dakpon,torturan,sunugon, then after so many years himo-ong santos!
now thats what you call super BS or HOLY SHIT!

And its fruitless sharing w/ you the diffrence between, esotericism/gnosticism to that of occult arts, Why? its obvious dodong, your cup is full of prejudice that even a single drop of sharing is to you "something wrong"

& thank you for the enlightenig info re BS, now i can freely use it to you w/o hesitation basta lang logical,hmmm
And so far as to your claim regarding the priest as "something wrong" if they embrace esotericism-that is BS

Why i didnt scold the atheist here since they are very tactless? its so simple, there logical arguments precede to that what you call tactlessness,
Unlike you ga-una ang tactlessness or your so called sincerity before you parade your "reason & principle" w/c by the way an attemt to divert the real issue of the topic,

im not an atheist but I like ther reasoning w/c for me fall under the category of "reasoning"
im a theist but not your caliber w/c thinks that embracing esotericism is "someting wrong"

Your a catholic? yes sarado ug naka-kandado pa gyud,

Your a free thinker? toooot thats BS, your very much imprisoned by your ideas/prejudice against
esotericism,

no im no longer be calling you a father, w/ your "reason & principles"
i think your a toddler,

i never insist my ideas by the way, just try to reason out w/ your "reason & principles,
& by the way gudluck to your studies, hope to mt you someday, i still think your a mahatma

[The_Child]

The priest may study esotericism but there something wrong w/ them if they embrace it?
And your argument is coming from your "reason & principles"? now this claim is a perfect example of BS, just because a priest embrace another system & see something in there as his personal truth then the person is "wrong"?
where is the logical understanding in this principle?
if you could have said that according to your "faith" then it might have been acceptable as your premise,
And also your style was the style of the church during the dark ages, spanish inquisition, etc,
That anybody who read books or any literature other than the one approved by the church are considered as witch & or heretics, & what they did to people who read other books?, dakpon,torturan,sunugon, then after so many years himo-ong santos!
now thats what you call super BS or HOLY SHIT!

And its fruitless sharing w/ you the diffrence between, esotericism/gnosticism to that of occult arts, Why? its obvious dodong, your cup is full of prejudice that even a single drop of sharing is to you "something wrong"

& thank you for the enlightenig info re BS, now i can freely use it to you w/o hesitation basta lang logical,hmmm
And so far as to your claim regarding the priest as "something wrong" if they embrace esotericism-that is BS

Why i didnt scold the atheist here since they are very tactless? its so simple, there logical arguments precede to that what you call tactlessness,
Unlike you ga-una ang tactlessness or your so called sincerity before you parade your "reason & principle" w/c by the way an attemt to divert the real issue of the topic,

im not an atheist but I like ther reasoning w/c for me fall under the category of "reasoning"
im a theist but not your caliber w/c thinks that embracing esotericism is "someting wrong"

Your a catholic? yes sarado ug naka-kandado pa gyud,

Your a free thinker? toooot thats BS, your very much imprisoned by your ideas/prejudice against
esotericism,

no im no longer be calling you a father, w/ your "reason & principles"
i think your a toddler,

i never insist my ideas by the way, just try to reason out w/ your "reason & principles,
& by the way gudluck to your studies, hope to mt you someday, i still think your a mahatma

Yes, way to go. You totally misunderstood the "ethics of using BS" but hey, since your very fond of it already, im not taking it away for you. IM happy for you, that you made a release of all those within.

One example of why you totally misunderstood the term of BS 1.) on regards to priests, i dont know if you know the dynamics of Christian Theology, but if we are to consider esotericism, as that which is "coming from inside" as Aristotle considered it to be, we would be left to our subjective whims to consider what is truth for us. If anything could be true according to our subjective intuitions, meditations, et al, then how would that be in league with Church Doctrines that believes Truth is known through reason and revelation?Your like this guy, who insists in seducing priests who have their commitments to their church, and their community to consider another perspective. thats what your doing, under the pretense of higher knowledge, but really, who are we to know what is higher knowledge? that is why priests are committed by faith and reason.

