Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

What you think about how you think.
Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Tue Jul 05, 2016 5:04 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: We have had more than fifteen cult followers on this forum claiming that the voices in their head, channelled aliens, talking statues, or the words of Jesus, must all be totally true because the message just makes sense to them, personally and subjectively.
Barrie1 wrote: I'm not claiming any voices in my head and I am not claiming that anything is totally true.
You have reincarnated souls in your head and your religious text comes from a channelled alien. Did you forget?


Barrie1 wrote: For example, Jane was a drunk alcoholic money-grubber and people in class were laughing at her.
She was an alcoholic and no one has ever died of rheumatoid arthritis, as you claimed she did. That's just cult propaganda.

Barrie1 wrote: You have no idea what I base my life on.
Seth the fictional alien, channelled by an ex-science fiction writer. Did you forget again?

Barrie1 wrote: You have shown no intellectual curiosity at all to understand people or to explore ideas that you don't understand.
I have asked you five times to describe the physics of your ridiculous religious cult claims..........you ran away every time. It's what you cult followers do.

/quote]

Barrie Comments: Matt, as is (sadly) always the case, you are totally wrong in almost all that you say. Let’s look again at the just the ignorant tip of your iceberg, riddled sadly with self-righteousness ridicule—instead of an honest attempt at exploration and discourse:

Matt Responded: She (Jane) was an alcoholic and no one has ever died of rheumatoid arthritis, as you claimed she did. That's just cult propaganda.

Barrie NOW Responds: Aren’t members of this board supposed to have proof and facts—and not just speculate based on beliefs? You are almost 100 percent wrong about Jane, the Seth material, me and rheumatoid arthritis. In any case, here are some medical facts:

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) know they face a higher risk of premature death as well as serious complications that come along with their ailment. In addition to increased mortality rates, RA patients continue to struggle with a poorer heart health along with their condition.”
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/t ... y-112015#1
........................
“Rheumatoid arthritis increases the risk of premature death -- maybe to the same extent as having high blood pressure orheart disease -- a large study suggests. But experts say we're making headway toward treating the condition and preventing these early deaths.”
http://www.webmd.com/rheumatoid-arthrit ... arly-death

............................

“What kills patients with rheumatoid arthritis?
Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) die at a younger age than their peers in most hospital series [1], while an increase in standardized mortality rate (SMR) has not been a consistent feature in recent studies of RA patients from date of diagnosis (inception cohorts) [2]. The reasons for this apparent discrepancy are likely to be the presence of more severe disease in hospital-based series and the advent of earlier and more effective treatment in recent years. However, an increased mortality from vascular disease in RA has been consistently reported in both established and inception studies [1, 3], and an increased SMR for respiratory disease and lymphoreticular cancers has also been recognized in most series.”
http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/ ... 2/183.full

....................................................

• “Arthritis and related conditions can lead to death. Two people per 100,000 die from arthritis, and a significant number more die from co-morbidities like heart attack/stroke, lymphomas and certain other types of cancer as a direct result of having arthritis.
• “We do not have an accurate count of people who die as a result of their arthritis. This is because the immediate cause of death is what is recorded, and not co-morbidities. In other words, a person can have rheumatoid arthritis for 15 years, and then develop lymphoma as a result of their arthritis. If that person were to die of lymphoma, the cause of death would be recorded as cancer, not arthritis.
• “Different types of arthritis can affect not only joints, but also muscles, bones, tendons, and almost every organ. Heart, lungs, eyes, and skin are often affected by various forms of arthritis.”
http://jointhealth.org/takingaction-fac ... cale=en-CA

......................................

“Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) causes premature death, disability, and lowers the quality of life in the industrialized and developing world.”
http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/basics/rheumatoid.htm

..................................

“Women with rheumatoid arthritis have a greater risk of dying from any cause, especially cardiovascular and respiratory disease, than women without the inflammatory disease, according to an analysis of the large-scale Nurses' Health Study.

"The association between rheumatoid arthritis and increased mortality and between rheumatoid arthritis and increased cardiovascular mortality is known, but increased mortality due to respiratory disease was unexpected," Jeffrey Sparks, MD, from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, said here at the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2014 Annual Meeting.”
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/835204

...................................

“Rheumatoid arthritis causes more than pain; it can lead to disability and even death. Severe rheumatoid arthritis can affect the eyes, heart, blood vessels, skin, lungs, and other organs. Severe rheumatoid arthritis can also lead to joint destruction and disability. Mortality is twice as high in people who have rheumatoid arthritis compared to those who don't have the condition.”

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... key=153836

...............................

Barrie Comments: Do you grasp yet that you really don’t know much at all what you are talking about? And everything else that you have said in the above and in your previous posts – are just as wrong and mistaken – matched sadly only by your seemingly blind arrogance and desire to ridicule.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Poodle » Tue Jul 05, 2016 5:45 am

Barrie1 wrote:... my words have fallen into an abyss of self-righteousness--sad to say. A few people have displayed some brave desire to explore outside of their box, in order to understand what is there--instead of operating in self-imposed darkness, like you---who engages solely in monologue with intent to ridicule. Very sad...in my opinion.


You create your own reality - remember, Barrie?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19816
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Jul 05, 2016 5:49 am

Sadly. Everything. Always.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:06 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Barrie, as you have probably picked up on, we have another Seth cult member on this very forum, called Gorgeous. She will not post in this thread. That's probably because I caught her faking her own Jane Roberts quotes and she knows I will compare her Jane Roberts quotes with yours, for our skeptic entertainment. Gorgeous also believes that alien lizards control Earth...and that the Illuminati also control the world.......simultaneously.

We also have a "Ra the channelled ancient alien spirit" cult member. He won't join this thread either.

In fact for the last ten years we can never get one cult follower to engage another cult follower in conversation.

So why do cult members who hear voices in their heads, or get info from channelled aliens, talking trees, magical statues and pixies all want to post on a science based skeptic forum, that debunks cults? Well it's probably all about their low self esteem. They can't justify their ridiculous belief systems at all, so they repeat and spam their propaganda, on this forum "to teach us scientists a lesson". In reality they give us insight into cult psychological behaviour.

Are you aware our forum host wrote a famous book?

I suggest to you that offering your subjective feelings about following a 70's cult, without offering any physics for your claim, is not going to get you far on a science based forum that debunks cult claims.


Matt, I shall once again try to respond to you, since you have removed some of your mocking ridicule and insults:

Matt Writes: Barrie, as you have probably picked up on, we have another Seth cult member on this very forum, called Gorgeous. She will not post in this thread. That's probably because I caught her faking her own Jane Roberts quotes and she knows I will compare her Jane Roberts quotes with yours, for our skeptic entertainment. Gorgeous also believes that alien lizards control Earth...and that the Illuminati also control the world.......simultaneously. We also have a "Ra the channelled ancient alien spirit" cult member. He won't join this thread either.

Barrie Responds: That’s nice...but so what? Almost all of the board members are not joining this thread either. Probably most of them are afraid of ridicule if they offer their honest questions and curiosity...or else they are just not interested.

Matt Continues: In fact for the last ten years we can never get one cult follower to engage another cult follower in conversation.

Barrie Responds: “We can never get them.” Are you the group spokesperson? I hope not. Are you some sort of animal trainer or human trainer trying to get others to perform for you?

First off, why would one person you describe as a “cult follower” want to engage another person who you describe as a “cult follower?” Why would they have any more interest than anyone else? On top of that, perhaps they had enough of the super hostility the active posters have aimed at them? That would be enough to silence most people, even including fellow skeptics who may have some curiosity.

