"dove people" (trying to recapture the deleted thread)

Eginolf · **Posted:** 01 Sep 2009 4:20 pm

alexius wrote:

Well Eginolf I never wear a hat, sorry. As for that old Austrian proverb well what can I say after all the Austrians gave us Wittgenstein and ---er schnitzel aand er AH but we don't mention him much these days.
A lot of Austrians believed in him alright but I suppose that they later excused themselves by quoting that old proverb - they believed but they didn't know!

Fallen into the trap ... again.

Never mind Freud, Mozart, Schubert, Kafka, Klimt, Schiele ... ALWAYS go straight to Hitler.

No comment.

Thomas D. · **Posted:** 01 Sep 2009 5:49 pm

Not to mention good old Rudolph Steiner who said the odd word or two on subjects of interest to our work here.
:wink:

Sheila · **Posted:** 01 Sep 2009 8:09 pm

Absolutely Thomas, well said..maybe more so than you think.

Seeker1 · **Posted:** 01 Sep 2009 9:18 pm

I've read many of the books on Cathars by historians like Zoe Oldenburg, Malcolm Barber, LeRoy Ladurie, etc. Never found any mention of any Book of Love. It's a nice romantic concept. Fits into that whole AMOR-ROMA opposition people like to go on and on about.

Only one I can find is by the doo-wop group, the Monotones, in the 1950s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Love_(song)

I will say this much about the Cathars. Like other Gnostic/Manichean groups, there's one aspect to them I don't like -- their extreme hostility to the physical and material world, which they spent so much time trying to escape because they saw it as a prison. They rejected sexuality, the flesh, the natural world, saw them all as creations of a fallen, false demiurge.

I don't find that worldview so "lovely".

Sheila · **Posted:** 01 Sep 2009 9:59 pm

Not wanting to come across as antagonistic Seeker ...but you are missing the whole point of the "material world"...it doesn't exist...nothing in this materialistic world matters...this journey we are on is a journey for our souls... the only thing we need to learn is love.

I'm the last person who understands all this.....but it is the truth....like it or lump it.

The daily life we perceive with our five senses is not reality...reality as we see it is an illusion.
Conciousness shapes our reality..quantum physics has proved that space & time are an illusion of perception...

Seeker1 · **Posted:** 01 Sep 2009 11:22 pm

Sheila wrote:

Not wanting to come across as antagonistic Seeker ...but you are missing the whole point of the "material world"...it doesn't exist...nothing in this materialistic world matters...

That's one worldview.

Here's another.

"Katsumoto: The perfect blossom is a rare thing. You could spend your life looking for one, and it would not be a wasted life." -

-- The Last Samurai

And at the moment of death he realizes.

"Katsumoto: [last words, about cherry blossoms] Perfect. They... are all... perfect..." -

Would a Demiurge, a Deceiver, a Ialdaoboth, a Rex Mundi, have made such things of great beauty?

That's what I think I reject about Gnosticism. I appreciate their rejection of intermediary spiritual hierarchies, and that they saw the search for knowledge (gnosis) as the key to salvation, but I have never accepted their rejection of the material world.

rain · **Posted:** 02 Sep 2009 12:40 am

From Rain's "book of love."

I love you guys thank-you so much for this thread.
yay you did it.
:lol:

http://bible.cc/luke/3-28.htm

Quote:

Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

People's New Testament

3:23-38 The Genealogy. For a comparison of the genealogies given by Matthew and Luke, see notes on Mt 1:1-17. In these notes I have followed Godet, Van Oosterzee, and others in the view that Luke gives the line of Mary, and therefore the line of Christ. Jesus was only supposed to be the son of Joseph, but was the son (i.e, descendant, grandson) of Heli, the father of Mary.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

3:23-38 Matthew's list of the forefathers of Jesus showed that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed, and heir to the throne of David; but Luke shows that Jesus was the Seed of the woman that should break the serpent's head, and traces the line up to Adam, beginning with Eli, or Heli, the father, not of Joseph, but of Mary. The seeming differences between the two evangelists in these lists of names have been removed by learned men. But our salvation does not depend upon our being able to solve these difficulties, nor is the Divine authority of the Gospels at all weakened by them. The list of names ends thus, Who was the son of Adam, the son of God; that is, the offspring of God by creation. Christ was both the son of Adam and the Son of God, that he might be a proper Mediator between God and the sons of Adam, and might bring the sons of Adam to be, through him, the sons of God. All flesh, as descended from the first Adam, is as grass, and withers as the flower of the field; but he who partakes of the Holy Spirit of life from the Second Adam, has that eternal happiness, which by the gospel is preached unto us.

