Rudolf
Steiner said that the moon was formed from the earth.
And surely
you will tell me that this statement does not have anything particular, since
science says the same thing. But the detail is that Rudolf Steiner gives a very
different explanation science gives, since Steiner ensures that:
« After the earth was materialized, a
very important cosmic event took place at that time: the sun was extracted from
the earth and the solar forces simply left the earth.
So the sun
was composed from a part of what had existed on earth in the life ether and in
the chemical and light ether. And the other part was taken from the light ether
of plants and humans. And these solar forces, so to speak, were withdrawn from
the earth.
And the
separation of the sun from the earth caused that the earth to cool and solidify
more, and some time later a cosmic catastrophe happened, caused by the
extraction of the moon also from the earth.
And this
event caused a great revolution because with the separation of the moon from
the earth, the moon also took away all its moon forces which also disappeared
from the earth, and therefore during this period the humans could no longer impregnate
themselves and produce other beings (like them) without outside help.
And that is
why thereafter humans have to procreate by the interaction of the two sexes,
and it is therefore understandable that the moon is considered as the symbol of
the sexual reproduction force, because the moon initiated that form of reproduction. »
(This
is found in his book "Cosmic Memory" in chapters 9 and 10)
So, Rudolf
Steiner wants us to believe that when the earth was materialized, the sun came
out of the earth and was formed from the ethereal substance of the planet and
the beings that inhabit it.
And then the
moon also came out of the earth and that is why humans already they cannot
reproduce individually, but after the departure of the moon, now humans need to
mate with the opposite sex to be able to procreate...
And now you
will understand me when I say:
Oh my God!
Because I
have rarely read anything so crazy and I cannot understand how there are
individuals who consider Rudolf Steiner as a great clairvoyant.
His
defenders have tried to compose the disparate that he said, arguing that it was
not the current earth, but an earlier manifestation where the celestial bodies were
still united.
But that is false,
because specifically Rudolf Steiner said that his narration correspond to:
« The Akasha Chronicle back into
that remote past in which our present Earth had its beginning. By “Earth” is to
be understood that condition of our planet by virtue of which it can support
minerals, plants, animals, and men in their form of today. »
So clearly Rudolf
Steiner is stating that his story corresponds to Earth as we know it today.
And other
defenders have argued that it is not the physical sun and the physical moon,
but they are "energy forces" associated with those two celestial
bodies. But that is also false because Rudolf Steiner clearly points out that
after the sun separated from the earth:
- "The plants began to live under the influence of the light of that sun that had come out.
- "And in the human body, particular organs sensitive to the light began to develop, that is the first rudiments of human eyes."
So clearly Rudolf Steiner is talking about the physical sun and therefore also the physical moon.
And the
question that arises is:
Why did Rudolf Steiner say something so absurd?
And the
answer is because Rudolf Steiner based him on what is written in the Bible to
elaborate his "creation story" because in the book of Genesis it is
mentioned that:
« The first day God created the
heavens and the earth.
The second day God made the firmament, and divided the waters.
The third day God appears the continents.
And only the fourth day God created the sun
and the moon. »
And since
Rudolf Steiner took this narration literally, he considered that if at the beginning
only the earth existed, then the sun and the moon must have extracted from the
earth...
~ * ~
And this Steiner’s statement shows that his supposed
clairvoyance that he presumed very much was only fantasies of his imagination.
No comments:
Post a Comment