You, Matt, have this stated expectation of yours that you hold for some reason...that whomever you label as a “cult follower” is supposed to or should want to engage other people who you label as a “cult follower.” But there is no reason for this to happen, outside of your expectation—or is just your hope that you would be able to then enjoy watching “cult followers” argue with each other, as you have previously stated you would enjoy?

Regardless of your true motives and your seeming-desire to control others to perform for you, I will remind you again that a very, very tiny percentage of ALL board members have joined this thread—and probably all for the same or very similar reasons—they are not interested enough to do so, and/or they enjoy reading/lurking but don’t wish to participate, and/or they don’t want to participate because they don’t want to face the bullying and name-calling of their fellow skeptics if they don’t think in lockstep—and so they are fearful to explore other areas outside the box to deepen their understanding of others. Perhaps this is why most people don’t participate in such types of discussions but so many lurk.

Matt Continues: So why do cult members who hear voices in their heads, or get info from channelled aliens, talking trees, magical statues and pixies all want to post on a science based skeptic forum, that debunks cults?

Barrie Responds: You have declared people, including me, “cult members” and then you ask questions about “cult members” as if your label is based on some sort of fact. In reality, your comments are based on the most base of speculation and belief—identical to those who you condemn as “cult members.”

You act as if once you declare your belief—it becomes a fact—just like you describe your self-titled ‘cult members.” From my perspective, you display the very cultish characteristics you claim to see in others.

All that said, and speaking for myself, I am not a member of any cult and I have explained over and over why I am posting on this board. I cyber-stumbled upon this site and saw people who were discussing the Seth material had no idea what they were talking about. I assumed that they would like to know what they are talking about—and so I came here to clarify what was actually in the Seth material—so that people would no longer have to speak in ignorance. This way, when they attempted to debunk the Seth material, or whatever they chose to do, they could do so in a much more intelligent fashion.

I did NOT come here to disabuse anyone of their skepticism—that is their business, and not mine. But I thought I could help when it comes to helping people become more aware of what was actually in the Seth material.

The Seth material is pretty vast—and some is easily acceptable by those in the field of psychology, and other parts raise questions and concepts that are easily acceptable by those in the scientific community—and then there is the metaphysical parts which would be most easily and readily excused as speculation by honest and sincere skeptics—who did not have some sort of hidden need or agenda to make fun of others with whom they disagree.

Matt Continues: Well it's probably all about their low self esteem. They can't justify their ridiculous belief systems at all, so they repeat and spam their propaganda, on this forum "to teach us scientists a lesson". In reality they give us insight into cult psychological behaviour.

Barrie Responds: Again, Matt, I can only speak for myself—and what you say displays absolutely nothing resembling me, my intentions or my motives. You do display the very same characteristics you decry—stating your “ridiculous beliefs” which you repeat as spam propaganda in support of what seems to be your personal cult—the cult of the skeptic who mostly speaks his beliefs as if they were fact—and not like an honest and sincere skeptic would behave or at least should behave.

In reality, what you write gives me, and perhaps some others on this board, a great insight into how you think and jump to conclusions, repeatedly stating your beliefs as facts. It seems to me that you are the one who is trying to prove things that you make up in your mind—perhaps hearing voices or getting your info from talking trees—but not me.

I am just trying to clarify what is actually in the Seth material—but that attempt has made you metaphorically rabid and has uncovered a deep prejudice in you, as I see it.

Matt Continues: Are you aware our forum host wrote a famous book? I suggest to you that offering your subjective feelings about following a 70's cult, without offering any physics for your claim, is not going to get you far on a science based forum that debunks cult claims.

Barrie Responds: I’m glad your forum host wrote a famous book based on his beliefs about what is weird and why people believe as they do, etc. I wish him the best of continued success in selling it.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:16 am

Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:... my words have fallen into an abyss of self-righteousness--sad to say. A few people have displayed some brave desire to explore outside of their box, in order to understand what is there--instead of operating in self-imposed darkness, like you---who engages solely in monologue with intent to ridicule. Very sad...in my opinion.


You create your own reality - remember, Barrie?


Barrie Responds: Yeah, Poodle...and...so what? Do you have a point that you would like to apply to this discussion? Do you actually have any full idea about that which you speak and how it would or may fit in this discussion? Would you like to know? Or are you satisfied throwing in some random side comment...and just leave it at that? I guess you are satisfied with that. I am in favor of discussion if you can keep hostility, name calling and bullying at bay...for the sake of civil discourse.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Poodle » Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:21 am

Barrie1 wrote:
Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:... my words have fallen into an abyss of self-righteousness--sad to say. A few people have displayed some brave desire to explore outside of their box, in order to understand what is there--instead of operating in self-imposed darkness, like you---who engages solely in monologue with intent to ridicule. Very sad...in my opinion.


You create your own reality - remember, Barrie?


Barrie Responds: Yeah, Poodle...and...so what? Do you have a point that you would like to apply to this discussion? Do you actually have any full idea about that which you speak and how it would or may fit in this discussion? Would you like to know? Or are you satisfied throwing in some random side comment...and just leave it at that? I guess you are satisfied with that. I am in favor of discussion if you can keep hostility, name calling and bullying at bay...for the sake of civil discourse.


Normally, yes. However, my attitude changes when I'm conversing with charlatans, fairy-story sellers and snake-oil salesmen. It was your quotation, Barrie - stand by it.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:33 am

Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:
Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:... my words have fallen into an abyss of self-righteousness--sad to say. A few people have displayed some brave desire to explore outside of their box, in order to understand what is there--instead of operating in self-imposed darkness, like you---who engages solely in monologue with intent to ridicule. Very sad...in my opinion.


You create your own reality - remember, Barrie?


Barrie Responds: Yeah, Poodle...and...so what? Do you have a point that you would like to apply to this discussion? Do you actually have any full idea about that which you speak and how it would or may fit in this discussion? Would you like to know? Or are you satisfied throwing in some random side comment...and just leave it at that? I guess you are satisfied with that. I am in favor of discussion if you can keep hostility, name calling and bullying at bay...for the sake of civil discourse.


Normally, yes. However, my attitude changes when I'm conversing with charlatans, fairy-story sellers and snake-oil salesmen. It was your quotation, Barrie - stand by it.


Barrie Responds: Poodle, I TOTALLY stand by it. I never said, claimed or hinted otherwise. I said that I was willing to and I wanted to discuss it...all I requested was that you put any name-calling hostility and bullying aside--for the sake of having civil discourse. I predicted that you would NOT want to discuss it--which you are now proving--by making a comment that does not fit what I wrote.

I stand by that concept--but I know that most likely you don't understand that concept and so have no real idea concerning what I am standing by or why...but it seems that you are content with not understanding what you talk about. Am I mistaken? Are you willing to discuss it in a civil manner?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:46 am

Barrie1 wrote:“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) know they face a higher risk of premature death as well as serious complications that come along with their ailment. In addition to increased mortality rates, RA patients continue to struggle with a poorer heart health along with their condition.”
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/t ... y-112015#1


Stop lying. No one has died from rheumatoid arthritis. It is not a fatal disease on its own.
"Rheumatoid arthritis is not fatal, but complications of the disease may shorten survival by a few years in some individuals"
http://www.nytimes.com/health/guides/di ... tions.html

"Rheumatoid arthritis itself is not a fatal disease. However, it can be associated with many complications"
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/rheumato ... cle_em.htm

You are simply spamming your cult's propaganda. You might fall for cult bull-shit, but we don't. :lol:


Barrie1 wrote: Do you grasp yet that you really don’t know much at all what you are talking about?
It's exactly the opposite. Did you fail to understand that the disease is not fatal itself when reading your own links? :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:06 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Barrie, as you have probably picked up on, we have another Seth cult member on this very forum, called Gorgeous. She will not post in this thread. That's probably because I caught her faking her own Jane Roberts quotes and she knows I will compare her Jane Roberts quotes with yours, for our skeptic entertainment. Gorgeous also believes that alien lizards control Earth...and that the Illuminati also control the world.......simultaneously. We also have a "Ra the channelled ancient alien spirit" cult member. He won't join this thread either.


