Anthroposophia

[Hellblazer 2.1]

asa ni dapit sa bible, mr.regnauld? unsay chapter and verse? and while you're at it, give me the page na lang sad.

that's how they think, mr.regnauld. they want others to do the thinking for them. how sad. carry on with the discussion, mr.regnauld.

[regnauld]

asa ni dapit sa bible, mr.regnauld? unsay chapter and verse? and while you're at it, give me the page na lang sad.

that's how they think, mr.regnauld. they want others to do the thinking for them. how sad. carry on with the discussion, mr.regnauld.

I cannot discuss anymore mr. HELL because I lost my HOLY BIBLE. Everything is there man gud! How sad!

[The_Child]

that's a rather lengthy read. but thanks for your reply. i appreciate your eloquent choice of words. but, it's still shallow. i know you're an intellectual person and i truly respect that. if you choose to stay in your comfort zone of church dogmas, that's fine by me.

esotericism does not need to be an accepted academic course because it's not a mainstream subject like the ones being taught at schools. if you see beyond the symbolism of traditions, peel away the dogmas and superstitions, you'll see a clearer version of the histories that are masked by religionism.

i'm not saying that you SHOULD study esotericism but that explore the possibilities, the wonderful possibilities of a non-ordinary reality beyond the four corners of the church. i (because i don't speak for a particular group), am not antagonizing you for holding on to your beliefs, but that if you could find it in your intelligence not to equate esotericism with the occult (not even all of the occult is a bad thing), then i might truly respect you.

if you say you're a broad-minded person, then so be it. that's your declaration and i would have to take your word for it. but the moment you judge a person, group, principle then... just don't say i didn't warn you.

good day, mr. child.

research about anthony de mello, he's a jesuit priest. his views are quite staggering when it comes to spirituality. not conventional vatican-approved thoughts. but a whole lot of common sense. i hope you also have a lot of those, mr. child.

i told myself and others, i wont reply in this thread anymore but since its raining in a summer night, guess we'll have to jive with the incoherency of our times.

explore the possibilities, have you not taken a glimpse of the posts i wrote, or do you lack the common sense to weave them together?

esotericism does not need to be an accepted academic course - it means one thing, it is still unaccepted in academic circles, why? guess why. its very common sensical besides your reason that it is not "mainstream"

anthony de mello? he is trying to jive hindu mysticism into catholic theology. i have read him, and spent countless hours with an ex-seminarian friend over coffee, talking about the guy.


common sense? i have alot of those, not to worry, worry for your own though.

when you look at Church dogma and doctrine as mere "comfort zones" it is you and not me who is guilty of being close-minded. to refer to a system as complex as Church thought as mere "comfort zone" is not only ignorant but also downright non-sensical. Hate it or like it, there is no denying of its complexity, and to say "comfort zone" is reveals so much shallowness. Have i consider esoteric literature, yes! have i considered catholic literature, yes! have you?


So tell me, how do you differentiate the Occult and Esotericism. give me a pontificated meaning of what is the occult and what is Esotericism. But let me tell you, that by doing so, you have become your own pope to your own world.

[regnauld]

i told myself and others, i wont reply in this thread anymore but since its raining in a summer night, guess we'll have to jive with the incoherency of our times.

explore the possibilities, have you not taken a glimpse of the posts i wrote, or do you lack the common sense to weave them together?

esotericism does not need to be an accepted academic course - it means one thing, it is still unaccepted in academic circles, why? guess why. its very common sensical besides your reason that it is not "mainstream"

anthony de mello? he is trying to jive hindu mysticism into catholic theology. i have read him, and spent countless hours with an ex-seminarian friend over coffee, talking about the guy.


common sense? i have alot of those, not to worry, worry for your own though.

when you look at Church dogma and doctrine as mere "comfort zones" it is you and not me who is guilty of being close-minded. to refer to a system as complex as Church thought as mere "comfort zone" is not only ignorant but also downright non-sensical. Hate it or like it, there is no denying of its complexity, and to say "comfort zone" is reveals so much shallowness. Have i consider esoteric literature, yes! have i considered catholic literature, yes! have you?


So tell me, how do you differentiate the Occult and Esotericism. give me a pontificated meaning of what is the occult and what is Esotericism. But let me tell you, that by doing so, you have become your own pope to your own world.

Do you know Fr. Thomas Merton, the Cistercian monk who wrote the seven storey mountain? He loved Zen Buddhism! He was one of the greatest spiritual writers in modern times about eastern spirituality.

[The_Child]

heard, but not read. sorry sir. why?

[regnauld]

heard, but not read. sorry sir. why?

Why? His thoughts was influenced by ZEN Buddhism and some Eastern concepts. Great Author!

[The_Child]

ok. but really, sir, your point being?

[regnauld]

ok. but really, sir, your point being?

The point is that there is no such thing as point for ZEN!

[Hellblazer 2.1]

i told myself and others, i wont reply in this thread anymore but since its raining in a summer night, guess we'll have to jive with the incoherency of our times.

explore the possibilities, have you not taken a glimpse of the posts i wrote, or do you lack the common sense to weave them together?

esotericism does not need to be an accepted academic course - it means one thing, it is still unaccepted in academic circles, why? guess why. its very common sensical besides your reason that it is not "mainstream"

anthony de mello? he is trying to jive hindu mysticism into catholic theology. i have read him, and spent countless hours with an ex-seminarian friend over coffee, talking about the guy.


common sense? i have alot of those, not to worry, worry for your own though.

when you look at Church dogma and doctrine as mere "comfort zones" it is you and not me who is guilty of being close-minded. to refer to a system as complex as Church thought as mere "comfort zone" is not only ignorant but also downright non-sensical. Hate it or like it, there is no denying of its complexity, and to say "comfort zone" is reveals so much shallowness. Have i consider esoteric literature, yes! have i considered catholic literature, yes! have you?


So tell me, how do you differentiate the Occult and Esotericism. give me a pontificated meaning of what is the occult and what is Esotericism. But let me tell you, that by doing so, you have become your own pope to your own world.

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. you talk too much.

[The_Child]

OT:

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. you talk too much.

hehe.

alteast i talk too much, you on the other hand, whine too much.