Category talk:Anthroposophy

Untitled
Linking this to the category "Pseudoscience" does not meet Wikipedia consensus guidelines (see Talk:Anthroposophy)Hgilbert 08:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Counterculture
This category is also not applicable -- there were some overlaps in the '60s and '70s, but not so much before or since. HGilbert (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Christian new religious movements
Also not. These are all solidly oriented around Christianity, while most of the content of anthroposophy is unrelated to this. (Most of Steiner's work is unrelated to religious themes, while the religious themes include Buddhist, Jewish, and Hindu topics as well.)

There is a sense in which anthroposophy is esoterically Christian, but this does not apply to these other NRMs and so categorizing these together is very confusing. (Mainly it's just esoteric.) HGilbert (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Karl König
I don't know why there has been an edit war over this -- but he clearly belongs here, as he was one of the chief founders of one of the main practical branches of anthroposophy, the Camphill movement. Cl ea n Co py talk 01:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Divergence from conventional Christian thought
Steiner's views of Christianity diverge from conventional Christian thought in key places, and include gnostic elements:


 * One central point of divergence is Steiner's views on reincarnation and karma.
 * Steiner differentiated three contemporary paths by which he believed it possible to arrive at Christ:
 * Through heart-felt experiences of the Gospels; Steiner described this as the historically dominant path, but becoming less important in the future.
 * Through inner experiences of a spiritual reality; this Steiner regarded as increasingly the path of spiritual or religious seekers today.
 * Through initiatory experiences whereby the reality of Christ's death and resurrection are experienced; Steiner believed this is the path people will increasingly take.
 * Steiner also believed that there were two different Jesus children involved in the Incarnation of the Christ: one child descended from Solomon, as described in the Gospel of Matthew, the other child from Nathan, as described in the Gospel of Luke. (The genealogies given in the two gospels diverge some thirty generations before Jesus' birth, and 'Jesus' was a common name in biblical times.)
 * His view of the second coming of Christ is also unusual; he suggested that this would not be a physical reappearance, but that the Christ being would become manifest in non-physical form, visible to spiritual vision and apparent in community life for increasing numbers of people beginning around the year 1933.
 * He emphasized his belief that in the future humanity would need to be able to recognize the Spirit of Love in all its genuine forms, regardless of what name would be used to describe this being. He also warned that the traditional name of the Christ might be misused, and the true essence of this being of love ignored.

"Theosophy, together with its continental sister, Anthroposophy... are pure Gnosticism in Hindu dress..."

- C.G. Jung

According to Jane Gilmer, "Jung and Steiner were both versed in ancient gnosis and both envisioned a paradigmatic shift in the way it was delivered."

As Gilles Quispel put it, "After all, Theosophy is a pagan, Anthroposophy a Christian form of modern Gnosis."

Maria Carlson stated "Theosophy and Anthroposophy are fundamentally Gnostic systems in that they posit the dualism of Spirit and Matter."

R. McL. Wilson in The Oxford Companion to the Bible agrees that Steiner and Anthroposophy are under the influence of gnosticism.

The teachings of Anthroposophy are essentially Christian Gnosticism. Indeed, according to the official stance of the Catholic Church, Anthroposophy is "a neognostic heresy". Other heresiologists agree. The Lutheran (Missouri Sinod) apologist and heresiologist Eldon K. Winker said that Steiner had the same Christology as Cerinthus. Indeed, Steiner thought that Jesus and Christ were two separated beings, who got fused for a while.

The above is copy/pasted from Anthroposophy. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And, of course, you may add Hermeticism and Rosicrucianism, since these three categories aren't mutually exclusive. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, that has been considered "Gnostic" within the 19th and 20th Century largely relied on the Heresiographics of Christian writers who assumed that Gnosticism was somehow related to Luciferianism and the Occult, something contemporary scholarship on Gnosticism largely rejects up to my knowledge. So, Anthroposophy is rather a pseudo-Gnostic school of thought, and lacks, up to my knowledge, the general characteristics of original Gnostic teachings, such as Sethians, Ophites, Cathars, and Mandaeans, including an inverted-Genesis, Body/Spirit-dualism, search for freeing one's soul. For example "Anthroposophy speaks of the reincarnation of the human spirit: that the human being passes between stages of existence, incarnating into an earthly body, living on earth, leaving the body behind, and entering into the spiritual worlds before returning to be born again into a new life on earth.", seems to be anti-Gnostic. Early Gnostics might have believed in reincarnation, as evident from the concept of the Leviathan, but it was always considered as bad, sicne the goal was to be free from both the world of body as well as the world of mind. However, I wouldn't edit-war about it. I just stumbled over that when cleaning up the categories for Occultism and Islam. If you think Anthroposophy should be categoried as a form of Gnosticism, it is fine by me. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yup, Gnosticism means different things for different people. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, thats the misunderstanding here, then. I assumed the category was solely about the early Christian movement. If the category is intented to gather all movements, then it makes sense to include anthroposophy. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * IMHO, Steiner was a monist, and even made sophisticated arguments that Manichaeism was monistic, instead of dualistic. But, again, Wikipedia is not about my own opinions, it is about what WP:RS say. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course Wikipedia is about the sources, nontheless sources might use one term with different meanings. (I realize that I don't if this disctinction exists in English, but in German we have a distinction between "Begriff" (the meaning of a term) and "Ausdruck" (the written term itself)). This arguement by Steiner that Manichaeism was monistic is interesting. I was not awre that Steiner was that much into depths about original Gnosticism. Thanks for the input, I really appreciate that. Also thanks for clarifying that, I would have made a mistake here. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)