Barrie1 wrote: That’s nice...but so what?
Well as all these cult followers have different cult framework stories, all their stories can't be true can they? Therefore as none of them, or you, ever present any evidence that "their" cult story is true, it means that all these stories are simply bull-shit. Only science offers explanations and evidence.

Matthew Ellard wrote: In fact for the last ten years we can never get one cult follower to engage another cult follower in conversation.
Barrie1 wrote: Are you the group spokesperson?
Yes I am. I debunk cults. Look around the forum. Next question.


Barrie1 wrote: First off, why would one person you describe as a “cult follower” want to engage another person who you describe as a “cult follower?”
To determine if they are wrong through debate of their belief system. However cult followers are too frightened to talk to other cult followers as the skeptics simply watch and laugh.

Barrie1 wrote:Regardless of your true motives and your seeming-desire to control others to perform for you, I will remind you again that a very, very tiny percentage of ALL board members have joined this thread—and probably all for the same or very similar reasons—they are not interested enough to do so,
No. You are the third Seth channelled alien cult follower who has been here. The other two refused to answer basic questions just like you are doing. What's the point reading yet another Seth cult member avoiding questions?

Barrie1 wrote: I am not a member of any cult
You are a member of the Seth channelled alien cult, under every definition of what a cult member is. You are simply in denial :lol:

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Poodle » Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:13 am

Barrie1 wrote: ... Poodle, I TOTALLY stand by it. I never said, claimed or hinted otherwise. I said that I was willing to and I wanted to discuss it...all I requested was that you put any name-calling hostility and bullying aside--for the sake of having civil discourse. I predicted that you would NOT want to discuss it--which you are now proving--by making a comment that does not fit what I wrote.

I stand by that concept--but I know that most likely you don't understand that concept and so have no real idea concerning what I am standing by or why...but it seems that you are content with not understanding what you talk about. Am I mistaken? Are you willing to discuss it in a civil manner?


Barrie, have you any idea - the tiniest inkling, the faintest notion - of the number of times this argument is used on this forum? There's nothing to discuss, although all wooisterati such as yourself incessantly and stridently demand it. I do not wish to waste a part of my life taking part in discussions I have taken part in so many times before, all with the same result - no evidence is ever provided. My request to you - this forum's basic demand of you - is to provide solid, incontrovertible evidence of the existence of ANY alien intelligence at ANY location and ANY time in the universe and then provide similar evidence that said alien chose to speak to us via the mediumship of a one-time porn star who saw an opportunity to gull a set of pretentious idiots.

This is not an unreasonable or complex request. Evidence exists or you are talking religion. If it's the latter, you're in the wrong place. If it's the former, then welcome home - let's see it.

This post means you are indebted to me in the sum of three minutes of my life. Show me your evidence or stop wasting everyone's time.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:48 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) know they face a higher risk of premature death as well as serious complications that come along with their ailment. In addition to increased mortality rates, RA patients continue to struggle with a poorer heart health along with their condition.”
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/t ... y-112015#1


Stop lying. No one has died from rheumatoid arthritis. It is not a fatal disease on its own.
"Rheumatoid arthritis is not fatal, but complications of the disease may shorten survival by a few years in some individuals"
http://www.nytimes.com/health/guides/di ... tions.html

"Rheumatoid arthritis itself is not a fatal disease. However, it can be associated with many complications"
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/rheumato ... cle_em.htm

You are simply spamming your cult's propaganda. You might fall for cult bull-shit, but we don't. :lol:


Barrie1 wrote: Do you grasp yet that you really don’t know much at all what you are talking about?
It's exactly the opposite. Did you fail to understand that the disease is not fatal itself when reading your own links? :lol:


Healthline.com
webmd.com
oxfordjournals.org
jointhealth.org
cdc.gov
Medscape.com
medicinenet.com

Barrie Comments: You call all those sources my “cult’s propaganda?” I think you may be delusional. I hadn’t expected that level of response from you. So, the below excerpts are all my “cult propaganda” ...

“Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) know they face a higher risk of premature death as well as serious complications that come along with their ailment.
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/t ... y-112015#1

“Rheumatoid arthritis increases the risk of premature death
http://www.webmd.com/rheumatoid-arthrit ... arly-death

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) die at a younger age than their peers in most hospital series
http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/ ... 2/183.full

“Arthritis and related conditions can lead to death.
http://jointhealth.org/takingaction-fac ... cale=en-CA

“We do not have an accurate count of people who die as a result of their arthritis. This is because the immediate cause of death is what is recorded, and not co-morbidities. In other words, a person can have rheumatoid arthritis for 15 years, and then develop lymphoma as a result of their arthritis. If that person were to die of lymphoma, the cause of death would be recorded as cancer, not arthritis.
http://jointhealth.org/takingaction-fac ... cale=en-CA

“Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) causes premature death,
http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/basics/rheumatoid.htm

“Women with rheumatoid arthritis have a greater risk of dying from any cause, especially cardiovascular and respiratory disease, than women without the inflammatory disease, according to an analysis of the large-scale Nurses' Health Study.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/835204

"The association between rheumatoid arthritis and increased mortality and between rheumatoid arthritis and increased cardiovascular mortality is known,
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/835204

“Rheumatoid arthritis causes more than pain; it can lead to disability and even death.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... key=153836

....................................

Barrie NOW Writes: I said that Jane died from Rheumatoid arthritis...

Matt Had Written: no one has ever died of rheumatoid arthritis, as you claimed she did. That's just cult propaganda.

Matt Writes: You are simply spamming your cult's propaganda. You might fall for cult bull-shit, It's the opposite. Did you fail to understand that the disease is not fatal itself when reading your own links

Barrie NOW Comments: It's the opposite? I now understand that you are either delusional or extremely intellectually dishonest. I see that as a fact; not as an insult or an opinion. All of the above excerpts—do not point to “cult propaganda.” Nor is it cult propaganda for ANY human being to say that someone died from RA.

To say she died from RA or complications from RA or other conditions that led to her death caused by RA – is all the same thing – Jane died from RA.

“Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) causes premature death,
http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/basics/rheumatoid.htm

“We do not have an accurate count of people who die as a result of their arthritis. This is because the immediate cause of death is what is recorded, and not co-morbidities.”
http://jointhealth.org/takingaction-fac ... cale=en-CA

Barrie NOW Comments: It is SO SAD that you cannot just admit that people die from RA—regardless of how it is worded..."RA can lead to death, RA is associated with death, women with RA have a greater risk of dying from any cause, RA causes premature death, Arthritis and related conditions can lead to death, patients with RA die at a younger age than their peers, RA increases the risk of premature death, and patients with RA know they face a higher risk of premature death as well as serious complications that come along with their ailment."

And then add to the above, “We do not have an accurate count of people who die as a result of their arthritis. This is because the immediate cause of death is what is recorded, and not co-morbidities.”

All of the above may be honestly and fairly summarized as a person can die from RA. To summarize all of the above as me giving “BS cult propaganda” and that those quotes say the opposite-- is actually nuts or blindness...

Healthline.com
webmd.com
oxfordjournals.org
jointhealth.org
cdc.gov
Medscape.com
medicinenet.com

THESE are part of my “cult propaganda” sources and circles? To quote these as legitimate sources is giving “cult propaganda?” You are a person blinded by some sort of obsession.