Think about St Anthony and St Paul in the desert PoS painting.
The dove is a carrier.
LOVE & PEACE.

Quote:

[edit] Genesis 14
In the Masoretic (Hebrew) biblical text the name is written as two words ("malki zedek") and pointed as מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק or מַלְכִּי־צָדֶק (pronounced in standard Hebrew as Malki-ẓédeq or Malki-ẓádeq and in Tiberian vocalization as Malkî-ṣéḏeq or Malkî-ṣāḏeq). In the Septuagint and the New Testament he appears as Μελχισεδέκ, and in the Latin Vulgate as Melchisedech. iIn the Authorised King James Version of 1611 he appeared as Melchizedek in the Old Testament and Melchisedec in the New Testament.

Code:

The Epistle to the Hebrews[9], along with Philo[10] and Josephus[11][12], interprets the name as meaning "the king of righteousness", all apparently based on the Hebrew words "melek", meaning "King",[13] and "tzedek" (or tzadik), meaning "righteous(ness)".[14]. This interpretation is held also by some modern scholars because in the Dead Sea Scroll 4QAmram 2.3 is found the opposite name Melchi-resha ("king of evil") for a chief angel of darkness.[15]

While the interpretation "king of righteousness/righteous king" is not impossible, the word "malki" contains a possessive pronoun, and means "my king". The opinion of many modern scholars is that this interpretation is therefore unlikely, and that the original name was probably "[the god] Sedeq is my king", based on the attested Canaanite/Phoenician god "Suduk" or "Sudek", or, less likely, "My king is righteous(ness)".[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek

LOVE AND PEACE

lovuian · **Posted:** 02 Sep 2009 12:57 am

Mystical Love is a thing to behold

The Holy Spirit is the Messenger

Renne · **Posted:** 02 Sep 2009 1:05 am

Edginolf - I just finished reading my great-grandfathers 1873 description of Vienna. Be glad that you live in 2009.

I read that with the Cathars, one had to starve to really be perfect. That dualism from Persia still persists in Islam today. The rejection of the material world leads to the rejection of women as the representatives of the material world. I think it`s a drug thing, drugs as the origin of that way of thinking.

alexius · **Posted:** 02 Sep 2009 8:45 am

Eginolf wrote:

alexius wrote:

Well Eginolf I never wear a hat, sorry. As for that old Austrian proverb well what can I say after all the Austrians gave us Wittgenstein and ---er schnitzel aand er AH but we don't mention him much these days.
A lot of Austrians believed in him alright but I suppose that they later excused themselves by quoting that old proverb - they believed but they didn't know!

Fallen into the trap ... again.

Never mind Freud, Mozart, Schubert, Kafka, Klimt, Schiele ... ALWAYS go straight to Hitler.

No comment.

And that is just what the Austrians did - ran joyously into the terrible clutches of AH to whom all the people you name (possible exceptions Mozart & Schubert but then again perhaps not given AH's musical tastes) were anathema. Poor Austria a country a bit like Great Brutain (a description that not a typo) today; a small country, once a great empire, whose future is all in the past.

alexius · **Posted:** 02 Sep 2009 8:58 am

In his posting above Seeker1 writes:-
"Would a Demiurge, a Deceiver, a Ialdaoboth, a Rex Mundi, have made such things of great beauty"

Why not if the intention was to deceive for the purpose of leading astray imperfect humankind?

What the Cathars were seeking was a method of reconciling the two flawed aspects (woman and man) of what should have been a perfect being through a transcending love in the form of a perfected sexual union which wpuld transcend love itself and destroy the illusory world and open the Gateway back into a primordial paradise.

