Religious Movements in the Right Direction

About: middle east stage: abeja dispatch - january 5, 2000

source: We call it 'progressive revelation.' God sends teachings that are appropriate for that time. Buddha taught us to develop the self. Jesus taught to love your neighbor. Mohammed's revelation was about loving your country, and Bah

Tags

  1. bahai
  2. religions

Comments


Seth says
source: M above
The Anthroposophical occult perspective has Christ uniting himself with the Earth through the etheric body at the Mystery of Golgotha which in principle says that he is of the whole Earth.
So Christ is Gaia.

Mark de LA says
Through the Event on Golgotha the Being Who could previously be experienced only in spiritual heights united with earthly humanity. Since the time He passed through death on Golgotha, Christ lives in all human souls alike. He is the source of strength whereby every soul can find its way into the spiritual world. Human souls on earth have been transformed by the Mystery of Golgotha. The Christ came, as He said,

Seth says
M 2006-09-16 10:08:49 4434
seth 2006-09-16 10:04:52 4434
M 2006-09-16 09:56:43 4434
prolly more than the notion of Gaia which is akin to "Mother Nature" .
... apparently you draw distinctions that i do not.  If they are "united" then they should be taken as a whole, notwistanding that you can look at the whole from differnet perspectives and thereby see different things.
Mother nature is a good name for the physical body of the Earth. Just like the human being has more than the physical body - so does the Earth (according to Anthroposophy).
Like i said, you make distinctions that i do not.  I put process as the top class in my ontology. All things are processess.  The Earth (Gaia, or Christ) is a thing.  Whatever process impinges on that unity is part of the same whole.  Whatever you refer to as "physical body of the Earth" must be part of that whole to which i refer to as Gaia which is united with Christ as a whole process.

Mark de LA says
About Anthroposophy in the Wikipedia for those who do not already know.



Mark de LA says
seth 2006-09-16 10:04:52 4434
M 2006-09-16 09:56:43 4434
prolly more than the notion of Gaia which is akin to "Mother Nature" .
... apparently you draw distinctions that i do not.  If they are "united" then they should be taken as a whole, notwistanding that you can look at the whole from differnet perspectives and thereby see different things.
Mother nature is a good name for the physical body of the Earth. Just like the human being has more than the physical body - so does the Earth (according to Anthroposophy).

Mark de LA says
seth 2006-09-16 10:28:52 4434
M 2006-09-16 10:08:49 4434
seth 2006-09-16 10:04:52 4434
M 2006-09-16 09:56:43 4434
prolly more than the notion of Gaia which is akin to "Mother Nature" .
... apparently you draw distinctions that i do not.  If they are "united" then they should be taken as a whole, notwistanding that you can look at the whole from differnet perspectives and thereby see different things.
Mother nature is a good name for the physical body of the Earth. Just like the human being has more than the physical body - so does the Earth (according to Anthroposophy).
Like i said, you make distinctions that i do not.  I put process as the top class in my ontology. All things are processess.  The Earth (Gaia, or Christ) is a thing.  Whatever process impinges on that unity is part of the same whole.  Whatever you refer to as "physical body of the Earth" must be part of that whole to which i refer to as Gaia which is united with Christ as a whole process.
The word you use impinge is rather strange in this context. You are certainly allowed and capable of making a goulash of a bunch of distinctions which may or not help get your point across & may confuse those who have the finer distinctions.

Mark de LA says
Not only does Seth not believe in the Anthroposophical notion of Christ uniting himself with the Earth - he also makes a ham sandwich of the notion of Gaia (mother nature) & Christ.  In a way he is mocking the divinity of Christ, but in the sphere of Chesed or (Malkuth for the blog) he is allowed to do that. 


Mark de LA says
I think at this point the diversion from the original topic should spawn a new item rather than extending this one by comments. 