When you put all of the above excerpts together, it is totally fair and honest to say that a person died from RA— versus what you say ... the above is cult propaganda and RA is not fatal, as you claim.

Apparently, you cannot clearly see this, and must stick to your ridicule, etc. This means that there is little hope for any serious discourse with you. You cherry-pick the slightest fragment that you believe in some tiny way can support what you say, and then ignore and belittle all the rest.

This is not even a level of discussion that I have experienced even with the most die-hard blind religious followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19816
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:03 am

Barrie1 wrote:To say she died from RA or complications from RA or other conditions that led to her death caused by RA – is all the same thing – Jane died from RA.
(Emphasis mine)

Houston, I think we see a big fat problem...


Barrie, no, it's not all the same thing. And if ^that's your opinion in this case, where else would you do that same thing?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:22 am

Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote: ... Poodle, I TOTALLY stand by it. I never said, claimed or hinted otherwise. I said that I was willing to and I wanted to discuss it...all I requested was that you put any name-calling hostility and bullying aside--for the sake of having civil discourse. I predicted that you would NOT want to discuss it--which you are now proving--by making a comment that does not fit what I wrote.

I stand by that concept--but I know that most likely you don't understand that concept and so have no real idea concerning what I am standing by or why...but it seems that you are content with not understanding what you talk about. Am I mistaken? Are you willing to discuss it in a civil manner?


Barrie, have you any idea - the tiniest inkling, the faintest notion - of the number of times this argument is used on this forum? There's nothing to discuss, although all wooisterati such as yourself incessantly and stridently demand it. I do not wish to waste a part of my life taking part in discussions I have taken part in so many times before, all with the same result - no evidence is ever provided. My request to you - this forum's basic demand of you - is to provide solid, incontrovertible evidence of the existence of ANY alien intelligence at ANY location and ANY time in the universe and then provide similar evidence that said alien chose to speak to us via the mediumship of a one-time porn star who saw an opportunity to gull a set of pretentious idiots.

This is not an unreasonable or complex request. Evidence exists or you are talking religion. If it's the latter, you're in the wrong place. If it's the former, then welcome home - let's see it.

This post means you are indebted to me in the sum of three minutes of my life. Show me your evidence or stop wasting everyone's time.


Poodle Writes: Barrie, have you any idea - the tiniest inkling, the faintest notion - of the number of times this argument is used on this forum? There's nothing to discuss, although all wooisterati such as yourself incessantly and stridently demand it.

Barrie Responds: I don’t care how many people have tried to discuss it with you. That's no evidence that you understand it. From your comments I can see you, they or both, have LITTLE understanding of what you speak. I knew you wouldn’t discuss it because you’d rather remain ignorant...like those scientists who refused to go outside and watch meteors fall because rocks can’t fall from the sky.

Poodle Continues: I do not wish to waste a part of my life taking part in discussions I have taken part in so many times before, all with the same result - no evidence is ever provided.

Barrie Responds: Poodle, are you a person or a machine? I am not talking about trying to provide EVIDENCE to you. I am talking about having you understand what the concept actually IS. Once you understand what it is and what it means, then at least you can make your “evidence” comments having some clue as to what you refer to and are talking about.

Why did you even bring up...Barrie don’t you remember you create your own reality?

It is a senseless thing for you to bring up—since you don’t believe it—or even know what you are talking about. Yet, you bring it up and then ridicule me for asking you if you wish to discuss it. I didn’t bring it up. You did.

Poodle Continues: My request to you - this forum's basic demand of you - is to provide solid, incontrovertible evidence of the existence of ANY alien intelligence at ANY location and ANY time in the universe and then provide similar evidence that said alien chose to speak to us via the mediumship of a one-time porn star who saw an opportunity to gull a set of pretentious idiots.

Barrie Responds: No, Poodle, THIS is your group’s MISSION—what it is SUPPOSED to do—from the “Brief Introduction” to the group – http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/

“THE SKEPTICS SOCIETY is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) scientific and educational organization whose mission is to engage leading experts in investigating the paranormal, fringe science, pseudoscience, and extraordinary claims of all kinds, promote critical thinking, and serve as an educational tool for those seeking a sound scientific viewpoint. Our contributors—leading scientists, scholars, investigative journalists, historians, professors and teachers—are top experts in their fields. It is our hope that our efforts go a long way in promoting critical thinking and lifelong inquisitiveness in all individuals.”

Barrie Responds: What you just stated is a false and gross mentally-contorted effort to twist what this group is supposed to do....it is an “EDUCATIONAL organization whose MISSION is to (investigate) the paranormal...and serve as an EDUCATIONAL tool...in promoting critical thinking and lifelong INQUISITIVENESS in all individuals.”

That is far cry from your, “this forum's basic demand of you - is to provide solid, incontrovertible evidence of the existence of ANY alien intelligence at ANY location and ANY time in the universe and then provide similar evidence that said alien chose to speak to us via the mediumship of a one-time porn star who saw an opportunity to gull a set of pretentious idiots.”

I can’t believe that you have so bastardized the mission of this group to fit your own emotional ends and needs. Who was a one-time porn star and why should I or anyone care about that?

Poodle Continues: This is not an unreasonable or complex request. Evidence exists or you are talking religion. If it's the latter, you're in the wrong place. If it's the former, then welcome home - let's see it.

Barrie Responds: You keep trying to morph this group’s meaning to fit your personal prejudice and desires. In order to investigate the paranormal you have to know what it is you are investigating—and investigating includes discussion of what is believed and why. How can you even demand evidence when you don’t even know what you’re talking about? Where is YOUR “lifelong inquisitiveness.” Instead of that being promoted in you, it seems to have been killed.

Poodle Continues: This post means you are indebted to me in the sum of three minutes of my life. Show me your evidence or stop wasting everyone's time.

Barrie Responds: First, I never said I was going to show you evidence. I said I wanted to clarify what was in the Seth material so that you and others actually knew what you were talking about. You believe you understand the concept of you create your own reality. In order to actually understand it, you have to know and understand the concept and philosophy behind it, as well as the explanations, THEN and ONLY THEN—can you claim to understand it and then demand evidence. Short of that, it is simply a person, you, claiming a demand for evidence concerning something you don’t even know or understand. You BELIEVE you do, but you don’t. To speak in YOUR language, where is YOUR EVIDENCE that you actually understand the full depth and meaning of “you create your own reality?”

You, who speaks so highly of evidence, have given NO evidence of your understanding, and simply stated your BELIEF that you understand it—based on the number of times you talked about it. In short, you are saying, “My evidence is that I have talked about it a lot.”

Dare I say, please grow up and follow the mission statement of your own beloved board...

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:34 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:To say she died from RA or complications from RA or other conditions that led to her death caused by RA – is all the same thing – Jane died from RA.
(Emphasis mine)

Houston, I think we see a big fat problem...


Barrie, no, it's not all the same thing. And if ^that's your opinion in this case, where else would you do that same thing?


Barrie Responds: It is the same thing or close to it--given these three statements:

1. “Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) causes premature death, disability, and lowers the quality of life in the industrialized and developing world.”
http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/basics/rheumatoid.htm

2. “Women with rheumatoid arthritis have a greater risk of dying from any cause, especially cardiovascular and respiratory disease, than women without the inflammatory disease, according to an analysis of the large-scale Nurses' Health Study.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/835204

3. "Arthritis and related conditions can lead to death...We do not have an accurate count of people who die as a result of their arthritis. This is because the immediate cause of death is what is recorded, and not co-morbidities."
http://jointhealth.org/takingaction-fac ... cale=en-CA

Barrie NOW Comments: So, Yes, it is the same thing--or VERY close to it--to honestly and fairly say that a person can die from RA.