Eginolf · **Posted:** 02 Sep 2009 10:04 am

alexius wrote:

Eginolf wrote:

alexius wrote:

Well Eginolf I never wear a hat, sorry. As for that old Austrian proverb well what can I say after all the Austrians gave us Wittgenstein and ---er schnitzel aand er AH but we don't mention him much these days.
A lot of Austrians believed in him alright but I suppose that they later excused themselves by quoting that old proverb - they believed but they didn't know!

Fallen into the trap ... again.

Never mind Freud, Mozart, Schubert, Kafka, Klimt, Schiele ... ALWAYS go straight to Hitler.

No comment.

And that is just what the Austrians did - ran joyously into the terrible clutches of AH to whom all the people you name (possible exceptions Mozart & Schubert but then again perhaps not given AH's musical tastes) were anathema. Poor Austria a country a bit like Great Brutain (a description that not a typo) today; a small country, once a great empire, whose future is all in the past.

Absurd, impossible and racist. Ridiculous, idiotic and inexcusable.
You are some kind of a nasty, biting thing. And missed the topic by light years.
But there you go. Paper is patient, and so is the internet. Any dummy can write anything. :lol:

How come you "don't mention AH much these days ..." ?? :lol:

Eginolf · **Posted:** 02 Sep 2009 10:06 am

alexius wrote:

What the Cathars were seeking was a method of reconciling the two flawed aspects (woman and man) of what should have been a perfect being through a transcending love in the form of a perfected sexual union which wpuld transcend love itself and destroy the illusory world and open the Gateway back into a primordial paradise.

Quite wrong, but the internet has patience ...

alexius · **Posted:** 02 Sep 2009 11:05 am

Eginolf wrote:

alexius wrote:

What the Cathars were seeking was a method of reconciling the two flawed aspects (woman and man) of what should have been a perfect being through a transcending love in the form of a perfected sexual union which wpuld transcend love itself and destroy the illusory world and open the Gateway back into a primordial paradise.

Quite wrong, but the internet has patience ...

Care to expatiate on my wrongness? Still if you don't Seeker is almost certain to. So bring it on as the Cathars said at Montsegur or at least they did in the Movie!

Eginolf · **Posted:** 02 Sep 2009 3:30 pm

alexius wrote:

Care to expatiate on my wrongness?

To a ridiculous racist? So sorry ... :lol:

alexius · **Posted:** 02 Sep 2009 4:06 pm

Eginolf wrote:

alexius wrote:

Care to expatiate on my wrongness?

To a ridiculous racist? So sorry ... :lol:

PERHAPS YOU WOULD CARE TO EXPATIATE ON THE ABOVE ACCUSATION THEN WHICH I REGARD AS EXTREMELY SERIOUS AND I WOULD BE MOST INTERESTED TO HEAR THE GROUNDS ON WHICH YOU BASE IT. IF IT SPRINGS FROM YOUR INTERPRETATION OF MY REMARKS RE THE AUSTRIANS AND A.H. THEN YOU ARE EXTREMELY THIN-SKINNED. I CAN SAY THOUGH THAT MY GRANDPARENTS (GREEK) DID NOT HAVE HAPPY MEMORIES OF THOSE BEARERS OF TEUTONIC CULTURE WHO OCCUPIED GREECE FROM 1941-1945. KEEP YOUR INSULTS TO YOURSELF IN FUTURE - THAT WOULD BE WISE.

Sheila · **Posted:** 02 Sep 2009 8:32 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yM2LEyAYoI

Please watch...this is part 2 ...if you understand, go back to basics and watch part 1

alexius · **Posted:** 02 Sep 2009 9:27 pm

Roger wrote:

Eginolf wrote:

alexius wrote:

What the Cathars were seeking was a method of reconciling the two flawed aspects (woman and man) of what should have been a perfect being through a transcending love in the form of a perfected sexual union which wpuld transcend love itself and destroy the illusory world and open the Gateway back into a primordial paradise.

Quite wrong, but the internet has patience ...