Seth says
M 2006-09-16 10:38:45 4434
seth 2006-09-16 10:28:52 4434
M 2006-09-16 10:08:49 4434
seth 2006-09-16 10:04:52 4434
M 2006-09-16 09:56:43 4434
prolly more than the notion of Gaia which is akin to "Mother Nature" .
... apparently you draw distinctions that i do not.  If they are "united" then they should be taken as a whole, notwistanding that you can look at the whole from differnet perspectives and thereby see different things.
Mother nature is a good name for the physical body of the Earth. Just like the human being has more than the physical body - so does the Earth (according to Anthroposophy).
Like i said, you make distinctions that i do not.  I put process as the top class in my ontology. All things are processess.  The Earth (Gaia, or Christ) is a thing.  Whatever process impinges on that unity is part of the same whole.  Whatever you refer to as "physical body of the Earth" must be part of that whole to which i refer to as Gaia which is united with Christ as a whole process.
The word you use impinge is rather strange in this context. You are certainly allowed and capable of making a goulash of a bunch of distinctions which may or not help get your point across & may confuse those who have the finer distinctions.
Well you may be right there ... impinge might be the wrong word ... and the whole expression was composed rather hastily and does not really get my point across.  It might be better to apporach this from a different angel.  I do not distinguish between a person's physical body and a person's spiritual body ... in Anthroposophical terms "etheric body" and "astral body" and "ego body".  For me those are all the same thing.  The same process.  They can appear in different aspects from differing points of view and that is where you get these distinctions. But when you say something about the whole ... when you say that one name of the whole is just another name of the whole ... like when i said ... Gaia is Christ ... then it is assumed that you are talking about all aspects at once.  Just like i would say "The morning star is the evening star" sluffing off the knowledge that the one is always seen in the morning and the other is always seen in the evening.   Simply put, the gestalt is that they are the same thing. It is a gestalt and a surprise that what people regard as Gaia is also the same thing as what others regard as Christ and what even others regard as mother nature.

Seth says
M 2006-09-16 10:49:18 4434
Not only does Seth not believe in the Anthroposophical notion of Christ uniting himself with the Earth - he also makes a ham sandwich of the notion of Gaia (mother nature) & Christ.  In a way he is mocking the divinity of Christ, but in the sphere of Chesed or (Malkuth for the blog) he is allowed to do that. 
Your comment is riddled with untruths.

Mark de LA says
seth 2006-09-16 11:06:46 4434
M 2006-09-16 10:49:18 4434
Not only does Seth not believe in the Anthroposophical notion of Christ uniting himself with the Earth - he also makes a ham sandwich of the notion of Gaia (mother nature) & Christ.  In a way he is mocking the divinity of Christ, but in the sphere of Chesed or (Malkuth for the blog) he is allowed to do that. 
Your comment is riddled with untruths.
Well at some point there is a distinction between Christ & Gaia.  Christ once walked the earth & was crucified. I don't think Gaia, whatever the notion (Mother Earth, Mother Nature etc.) ever was crucified or walked on herself.  You united yourself with Denise in marriage on a Valentine's Day - yet I can tell the difference between the two of you today.


Mark de LA says
seth 2006-09-16 11:06:46 4434
M 2006-09-16 10:49:18 4434
Not only does Seth not believe in the Anthroposophical notion of Christ uniting himself with the Earth - he also makes a ham sandwich of the notion of Gaia (mother nature) & Christ.  In a way he is mocking the divinity of Christ, but in the sphere of Chesed or (Malkuth for the blog) he is allowed to do that. 
Your comment is riddled with untruths.
Which?? In another comment you wrote off Anthroposophical ideas as fantasy which you parted company with in your adolesence.  You have lost the distinction between Gaia & Christ.  Christ is not Mother Nature.  So where are the untruiths?

Seth says
M 2006-09-16 11:44:31 4434
Well at some point there is a distinction between Christ & Gaia. 
Yes and there is a distinction between the morning star and the evening star too; yet they are both manifistations of the same planet.
Christ once walked the earth & was crucified.
My recolllection of Anthrosphical dogma had it that Jesua walked the earth.  "Jesus" was the name of the human aspect of the entity.
I don't think Gaia, whatever the notion (Mother Earth, Mother Nature etc.) ever was crucified or walked on herself. 
Don't forget that the equation in question is "Christ = Gaia", not "Jesus = Gaia".  The event of the uniting of Christ with the Earth is a historical event.  What came into the process heretofor called just "Earth"  with that historical event ?  What did the humans, who are also part of this process, learn?  How did they become different? 
You united yourself with Denise in marriage on a Valentine's Day - yet I can tell the difference between the two of you today.
Sorry not the same kind of uniting.  Look 911 changed the Earth too.  It was not just the towers that collapsed.  The change was very profound.  The same with happened on Golgotha.  The history of the Earth changed.  Marriage is quite a different thing.

Mark de LA says
Rational, Reason & logic are GIGO* phenomena.  Christ is NOT Gaia!  When Christ united himself with the body-soul of Jesus he walked the Earth. If you read any of the reference in my first comment you would know what happened to the humans. Christ uniting himself with the Earth is also not the same kind of uniting as your invalid equation. Christ did not become the Earth, IMHO.  These kinds of things are hard to make rational statements about because they are about divinity & the spiritual.  Also they are like Art or Music whose essence really can't be explained either.

* Garbage In Garbage Out

See Also

  1. Thought Religion of Love vs Hate with 5 viewings related by tag "religions".
  2. Thought about: Saudi cleric says West fearful of spread of Islam with 0 viewings related by tag "religions".
  3. Thought Major Religious Adherents with 0 viewings related by tag "religions".