It is certainly MUCH MORE closer to the truth than what Matt said--that saying that a person can die from RA is "cult propaganda..and that the opposite is true from reading thsoe quotes...and that no one ever died from it."

IF you had to pick which one more fairly and honestly states the truth about RA and death--would you really pick Matt's comments over mind? And totally forgetting about Matt's comments, what I have said IS a fair and honest summary concerning having RA and dying.

All that said, where are your comments concerning what Matt said? Is your silence to be taken as agreement with him? Or as fear to contradict him or as simply blind support to "the cause?"

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Poodle » Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:15 pm

Barrie1 wrote: the usual blah ...


I completely agree with you about the mission of the Skeptic Society, although you appear to wish to quote it with no understanding of its meaning. Before anyone in the Society, on this forum, or claiming to be a member of the human race can examine your claims, they would have be introduced to what those claims are. Now (bear with me, Barrie, I know it's heavy going) I and others here already know about Jane's books and some of us have even read at least one of them. So we know about Seth and we know what Jane claimed about Seth and we've watched those hilarious movies. That's done - it's over, and the last thing we need is some conceited clown telling us he wishes to clarify its import with us. Do that with your own stuff rather than stealing the work of other people.

Now, I've carefully taken you through that paragraph to point out to you that as we already have the words of the originator of the Seth material, we don't need any wannabee guru to show us the error of our ways - many of the members of this board have language skills far exceeding your own, especially when you become overheated. UNLESS, of course, you have something new. Hey! - like evidence - that would be completely new and we'd welcome it. That's really all there is to say. Do you have any evidence (please ensure you know the standards required of scientific evidence before shooting off your mouth) of the existence of Seth or the mechanism via which Seth and Jane made contact?

If the answer is yes, well just come right out and tell us what it is.

If the answer is no, then what the {!#%@} are you doing here?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19816
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:21 pm

Barrie1 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:To say she died from RA or complications from RA or other conditions that led to her death caused by RA – is all the same thing – Jane died from RA.
(Emphasis mine)

Houston, I think we see a big fat problem...


Barrie, no, it's not all the same thing. And if ^that's your opinion in this case, where else would you do that same thing?


Barrie Responds:

First off, the quote function makes it quite obvious who is responding (and to what). There's really no need to point it out again. (Unless there's more than one of you. You haven't answered my question regarding that issue yet.)

It is the same thing or close to it--given these three statements:

1. “Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) causes premature death, disability, and lowers the quality of life in the industrialized and developing world.”
http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/basics/rheumatoid.htm

2. “Women with rheumatoid arthritis have a greater risk of dying from any cause, especially cardiovascular and respiratory disease, than women without the inflammatory disease, according to an analysis of the large-scale Nurses' Health Study.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/835204

3. "Arthritis and related conditions can lead to death...We do not have an accurate count of people who die as a result of their arthritis. This is because the immediate cause of death is what is recorded, and not co-morbidities."
http://jointhealth.org/takingaction-fac ... cale=en-CA

Barrie NOW Comments: So, Yes, it is the same thing--or VERY close to it--to honestly and fairly say that a person can die from RA.

I am not making light of RA but, no, it is not. If someone ill succumbs to a secondary infection, lets say pneumonia, they died of pneumonia, not the initial illness. That is why such would be recorded.

But you are free to say whatever you wish. And others are free to accept or reject that.


It is certainly MUCH MORE closer to the truth than what Matt said--that saying that a person can die from RA is "cult propaganda..and that the opposite is true from reading thsoe quotes...and that no one ever died from it."

IF you had to pick which one more fairly and honestly states the truth about RA and death--would you really pick Matt's comments over mind? And totally forgetting about Matt's comments, what I have said IS a fair and honest summary concerning having RA and dying.

All that said, where are your comments concerning what Matt said? Is your silence to be taken as agreement with him? Or as fear to contradict him or as simply blind support to "the cause?"

Oh dear... You are aware that this is a forum and not a club or a spiritual community, or the like, yes?

While Matthew has become a friend during my participation here, one comes here "at one's own risk" and with the freedom of expression (to some extend - one should have read the forum guidelines regarding that and other behavior). We can easily "agree to disagree" but agree more often than not. Comes with the territory. I'm sure you feel you find a different reception at sites of like mind and interests to yours?

But (if you resort to that with them also) how do they respond to your repeated attempts at "shaming"? I personally find such despicable and it also is a control/cult marker. Maybe that's what's flavoring some responses to all this here, besides the strange odor of the general subject?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Rheumatoid arthritis is not fatal

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:56 am

Barrie1 wrote: You call all those sources my “cult’s propaganda?” I think you may be delusional.
No Barry I am calling you delusional and uneducated.

Every link you offered states that suffering rheumatoid arthritis is statistically associated with reduced life expectancy in association with other diseases. Not one article says it is fatal on its own.


Can you grasp the difference? :lol:

Rheumatoid arthritis is not fatal, but complications of the disease may shorten survival by a few years in some individuals
http://www.nytimes.com/health/guides/di ... tions.html

Rheumatoid arthritis itself is not a fatal disease. However, it can be associated with many complications.....
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/rheumato ... cle_em.htm

Rheumatoid arthritis is not generally considered a fatal or terminal disease. In fact, it is commonly referred to as a chronic disease, meaning that you will have it for the duration of your life.
https://www.verywell.com/rheumatoid-art ... ath-190072


Barrie1 wrote: I said that Jane died from Rheumatoid arthritis...

No one has ever died from Rheumatoid arthritis. You are simply spamming your cult's propaganda. :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:11 am

Soooo..... you are Barry Gellis. You sat in the same room as Jane Roberts pretended to channel Seth in the 1970s.
Barrie and Jane.JPG


So answer this simple question. If Seth takes over Jane Robert's mind and body during a channelling session, why is Jane drinking wine and smoking during those exact same channelling sessions?

A) Because Jane Roberts is faking the event and was smoking and drinking wine herself.
B) Because Seth, the alien enjoys a good red wine and Marlborough gold filter


So Jane is really still in control of her body or Seth the channelled alien? :lol:

Can you see that "channelling Seth" is a complete fraud and makes no sense? :lol:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRG-IR3aqec
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Why did Jane Robert's commit suicide?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:22 am

Jane Roberts, in The Way Toward Health, a Seth book wrote:If people become ill, it is quite fashionable to say that the immunity system has temporarily failed – yet the body itself knows that certain ‘dis-eases’ are healthy reactions. The body does not recognise diseases as diseases in usually understood terms. It regards all activity as experience, as a momentary condition of life, as a balancing situation.............

........… no person dies ahead of his or her time. The individual chooses the time of death. ....................

Again, however, no individual dies of cancer or AIDS, or any other condition, until they themselves have set the time.



Barrie1 wrote: I said that Jane died from Rheumatoid arthritis...
So why did Jane Roberts choose to kill herself? :lol:
The way toward health.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11146
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:31 am

I don't know how you guys can STAND to read this Seth crap enough to debunk it. A will power beyond my...................desire?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:46 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I don't know how you guys can STAND to read this Seth crap enough to debunk it. A will power beyond my...................desire?
Just watch and wait. I'm gearing up for a full debunk, but I need more quotes from Barry. You saw what we did to the "Ra, the channelled alien" cult and those cult members.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26243&hilit=Carla+Reuckert&start=120#p492901

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11146
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:00 am

Smart Matt: well then........carry on!
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:54 am

Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote: the usual blah ...