Perhaps the internet does... whatever that means, but I definitely do not have any left!
:cry:

Sorry to hear that Roger it's just the sort of thing Innocent III might have said when considering the "Cathar problem."

lovuian · **Posted:** 02 Sep 2009 10:23 pm

Sheilia

Love the video
and yes Everything is connected

"Dove"
"Love"

very similiar

Renne · **Posted:** 03 Sep 2009 1:16 am

Can`t we all just get along?! My daughter`s father`s father was from an Austrian family and their last name was mentioned in the above movie during the singing contest.

Seeker1 · **Posted:** 03 Sep 2009 2:34 am

alexius wrote:

Care to expatiate on my wrongness? Still if you don't Seeker is almost certain to.

SInce you've offered an invite ... you are absolutely wrong. It would be nice and New Agey to think the Cathars practiced Tantric sex, but they didn't. In fact, those that took the Consolamentum, renounced all sexuality, in all its forms.

http://www.cathar.info/120104_elect.htm

When a believer underwent the consolamentum, his or her life changed for ever. After this rite they were members of the Elect. From now on they would lead the life of an ascetic. They were to be completely chaste, and were not permitted even to touch members of the opposite sex.

http://www.cathar.info/120519_belibaste.htm

In violation of the celibacy demanded of the Cathar elect, Bélibaste enjoyed sexual relations with at least one woman. According to Cathar belief, this act nulified the effects of the Consolamentum so from that point onwards he was no longer a Parfait.

[snip]

Yes, those who never took the consolamentum and never became parfaits could continue enjoying sexuality, even the procreative type (which the Cathars considered the worst, since it entrapped more souls in material bodies). But the parfaits were expected to renounce it.

alexius · **Posted:** 03 Sep 2009 6:22 am

Whilst paying due deference to your great, apparently polymathic, knowledge Seeker I still maintain that the true aim of the Cathars was seeking to restore the perfect androgynous condition of the first created being Adam Kadmon and that they sought to accomplish this through an ideated form of sexual relations. The Book of Love was a key to this.

Eginolf · **Posted:** 03 Sep 2009 8:56 am

alexius wrote:

PERHAPS YOU WOULD CARE TO EXPATIATE ON THE ABOVE ACCUSATION THEN WHICH I REGARD AS EXTREMELY SERIOUS AND I WOULD BE MOST INTERESTED TO HEAR THE GROUNDS ON WHICH YOU BASE IT. IF IT SPRINGS FROM YOUR INTERPRETATION OF MY REMARKS RE THE AUSTRIANS AND A.H. THEN YOU ARE EXTREMELY THIN-SKINNED. I CAN SAY THOUGH THAT MY GRANDPARENTS (GREEK) DID NOT HAVE HAPPY MEMORIES OF THOSE BEARERS OF TEUTONIC CULTURE WHO OCCUPIED GREECE FROM 1941-1945. KEEP YOUR INSULTS TO YOURSELF IN FUTURE - THAT WOULD BE WISE.

I won't care about anybody's racism. It's not my business.

Seeker1 · **Posted:** 03 Sep 2009 1:59 pm

alexius wrote:

Whilst paying due deference to your great, apparently polymathic, knowledge Seeker I still maintain that the true aim of the Cathars was seeking to restore the perfect androgynous condition of the first created being Adam Kadmon and that they sought to accomplish this through an ideated form of sexual relations. The Book of Love was a key to this.

That's good, which is why I'll ask again, why it can't be found in any of the works of historians writing about the Cathars, considering that, unlike Elizabeth Van Buren and Kathleen McGowan, these people have pored over hundreds of primary source materials written by the Cathars themselves.

So I'm sure you have some proof of its existence, since you believe this. Once again, I ask you to show your cards.

rain · **Posted:** 03 Sep 2009 2:07 pm

"Book of Love" is a Metaphor so to speak, which was why I was so excited. Not because there actually was a physical book but it represented something else. Closure on a question I had about a secondary pillar. I'm answering even though the question wasn't directed at me so my previous post on the topic didn't mislead people.

Arcadia Discussion Zone

"dove people" (trying to recapture the deleted thread)

Who is online