Talks And Events

The curriculum for Waldorf Schools is public and available to anyone who wishes to read up on it. Why you think that children are taught to believe in gnomes and reincarnation, these ideas are not taught in the curriculum. I am not sure what your issue is regarding this, but there are more important threats to children than Waldorf Schools. The education was designed to foster independent thinking in children, and in a response to the horrors of World War 1. Anthroposophy was banned by the Nazi’s who felt it was a threat to their power, many Anthroposophists left Germany during the Nazi era to escape imprisonment. Please educate yourself, much of what you are spouting off is just downright false. As with any organization, there are problems. If you find this all so distasteful, just don’t engage. The movement is too small and insignificant to have any impact, the evils of television and racism are a greater threat to children than an education that emphases arts and gardening. One would think you were rejected or something to have such ire against the organization

John Amos Comenius – The Father of Modern Education was also a practising mystic. A great number of educationalists over the years have also been mystics. They enter into the education of children and young people as a philanthropic attempt to bring education and greater knowledge to children. It is hard to find a scientist whose work are taught at schools who are not also mystics, although not always obviously and openly, but so many are. Science and Mysticism go together extremely well, science relies on intuition and inspiration, and good mystics look upon their work with the use of the scientific method, examining variables and repeating work with different variables to understand the core factors at work. Your quackometer doesn’t appear to work or is poorly described, it’s been looking at my website for over two hours and no results as yet after two separate attempts. I was hoping for a 10 score as I have spent at least one lifetime helping others to cope with pain, and to dispel depression and disease in these ways.

Here is the Truth. Andy Lewis and James Randi are the most prominent bloggers against Homeopathic Alternative treatments. Their work is not unbiased or scientific in anyway because they do not address the lies or radical ineffectiveness of conventional medicine especially in cases of advanced cancers. They spend their time bashing Natural remedy. Period. This makes me think they are paid to do so. What benefit does a real scientist have by condemning such a big component of the overall equation? They spend a lot of time trying to disprove Naturalism so they must be getting paid. That is merely an assertion (based on Mr lewis’ own words) to get you to think for yourselves.

If Homeopathic and Natural remedy is so bad then why is it a part of most conventional treatment? If it is so bad then why is it so integral in keeping cancer/disease away? If it has the power to keep disease away (by focusing on the bodies own ability to heal itself) then why doesn’t it have the ability to cure? Furthermore Andy Lewis says that natural doctors are not doctors at all… why? A doctor is concerned about healing and teaching. In fact, if Andy Lewis is a real doctor why is it that I have not learned anything from his posts? He is neither a healer nor a teacher. He is a critic, a skeptic, and a egotistical blogger. Read his replies to peoples’ comments. Read for yourself. Research yourself.

In the end anyone who literally bashes, chinese medicine, homeopathic natural medicine, or any other method that spends its energy on healing and teaching, then we have to question the credibility of such a person. You can spend a lot of time researching the validity of these skeptics thus hindering the efficiency of your research. Some of us do not have that time. God bless. Let the Holy Spirit be your guide.

rynodigsmusic said:

Here is the Truth. Andy Lewis and James Randi are the most prominent bloggers against Homeopathic Alternative treatments.

Any thoughts on how someone – anyone – might be able to prove that statement wrong?

“Their work is not unbiased or scientific in anyway because they do not address the lies or radical ineffectiveness of conventional medicine especially in cases of advanced cancers.”

The largest red herring, sitting atop a straw man, I have ever seen!

Why can’t folks address the issue at hand? False and fake ‘medicine’.
We can deal with all the problems of medicine at another time and in another place.
This place is about quackery.