I completely agree with you about the mission of the Skeptic Society, although you appear to wish to quote it with no understanding of its meaning. Before anyone in the Society, on this forum, or claiming to be a member of the human race can examine your claims, they would have be introduced to what those claims are. Now (bear with me, Barrie, I know it's heavy going) I and others here already know about Jane's books and some of us have even read at least one of them. So we know about Seth and we know what Jane claimed about Seth and we've watched those hilarious movies. That's done - it's over, and the last thing we need is some conceited clown telling us he wishes to clarify its import with us. Do that with your own stuff rather than stealing the work of other people.

Now, I've carefully taken you through that paragraph to point out to you that as we already have the words of the originator of the Seth material, we don't need any wannabee guru to show us the error of our ways - many of the members of this board have language skills far exceeding your own, especially when you become overheated. UNLESS, of course, you have something new. Hey! - like evidence - that would be completely new and we'd welcome it. That's really all there is to say. Do you have any evidence (please ensure you know the standards required of scientific evidence before shooting off your mouth) of the existence of Seth or the mechanism via which Seth and Jane made contact?

If the answer is yes, well just come right out and tell us what it is.

If the answer is no, then what the {!#%@} are you doing here?


Poodle Writes: I completely agree with you about the mission of the Skeptic Society, although you appear to wish to quote it with no understanding of its meaning.

Barrie Responds: Well, then I guess we have something in common—for that is precisely as you wish to discuss the Seth material...with no understanding of its meaning.

Poodle Continues: Before anyone in the Society, on this forum, or claiming to be a member of the human race can examine your claims, they would have be introduced to what those claims are.

Barrie Responds: And that is why I am here—to clarify what is in the Seth material—and disabuse you of some of your erroneous understandings.

Poodle Continues: Now (bear with me, Barrie, I know it's heavy going) I and others here already know about Jane's books and some of us have even read at least one of them. So we know about Seth and we know what Jane claimed about Seth and we've watched those hilarious movies.

Barrie Responds: I really do not mean this with disrespect, but are you serious? Just because some of you read a book, it means that he or all or any of you have an understanding of that bookl? Just because you know about the books you understand them? Those movies you discuss are NOT the Seth material, they are those movies. At best, you have just a mere surface glimpse of a very, very tiny part of the Seth material, falsely believing that the mere partial surface is the material itself.

Why not discuss the concept of you create your own reality? Prove you know it...give evidence of you knowing it. You know one sentence.

Poodle Continues: That's done - it's over, and the last thing we need is some conceited clown telling us he wishes to clarify its import with us. Do that with your own stuff rather than stealing the work of other people.

Barrie Responds: THAT is your evidence? “I say I know it, therefore I know it.” You who demand evidence give none. That said, you and others on this board think enough about the Seth material to debunk it—but not to actually even TRY understand it or discuss it? 9,000+ people have read the thread or parts of it...that shows an interest, too.

You display either an intellectual dishonesty or a hidden agenda.

So, yes, I saw people on this board displayed an interest in the Seth material--which demonstrated it was of some importance to them--AND believed that people on a skeptic board would be interested in the truth. In this case, the truth of what is actually IN the Seth material, and not if you agree with it or not.

I don’t think you see the grand and arrogant ignorance you express...and that is not meant as an insult with the intent to put you down—but it is an honest assessment of our interaction.

By the way, what work of others am I stealing?

Poodle Continues: Now, I've carefully taken you through that paragraph to point out to you that as we already have the words of the originator of the Seth material, we don't need any wannabee guru to show us the error of our ways - many of the members of this board have language skills far exceeding your own, especially when you become overheated. UNLESS, of course, you have something new.

Barrie Responds: You are a true ignorant man, Poodle. Very sad. Very blind. I realize that you can’t even see it.

So, what words of the Seth material do you have? Take some out for me. Let's discuss them. Do you really think simply by reading words, you automatically understand them or their context? You don’t have to believe me that you don’t understand the material, but you don’t—and your unwillingness to even discuss anything that shows that you do understand it—belies the truth of your understanding.

Poodle Continues: Hey! - like evidence - that would be completely new and we'd welcome it.

Barrie Responds: Hey, so would I...so give me some evidence that you understand the concept that you create your own reality—and not just understand the surface of that one sentence.

Poodle Continues: That's really all there is to say. Do you have any evidence (please ensure you know the standards required of scientific evidence before shooting off your mouth) of the existence of Seth or the mechanism via which Seth and Jane made contact?

Barrie Responds: I am not here to offer you proof...I am here to clarify what is in the material you so put down. Let me ask you, do you have proof of imagination or love? Yet, are you willing to discuss imagination or love? OR to use and experience them? That said, you debunk the Seth material in pretty much total ignorance—and you don’t seem to have the imagination to mind.

IF you said, “I, Poodle, have basically no idea what is in the Seth material, and I am unwilling to understand any of it because there is no proof of who or what Seth is. It may be the most deep and truthful wisdom and information...but I will just ignorantly condemn it because there is no proof of who or what Seth is.” That is fine with me. But then DON'T say that you DO understand it.

IF you say that you don’t understand the material and don’t want to because no one can prove who Seth is...then fine. That makes sense. BUT then don’t say that you DO understand it and pretend to reject some substance—for you do not. But, of course, you won’t discuss that...you hide what you “know” so well.

I’m not even asking you to accept anything in the Seth material, which you already do, but don’t realize, because you don’t know anything about it.

But I’m not asking you to accept anything, but just to be an intelligent and smart person—and at least know what you are talking about and condemning. OR choose ignorance instead—but then don’t claim that you know anything.

Poodle Continues: If the answer is yes, well just come right out and tell us what it is.

Barrie Responds: Funny, that is exactly what I have to say to you.

Poodle Concludes: If the answer is no, then what the {!#%@} are you doing here?

Barrie Responds: I am here because I want to clarify to people what is actually IN the Seth material, so that when they condemn it—they can do so in an intelligent manner--and actually be aware of what they condemn.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Barrie1 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:59 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: So answer this simple question. If Seth takes over Jane Robert's mind and body during a channelling session, why is Jane drinking wine and smoking during those exact same channelling sessions?

Barrie Responds: The answer is that Seth does not take over Jane's mind and body.

Matt Says: So Jane is really still in control of her body,,,

Barrie Responds: Yes.


Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:01 am

Barrie1 wrote:To say she died from RA or complications from RA or other conditions that led to her death caused by RA – is all the same thing – Jane died from RA.
scrmbldggs wrote:Houston, I think we see a big fat problem...


Amazingly, Jane Roberts was actually first hospitalised on the 26th of February 1982, due to her thyroid gland. Barry doesn't seem to know much about Jane Roberts.

The reason the Seth cult people deny that and tell fibs, is because Jane Roberts previously wrote

"Hormones are the secretion formed by the ductless glands of the endocrine system, the adrenals, thyroid, pancreas, etc. These complex compounds are then carried by body fluids to other organs and tissues, where they have certain effects. Here as always Seth maintains we are not at the mercy of such involuntary purposes."

Barry? Can you identify the Seth book that Jane wrote this? :lol:

I have more to come on Jane's death and how it is in a complete paradox with her fictional "wisdom of Seth".

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:04 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: So answer this simple question. If Seth takes over Jane Robert's mind and body during a channelling session, why is Jane drinking wine and smoking during those exact same channelling sessions?
Barrie1 wrote:The answer is that Seth does not take over Jane's mind and body.


I see. So It is Jane Roberts who is making up the Seth stories and not some magical spirit called Seth. :D

Why didn't you just say so? :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

What did Jane Roberts die of again?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:14 am

Jane Roberts wrote: "Hormones are the secretion formed by the ductless glands of the endocrine system, the adrenals, thyroid, pancreas, etc. These complex compounds are then carried by body fluids to other organs and tissues, where they have certain effects. Here as always Seth maintains we are not at the mercy of such involuntary purposes."