It boils down to faith and commitment. Why will commit to be a priest and yet at the same time, embrace other non-christian beliefs to supplement your spirituality, which is not in the first place compatible with the beliefs of the Church? how hard is that to understand? * i have been reiterating this for a million times and yet you continue to throw the same irrationality as a reply.

Personal truth? is that tantamount to saying truth is relative? if my personal truth does not cohere with tath of the truth taught to me by my church, revealed by God, does that make my personal truth still truth? or does that make my church's truth still truth? which one is truth? i though there is only one Truth, how could there be a plurality of them?


your reference to super BS and Holy Shit" is totally a product of your miscomprehension. I dont know how you could stand reading books of antiquity and yet again once again, misinterpret the things i said in normal contemporary global english. I never said reading such things are not allowed, i just said, i have a book on Gnostic Philosophy, among other things, and that priests could read it, even nuns could read, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH READING IT, WHAT IS WRONG IS IF YOU COME TO EMBRACE IT AND ABANDONED YOUR FAITH FOR SUCH THINGS THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG taking into context that they are priests - they have commitments. (is it really that difficult to understand?, next time you give a climactic "super BS" with all the exclamation points at that, and an assumption of being a literary critic criticizing my style which btw is far off from you think it is, make sure you know what your commenting about because you sound so off from the topic we are discussing, makes your statement i guess, less credible)


BIAS: its fruitless sharing with me the difference of meaning? either its fruitless which is really a bias in your part to consider that, or you really cant give an adequate definition and parameters between them.
Esotericism from within greek, occultic - from occulus, which refers to eye, to see, latin. , gnosticism - gnosis gk. knowledge. I still know my classics.

So it really wouldnt be fruitless to know your idea of it. At least in my part, i believe i have ample understanding on how Western thought separated from gnostic tradition and rational tradition. That important critical point which divides knowing either mystically or rationally. diba sauna, there was no difference of attaining knowledge, but at some point in history, rational tradition won as the dominant form of method in western thought? but im willing to hear your side, that is, if you could explain it, or you still think im bias. (dont be shy and dont worry, all my earlier interestes revolved around mysticism and gnosticism, from Plotinus, Hermes Trismegistus, Sri Aurobindo, Shankaracharya, the Upanishads - im more familiar with plotinus and advaita vedanta)

yes, do call me a toddler its way better. hence the nick.

i dont know what a mahatma is, and i dont want to be labeled one in difference to gandhi who was also a mahatma, he is beyond me.

sarado ang naka-kando ? hehe.

cheers!

that was my point on the discussion, i sounded redundant, but for you sir, id make an exception.

[flying fish]

Yes, way to go. You totally misunderstood the "ethics of using BS" but hey, since your very fond of it already, im not taking it away for you. IM happy for you, that you made a release of all those within.

One example of why you totally misunderstood the term of BS 1.) on regards to priests, i dont know if you know the dynamics of Christian Theology, but if we are to consider esotericism, as that which is "coming from inside" as Aristotle considered it to be, we would be left to our subjective whims to consider what is truth for us. If anything could be true according to our subjective intuitions, meditations, et al, then how would that be in league with Church Doctrines that believes Truth is known through reason and revelation?Your like this guy, who insists in seducing priests who have their commitments to their church, and their community to consider another perspective. thats what your doing, under the pretense of higher knowledge, but really, who are we to know what is higher knowledge? that is why priests are committed by faith and reason.

It boils down to faith and commitment. Why will commit to be a priest and yet at the same time, embrace other non-christian beliefs to supplement your spirituality, which is not in the first place compatible with the beliefs of the Church? how hard is that to understand? * i have been reiterating this for a million times and yet you continue to throw the same irrationality as a reply.

Personal truth? is that tantamount to saying truth is relative? if my personal truth does not cohere with tath of the truth taught to me by my church, revealed by God, does that make my personal truth still truth? or does that make my church's truth still truth? which one is truth? i though there is only one Truth, how could there be a plurality of them?


your reference to super BS and Holy Shit" is totally a product of your miscomprehension. I dont know how you could stand reading books of antiquity and yet again once again, misinterpret the things i said in normal contemporary global english. I never said reading such things are not allowed, i just said, i have a book on Gnostic Philosophy, among other things, and that priests could read it, even nuns could read, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH READING IT, WHAT IS WRONG IS IF YOU COME TO EMBRACE IT AND ABANDONED YOUR FAITH FOR SUCH THINGS THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG taking into context that they are priests - they have commitments. (is it really that difficult to understand?, next time you give a climactic "super BS" with all the exclamation points at that, and an assumption of being a literary critic criticizing my style which btw is far off from you think it is, make sure you know what your commenting about because you sound so off from the topic we are discussing, makes your statement i guess, less credible)


BIAS: its fruitless sharing with me the difference of meaning? either its fruitless which is really a bias in your part to consider that, or you really cant give an adequate definition and parameters between them.
Esotericism from within greek, occultic - from occulus, which refers to eye, to see, latin. , gnosticism - gnosis gk. knowledge. I still know my classics.

So it really wouldnt be fruitless to know your idea of it. At least in my part, i believe i have ample understanding on how Western thought separated from gnostic tradition and rational tradition. That important critical point which divides knowing either mystically or rationally. diba sauna, there was no difference of attaining knowledge, but at some point in history, rational tradition won as the dominant form of method in western thought? but im willing to hear your side, that is, if you could explain it, or you still think im bias. (dont be shy and dont worry, all my earlier interestes revolved around mysticism and gnosticism, from Plotinus, Hermes Trismegistus, Sri Aurobindo, Shankaracharya, the Upanishads - im more familiar with plotinus and advaita vedanta)

yes, do call me a toddler its way better. hence the nick.

i dont know what a mahatma is, and i dont want to be labeled one in difference to gandhi who was also a mahatma, he is beyond me.

sarado ang naka-kando ? hehe.

cheers!

that was my point on the discussion, i sounded redundant, but for you sir, id make an exception.

hey you just summarized your point perfectly, "redundant", though who have a follow up explanation regarding the priest, to abandon your faith is what makes it wrong, well thats another judgment comin from you w/c i differ again,
and wow you know the meanings of gnosticism, esotericism, & occult,hmmm, i should have known that youve been reading a lot of eastern thoughts, now my gut is right you must be a mahatma or a great soul,
im just wondering if let us say you read all those varied topics & yet you come to a conclusion that to abandon ones faith is wrong in favor of esotericism, that for me is a judgement coming from somebody who doesnt have any idea of esotericism, or perhaps who does not have a deeper understanding of what he reads?
I have to be honest w/ you dodong, & this is my bias regarding this matter:
For me, If you truly understand what you have been reading (gnosticism,esotericism,sancaracarya,advaita,etc) you will never be the same again,
but i guess i should have considered that it has a different effect on you,
your still trap w/ the traditions of the catholic church (w/c i wont be surprised unta if your not well versed in eastern thought),

try to read it more but this time w/ discernment

[regnauld]

I am still enslaved with my old habits and old habits die hard according to one Psychologist. My point is we are still afraid to explore and risk new behaviors and truths that is contrary to our cherished beliefs and prejudices. I know this is Crazy Wisdom. Don't follow it if doesn't make sense to you my friends!
Flying Fish...prepare for the inquisition!

[Hellblazer 2.1]

i really enjoyed the exchanges between the child and flying fish.

for me, if a priest does "embrace" esotericism, then what's wrong with it? he owes it much to himself to be true to himself.

sir child, try reading Conversations With God by neale donald walsch. but before doing that, you have to have a veeerrry broad mind to completely Understand it.

sorry sir child, but the fish is right. truth is indeed relative.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

sir child, did it ever occur to you that the doctrines of the catholic church is not working anymore? like it's already obsolete or something.