Barry? What thyroid medications was Jane Roberts taking at the time of her death? :lol:

"she couldn't put paper in the type writer due to her thyroid medication"

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Why did Jane Robert's commit suicide?

Postby Barrie1 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:16 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Jane Roberts, in The Way Toward Health, a Seth book wrote:If people become ill, it is quite fashionable to say that the immunity system has temporarily failed – yet the body itself knows that certain ‘dis-eases’ are healthy reactions. The body does not recognise diseases as diseases in usually understood terms. It regards all activity as experience, as a momentary condition of life, as a balancing situation.............

........… no person dies ahead of his or her time. The individual chooses the time of death. ....................

Again, however, no individual dies of cancer or AIDS, or any other condition, until they themselves have set the time.



Barrie1 wrote: I said that Jane died from Rheumatoid arthritis...
So why did Jane Roberts choose to kill herself? :lol:
The way toward health.jpg


Barrie Responds: By virtue of being born, we all die at one time and in some way. "Winning" is not staying alive for as long as you can; and dying is not "losing." People get sick and die for a great number of varied personal, intimate reasons--based on their beliefs about themselves, others and life.

But we all die one day. But choosing the time is not the same as making the conscious choice to either have pizza or chinese food for lunch. The decision is more on the subconscious level--a "place" in which fears and joys also exist. A person doesn't make the conscious choice to be fearful of the dark or joyful at a beautiful sunset--but these choices ar made at another place inside--not where they decide on pizza or chinese food for lunch.

So, you, Matt, are free to believe, that death is totally random; while others believe it is not as random as you believe. Now, there are explanations and reasons as to how this is so...which involve consciousness and the nature of reality...which you presently do not see. But remember, just because you don't see connections, doesn't mean there aren't any--as with the case with the imaginary "germ" and infection, etc.

I believe that one day physics and metaphysics will join hands--and you don't. There is no need for hostility.

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:25 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:To say she died from RA or complications from RA or other conditions that led to her death caused by RA – is all the same thing – Jane died from RA.
(Emphasis mine)

Houston, I think we see a big fat problem...


Barrie, no, it's not all the same thing. And if ^that's your opinion in this case, where else would you do that same thing?


Barrie Responds:

First off, the quote function makes it quite obvious who is responding (and to what). There's really no need to point it out again. (Unless there's more than one of you. You haven't answered my question regarding that issue yet.)

It is the same thing or close to it--given these three statements:

1. “Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) causes premature death, disability, and lowers the quality of life in the industrialized and developing world.”
http://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/basics/rheumatoid.htm

2. “Women with rheumatoid arthritis have a greater risk of dying from any cause, especially cardiovascular and respiratory disease, than women without the inflammatory disease, according to an analysis of the large-scale Nurses' Health Study.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/835204

3. "Arthritis and related conditions can lead to death...We do not have an accurate count of people who die as a result of their arthritis. This is because the immediate cause of death is what is recorded, and not co-morbidities."
http://jointhealth.org/takingaction-fac ... cale=en-CA

Barrie NOW Comments: So, Yes, it is the same thing--or VERY close to it--to honestly and fairly say that a person can die from RA.

I am not making light of RA but, no, it is not. If someone ill succumbs to a secondary infection, lets say pneumonia, they died of pneumonia, not the initial illness. That is why such would be recorded.

But you are free to say whatever you wish. And others are free to accept or reject that.


It is certainly MUCH MORE closer to the truth than what Matt said--that saying that a person can die from RA is "cult propaganda..and that the opposite is true from reading thsoe quotes...and that no one ever died from it."

IF you had to pick which one more fairly and honestly states the truth about RA and death--would you really pick Matt's comments over mind? And totally forgetting about Matt's comments, what I have said IS a fair and honest summary concerning having RA and dying.

All that said, where are your comments concerning what Matt said? Is your silence to be taken as agreement with him? Or as fear to contradict him or as simply blind support to "the cause?"

Oh dear... You are aware that this is a forum and not a club or a spiritual community, or the like, yes?

While Matthew has become a friend during my participation here, one comes here "at one's own risk" and with the freedom of expression (to some extend - one should have read the forum guidelines regarding that and other behavior). We can easily "agree to disagree" but agree more often than not. Comes with the territory. I'm sure you feel you find a different reception at sites of like mind and interests to yours?

But (if you resort to that with them also) how do they respond to your repeated attempts at "shaming"? I personally find such despicable and it also is a control/cult marker. Maybe that's what's flavoring some responses to all this here, besides the strange odor of the general subject?


I'm glad you find shaming despicable...next you gotta work on who is doing the actual shaming and not. I have seen the reactions to others who disagree as I've looked at some of the board--and I see people attacked over and over again...and shamed over and over again. I've read people proudly proclaim that this is what they do here, etc. So be it. I can accept it, altho I believe THAT shames the skeptic community and not me or my comments. Do you have any questions about the Seth material you would like clarified? Do you realize there are things in the Seth material that you would agree with or find valid to question and explore? And to condemn the whole material is to condemn those things as well?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Why did Jane Robert's commit suicide?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:25 am

Jane Roberts wrote: ........… no person dies ahead of his or her time[/b]. The individual chooses the time of death. ....................Again, however, no individual dies of cancer or AIDS, or any other condition, until they themselves have set the time.


Why did Jane commit suicide?

Barrie1 wrote: By virtue of being born, we all die at one time and in some way. "Winning" is not staying alive for as long as you can; and dying is not "losing." People get sick and die for a great number of varied personal, intimate reasons--based on their beliefs about themselves, others and life.

But we all die one day. But choosing the time is not the same as making the conscious choice to either have pizza or chinese food for lunch. The decision is more on the subconscious level--a "place" in which fears and joys also exist. A person doesn't make the conscious choice to be fearful of the dark or joyful at a beautiful sunset--but these choices ar made at another place inside--not where they decide on pizza or chinese food for lunch.

So, you, Matt, are free to believe, that death is totally random; while others believe it is not as random as you believe. Now, there are explanations and reasons as to how this is so...which involve consciousness and the nature of reality...which you presently do not see. But remember, just because you don't see connections, doesn't mean there aren't any--as with the case with the imaginary "germ" and infection, etc.


Try answering my question. Why did Jane choose to commit suicide? :D

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Barrie1 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:27 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: So answer this simple question. If Seth takes over Jane Robert's mind and body during a channelling session, why is Jane drinking wine and smoking during those exact same channelling sessions?
Barrie1 wrote:The answer is that Seth does not take over Jane's mind and body.


I see. So It is Jane Roberts who is making up the Seth stories and not some magical spirit called Seth. :D

Why didn't you just say so? :lol:


No, Matt. I didn't say that either.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:30 am

Barrie1 wrote:I'm glad you find shaming despicable.
We do that to cult members all the time.

More so when they lie about their citations, lie about why their cult leader died, and tell lies to hide the fact that Jane herself didn't believe in "Seth" and took thyroid medication.

Try another forum.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:34 am

Barrie1 wrote: No, Matt. I didn't say that either.
What are you saying? :lol: Seth controlled her left ear and right foot, while Jane controlled her right ear and left foot?

Even more fun......as Jane got more and more sloshed on alcohol, Didn't Seth also find moving Jane's mouth & lips harder and harder?

Can you explain the scientific physics of how that worked? I'm fascinated.
:D

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Why did Jane Robert's commit suicide?

Postby Barrie1 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:44 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Jane Roberts wrote: ........… no person dies ahead of his or her time[/b]. The individual chooses the time of death. ....................Again, however, no individual dies of cancer or AIDS, or any other condition, until they themselves have set the time.


Why did Jane commit suicide?

Barrie1 wrote: By virtue of being born, we all die at one time and in some way. "Winning" is not staying alive for as long as you can; and dying is not "losing." People get sick and die for a great number of varied personal, intimate reasons--based on their beliefs about themselves, others and life.

But we all die one day. But choosing the time is not the same as making the conscious choice to either have pizza or chinese food for lunch. The decision is more on the subconscious level--a "place" in which fears and joys also exist. A person doesn't make the conscious choice to be fearful of the dark or joyful at a beautiful sunset--but these choices ar made at another place inside--not where they decide on pizza or chinese food for lunch.

So, you, Matt, are free to believe, that death is totally random; while others believe it is not as random as you believe. Now, there are explanations and reasons as to how this is so...which involve consciousness and the nature of reality...which you presently do not see. But remember, just because you don't see connections, doesn't mean there aren't any--as with the case with the imaginary "germ" and infection, etc.


Try answering my question. Why did Jane choose to commit suicide? :D


Matt, are you really such a fool? And sorry, scrm, I don't have the intent to shame Matt. It is a sincere question. And i also believe nothing I could say could shame him--but that is not my intent...I have answered your question, Matt, concerning the concept of choosing one's death. Each one of us will have our own intimate and personal reason for choosing how and when we die. It is based on our beliefs, emotions and expectations--concerning ourselves, others and the nature of reality and our environment.

You insist on using the phrase "commit suicide" -- and that is not the correct phrase to use. Also, I am saying that IF you wish to use that phrase--then it would be true for all of us as well--we all then "commit suicide" -- but that phrase is very loaded and involves and implies so much that is NOT the case in the area we discuss--and so I find your question intentionally manipulative, senseless and provocative--and I find your smile discussing her death--cruel and obnoxious...and mostly very sad...and to borrow a phrase from another poster--pretty despicable. And that would be true about discussing anyone's death.

If you ever find an iota of compassion and empathy--I suggest you grab hold of it and hope it grows. And that is my answer to you.

IF you want to explore why Jane died the way she did and how and why she chose that disease--the answers are to be found in the books--but those answers do not clarify misconceptions of the Seth material...which is why I am here.

IF you want to discuss the topic of choosing our deaths, how and why, and what is partially right but mostly wrong to refer to it as "committing suicide" -- then please do so. BUT if you want to discuss Jane's death in such a demeaning, mocking and thoughtless way, don't use me to those ends.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Poodle » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:49 am

Barrie1 wrote: ... even more of the usual blah ...


I give you 10 out of 10 for sheer, unadulterated blindness, Barrie.

You do not have to constantly repeat your assertion that you are here to prevent the merely mortal denizens of this forum from straying into apostasy. We know already that your conceit is massive enough to allow you to think you should, or even could. I interpret your ridiculously inappropriate responses to my posts with this in mind.

Whose work are you stealing? Well, let's see - you are not Jane Roberts and you did not write Jane Roberts' books (I'm sure you'd agree on those points) yet here you are as the self-styled priest of Robertsian interpretation. A bit like St. Paul, really, don't you think? I leave it to your stupendous intellect to work out what I'm saying here.

So, once again (and slowly this time so that you can understand). You are a user of the works of Jane Roberts, as is your prerogative. That's where it ends, Barrie. You have no more claim to possess the true interpretation of her meanderings than anyone else on this planet who has also read more than a single page of her excruciating efforts to turn a pulp sci-fi plot into a pseudo-religion. That. by the way, is MY claim and I have the printed works of Jane Roberts to back that up. Now, read the following carefully ...

You say I do not understand what I am talking about, and you claim that YOUR INTERPRETATION of the works of Jane Roberts is the true meaning of life, the universe and everything. You have the sheer audacity to say that you are here to ensure that the members of this forum are interpreting The Gospel According to Jane correctly, and you admonish us (using oddly substandard English for a claimed poet) for having some skepticism about your claims.

Being skeptical of the Seth fairy story is the default position, as it contains claims of extra-terrestrial intelligence, telepathy, instantaneous communication ... you get the gist. For you to make me understand 'correctly' you are going to have to establish that these things exist - or, as the self-appointed Guru of Robertsism, say that she was 'mistaken' so that you can advance your own, equally nutty, version of the tale.

So what's it to be, Barrie? Either claim that Jane was correct (in which case her works stand in their own right and we need no interpreter, thank you very much) or claim that she was not correct (in which case you are way out on an unjustified limb which you need to reinforce with evidence).

Just state your position, Barrie, and please do it simply and legibly by either using the quotation function supplied on the board or by not using quotations at all. Your posts are difficult to read as they stand.

EDIT: Just to make it clear, I am trying very hard to shame you for the very simple reason that I think what you are, what you do, and what you stand for are shameful. I trust that makes my position obvious to you.
Last edited by Poodle on Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Why did Jane Robert's commit suicide?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:54 am

Barrie Gellis wrote: Matt, are you really such a fool?
The evidence is exactly the opposite Barrie.

You got conned by Jane Roberts.
:lol:

You followed cult propaganda, that she died from rheumatoid arthritis when she was in fact taking thyroid medication for her thyroid disease, despite her advice as "Seth" that she did not need to take thyroid medicine.

Jane Roberts, pretending to be Seth wrote:"Hormones are the secretion formed by the ductless glands of the endocrine system, the adrenals, thyroid, pancreas, etc. These complex compounds are then carried by body fluids to other organs and tissues, where they have certain effects. Here as always Seth maintains we are not at the mercy of such involuntary purposes."

Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Barrie1 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 6:58 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Barrie1 wrote: No, Matt. I didn't say that either.
What are you saying? :lol: Seth controlled her left ear and right foot, while Jane controlled her right ear and left foot?

Even more fun......as Jane got more and more sloshed on alcohol, Didn't Seth also find moving Jane's mouth & lips harder and harder?

Can you explain the scientific physics of how that worked? I'm fascinated.
:D


Matt, in my opinion, you are a sad human being who hides behind laughing icons. You speak and repeat so many lies and so disingenuously...it is sad to even respond to you because dealing with such behavior is so unpleasant. In my opinion only, you make a mockery of this board and of anyone who is really a sincere and honest skeptic.

I believe that this board and the topic of skepticism is used by you as a tool to release your pent-up anger and hostility aimed at who knows who--I can guess but I do not wish to publicly do so.

In short, in my opinion, you use this board as a tool to both mask and express your callous void of care and/or concern for others--bordering on cruelty masked with your attempts at humor. There is such a lack of empathy and compassion--it actually hurts to read your words and understand the emotions or lack of--behind them--that you possess.

You keep much hidden to your own detriment.

And to those few others who sometimes choose to respond in a hostile manner, these comments of mine are not whining or even complaining--they are heartfelt observations--some skeptics have those, too, don't they?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Poodle » Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:00 am

OK Barrie - but can you explain the scientific physics of how that worked? I'm fascinated too.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:02 am

Poodle wrote: I give you 10 out of 10 for sheer, unadulterated blindness, Barrie.

I'd give Barrie Gellis 10/10 for waiting for Jane Roberts to die and Jane's husband (who completed Jane's "half finished books" after she died), to be on his deathbed......before Barrie puts out his Seth poetry book.

Think about it.

dead-horse.gif
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:07 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Can you explain the scientific physics of how that worked? I'm fascinated. :D
Barrie Gellis wrote: Matt, in my opinion, you are a sad human being who hides behind laughing icons.
....that would be you and about 200 other cult members and holocaust deniers who have come to this forum to not answer direct questions.

When are you going to explain the paradox between what Jane Roberts actually did and what "Seth says" regarding thyroid disease?

When are you going to explain the physics behind your claims?


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests