Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8096
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 7:09 am

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

[color=#000080]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 ...


I didn't know that. It makes his position even more indefensible.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:28 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: 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 ...
Poodle wrote:I didn't know that. It makes his position even more indefensible.


In the "Ra, the channelled alien" debunk thread, I noted all the people trying to take over "Ra" publications, after Carla Reuckert, the original medium, died.

In this current cult scenario, Jane Roberts claimed that she could not remember what she channelled (while smoking and drinking), so her husband took notes. She also wrote separate "interpretation" books, while not channelling, based on her own channelled wisdom. :D

It gets funnier. This means she must have read her husband's notes to know what she said and then offer her opinion. As Seth and Jane are meant to be two separate entities, who cares what Jane Roberts thinks?


When Jane dies, the husband completes her half finished books for some years. It's simply two people making money selling books from yet another zany invented religion.

Outside Is a Secret Key Paperback – September 6, 2006
by Barrie Gellis
Last edited by Matthew Ellard on Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: What did Jane Roberts die of again?

Postby Barrie1 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:29 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
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?

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


Matt, you seem to display an unrelenting and unrepenting ignorance and callousness--in an almost pathological manner. You also seem to show no signs of self-awareness or a desire for sincere discussion. I am a prop in your eyes upon which you unwittingly need to display your ignorance and ill will.

You are as wrong about the connection between RA and thyroid conditions as you have been about everything else--and you seem to not know it. To me, you are not a skeptic--but use skepticism as a tool to further other emotional ends and needs.

But back to your latest ignorance:

RA & THE THYROID GLAND:
“Autoimmune diseases travel in packs. If you have one, you're at risk for developing others.
For example, people with rheumatoid arthritis are also more likely to develop an underactive thyroid disease —hypothyroidism or Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.”
http://www.everydayhealth.com/ra-and-yo ... ction.aspx

------------------------------

“Relationships between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the thyroid gland have been studied extensively for a long time. The studies of this problem have focused mainly on: (a) the functional and immune thyroid gland abnormalities in patients with previous history of RA, and (b) joint changes in patients with previous autoimmune thyroid diseases. Thyroid dysfunctions in RA patients are most often of autoimmune nature; they are accompanied by elevated thyroid autoantibody titers.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18504927

------------------------------

“Research has demonstrated that persons diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis are more likely to develop thyroid disorders such as hypothyroidism, or Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, and Grave’s disease, or hyperthyroidism.”
http://www.healthcentral.com/rheumatoid ... heumatoid/

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


“Hypothyroidism was the most common thyroid disorder associated with RA, present in 24%, with a significant association with RA disease activity parameters.”
http://www.err.eg.net/article.asp?issn= ... st=Elattar

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: What did Jane Roberts die of again?

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:34 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."
Matthew Ellard wrote:Barry? What thyroid medications was Jane Roberts taking at the time of her death? "she couldn't put paper in the type writer due to her thyroid medication"
Barrie1 wrote:Matt, you seem to display an unrelenting and unrepenting ignorance and callousness--in an almost pathological manner.
Nope.

Jane Roberts was taking thyroid medication. "Seth" said "we are not at the mercy of such involuntary purposes"

Jane Roberts did not believe in Seth. QED. :D

You were conned.


Bring on the next cult member! :lol:

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

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:14 am

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

[color=#000080]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 ...


I didn't know that. It makes his position even more indefensible.


You guys are sick and ugly people. This is an example of skepticism and evidence? This is sick, sad and totally ignorant. Matt, you are beyond shame, and Poodle--for you to take Matt at his word is shameful. Jane died in 1984 and Rob in 2008. To draw or even imagine ANY connection between those two events and publishing my poetry book in 2006 is sick. I can imagine me thinking, "Oooh, Rob is on his deathbed (which is was not) and so I will finally publish my poetry book because if he wasn't on his deathbed (which he wasn't) he would then....er, what?"

Actually, Jane's best friend, Sue, did use some of my poems in her book about Seth class--and Rob and Jane were absolutely nothing but happy. This was four years before Jane died. I read some poems in class, and Jane very much liked my poems and encouraged me to write.

Yeah, guys. So let’s figure this all out scientifically: I patiently waited precisely 24 years after Jane's death, and then calculated to publish my poetry book 2 years before I somehow knew Rob would die--just so I could...what? Publish my poetry book?

I also waited one year after Pope John Paul 2 died, to steal the now-confused Catholic reader; and I waited a year after Eric Rudolph (Olympic Park Bomber) was sentenced to multiple life sentences—so that the public would be ripe total suckers to buy my book. And then, finally, when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's suffered a stroke and was in a persistent vegetative state—I knew my moment had come—my last obstacle was finally out of my way—and I could take full advantage of everyone on the planet—and publish...my poetry... book.

That said, my poetry book is not a Seth poetry book--what does that even mean? I have written more than 4000+ poems, some of which I shared in class, with Jane’s approval. Jane, too, was a poet--which is something we had in common. And in class, Seth actually referred to me as “our poet” which was nice.

But for you guys to fabricate a sick connection between my poetry book being published 24 years after Jane's death and two years before Rob's death--who was NOT on any deathbed--is sad, sick and despicable. There is no connection, no reason, no common sense and no sense of decency here.

This is a skeptic board? What a joke! This is a board of sick people masquerading as skeptics. The conscience of you guys is what is on a deathbed...altho it seems to have passed on. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for enabling for so long such abuse on your board—for it had started long before I got here.

Poodle, you really should be ashamed of yourself. I actually expected more from you. Matt, for you this is just a new low.

A skeptic board? Ha. This is a character assassination board--based on NO EVIDENCE (which these guys pretend to care about) and the board is complete with a full set of cruelty. The accusation itself even makes totally no sense. Sick people.

And...by the way...Dog...what position of mine is indefensible? I am sorry to say, and this IS an insult, you are a fool.

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 8:26 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
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?


Holocaust deniers? You are a sick person. I do not any longer trust anything you claim or say.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8096
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 9:32 am

Thank you for your clarification on dates, Barrie. Now - that's the way to do it. Evidence, you see.

But you also inadvertently hit the nail on the head. I do not trust anything YOU or people like you say. You are firmly within the category of woomeister which includes all those who espouse cult worship - and I do not exclude bible-thumpers. Your ENTIRE position is indefensible, as I keep telling you. It is pseudo-religious dogma of the worst kind. You choose to pervert the meaning of the words truth and evidence with gay abandon, throwing those words around as though you had a monopoly upon fact.

You are calling foul by default. The threads in which you have posted concern the Seth cult which is based upon certain far-from-normal claims. It is not incumbent upon anyone from outside that cult to provide evidence against those claims. Here's the situation which faces me - you are either a believer or a bare-faced liar. Yet you demand evidence from me to disprove YOUR wishful thinking. This is not the way the world works, Barrie, and you damn well know that.

Now stop whingeing because we've hurt your feelings and get that evidence up front. Until that occurs, my belief will be that you are a charlatan, a liar, or stupendously gullible. You may choose whichever of those descriptions fits like a glove, but you're definitely in there somewhere. You came to a skeptic forum - we did not approach you. Having given us the benefit of your Seth-derived wisdom, we challenged you to show us the truth, O Great Messenger From Beyond.

Once again, put up or shut up. You have provided nothing but angst so far.

EDIT: I note our resident apologist for Seth has STILL not posted in your defence. Either she's scared of you or she's embarrassed. Which one is it, do you think?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:48 am

Barrie1 wrote: I do not any longer trust anything you claim or say.
Oddly it has been you doing all the lying here.

Jane Roberts died of thyroid disease and her cult hid that information because "Seth" her channelled alien specifically said thyroid disease didn't matter. Jane Roberts was taking thyroid medication, as she knew the Seth Material was her own made up religion.

You also gave a specific citation that said exactly the opposite to what you claimed and then lied about reading it.

You kept linking articles saying rheumatoid arthritis was associated with a shorter life span and pretended you could not read the same articles saying it was not fatal on its own.

You claim you came here to answer questions about the Seth cult and then refuse to answer any direct question about the physics of that same Seth cult.

As I pointed out, the other Seth fan on this forum is also a liar. It lying in the teachings of Jane Roberts, a proven liar herself, who claimed to channel "Seth"?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 06, 2016 11:58 am

Barrie Gellis wrote:Actually, Jane's best friend, Sue, did use........
Sue Watkins dropped the beans on Jane Roberts taking thyroid medication in conflict with Jane's channelled alien "Seth" saying the exact opposite.

The more you post and proselytise on behalf of a cult, to educated experienced skeptics, the more information you let slip.
:lol:

You have no idea what goes on in this skeptic forum do you? :D

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4966
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Monster » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:16 pm

Barrie1 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
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?


Holocaust deniers? You are a sick person. I do not any longer trust anything you claim or say.

Maybe you don't know what he means. He's saying that a lot of Holocaust deniers come here, and he considers them to be in a cult. The Holocaust deniers tend to not answer certain questions.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19403
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:57 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
gorgeous wrote:no
Yes. George Washington actually names this specific Jacobin Illuminati society.

Are you so stupid, you are claiming there is still a Jacobin illuminati society controlling the world? Do you know what Jacobin even means?

"A Jacobin was a member of the Jacobin Club, a revolutionary political movement that had been the most famous political club of the French Revolution. The club was so called from the Dominican convent where they originally met, in the Rue Saint-Jacques"

[tinfoil]That's what they want you to believe.[/tinfoil]
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

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

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:20 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Barrie Gellis wrote:Actually, Jane's best friend, Sue, did use........
Sue Watkins dropped the beans on Jane Roberts taking thyroid medication in conflict with Jane's channelled alien "Seth" saying the exact opposite.

The more you post and proselytise on behalf of a cult, to educated experienced skeptics, the more information you let slip.
:lol:

You have no idea what goes on in this skeptic forum do you? :D


This is from Sue's book, "Speaking of Jane Roberts" -- "“She (Jane) returns to the hospital that April and stays there until she dies on September 5, 1984, of complications from soft-tissue infection, arising out of the rheumatoid arthritis she'd suffered from for so long.”

Jane also had thyroid problems. YOU have so many more problems.

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

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:49 am

Monster wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
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?


Holocaust deniers? You are a sick person. I do not any longer trust anything you claim or say.

Maybe you don't know what he means. He's saying that a lot of Holocaust deniers come here, and he considers them to be in a cult. The Holocaust deniers tend to not answer certain questions.


Thanks, Monster, but I do know exactly what he means. The fact that he conflates Seth readers or spiritually-minded people, etc, with Holocaust deniers IN ANY WAY--is sick.

I have lost SO MUCH RESPECT for this board, it's not easy to put it into words. I used to admire skeptics--now I see that TOO MANY of them are phoneys, sick, cruel and thoughtless people--meaning both that they don't care how cruel they are--AND that they don't think very much or deeply and don't even realize it.

It is SAD for me...I don't enjoy feeling this way about people or groups that I once admired. And for those who just don't get it--and like to just throw out accusations--this is not whining or anything else--it is the open-eyed facts given the behavior displayed.

I came here with the best of sincere intentions to be helpful to people who I knew disagreed with me--but who I erroneously believed wanted to actually know what they were talking about. Example: jane was not an alcoholic; people in class were not laughing at her--and on and on--including going into Seth's concepts--a number of which are identical concepts scientists are looking into and psychologists use in their treatment.

I was excited and eager for spirited honest discussion with serious-minded and hopefully playful-at-times people. But I met cruelty, hostility lies and hypocrisy.

You folks have basically allowed MATT to be your spokesperson on this thread, your metaphorical ambassador or representative--and you really should be ashamed of yourselves--IF you are an honest skeptic. Given all of his TOTALLY FALSE COMMENTS about me, Jane being an alcoholic, his repeated lie that I have not answered direct questions...and on and on--go by with enabling silence and agreement-- AND NO ONE has ever once asked him for evidence or proof or anything.

This shows such a deep, blind hypocrisy here; a blind double standard. This is not meant as an insult--but as the sad facts that I witness here on this board...and WITH evidence given of some of his lying comments.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8096
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Poodle » Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:17 am

Barrie1 wrote:
Monster wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
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?


Holocaust deniers? You are a sick person. I do not any longer trust anything you claim or say.

Maybe you don't know what he means. He's saying that a lot of Holocaust deniers come here, and he considers them to be in a cult. The Holocaust deniers tend to not answer certain questions.


Thanks, Monster, but I do know exactly what he means. The fact that he conflates Seth readers or spiritually-minded people, etc, with Holocaust deniers IN ANY WAY--is sick.

I have lost SO MUCH RESPECT for this board, it's not easy to put it into words. I used to admire skeptics--now I see that TOO MANY of them are phoneys, sick, cruel and thoughtless people--meaning both that they don't care how cruel they are--AND that they don't think very much or deeply and don't even realize it.

It is SAD for me...I don't enjoy feeling this way about people or groups that I once admired. And for those who just don't get it--and like to just throw out accusations--this is not whining or anything else--it is the open-eyed facts given the behavior displayed.

I came here with the best of sincere intentions to be helpful to people who I knew disagreed with me--but who I erroneously believed wanted to actually know what they were talking about. Example: jane was not an alcoholic; people in class were not laughing at her--and on and on--including going into Seth's concepts--a number of which are identical concepts scientists are looking into and psychologists use in their treatment.

I was excited and eager for spirited honest discussion with serious-minded and hopefully playful-at-times people. But I met cruelty, hostility lies and hypocrisy.

You folks have basically allowed MATT to be your spokesperson on this thread, your metaphorical ambassador or representative--and you really should be ashamed of yourselves--IF you are an honest skeptic. Given all of his TOTALLY FALSE COMMENTS about me, Jane being an alcoholic, his repeated lie that I have not answered direct questions...and on and on--go by with enabling silence and agreement-- AND NO ONE has ever once asked him for evidence or proof or anything.

This shows such a deep, blind hypocrisy here; a blind double standard. This is not meant as an insult--but as the sad facts that I witness here on this board...and WITH evidence given of some of his lying comments.


"... best of sincere intentions to be helpful to people ..."

You're a poor liar, Barrie1. You came here on an ego-trip looking to pit your wits against nasty people who didn't fall for your brand of religious BS. Face facts.

Matt does not speak for me, but I do agree with his stance on frauds such as you. You have signally failed to provide anything of substance here, preferring instead to fall back on responding to questions by asking questions. It's an old technique and a sure indication of a quack. But thank you for being sad - I return the emotion not because of any failure but because of people like you and the rubbish you launch upon the world.

You are a whinger, crying into your milk because you think it's not fair that anyone should ask you - the self-appointed High Priest of BS - for a teeny amount of evidence. Stand up for yourself - shove that evidence down our throats because, until you can and do, you have the standing of every other shyster and con-man who ever hit these pages.

Here's a bit of a secret for you to contemplate, Barrie1. I know and just about everyone on this forum knows that you cannot provide evidence supporting any of your claims. I can't even be bothered to hold my skepticism to the fore and allow that there may be something in what you say. You will go the way of all cultists, and the world will be a better place. Reflect upon that.

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

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:50 am

Poodle wrote:Thank you for your clarification on dates, Barrie. Now - that's the way to do it. Evidence, you see.

But you also inadvertently hit the nail on the head. I do not trust anything YOU or people like you say. You are firmly within the category of woomeister which includes all those who espouse cult worship - and I do not exclude bible-thumpers. Your ENTIRE position is indefensible, as I keep telling you. It is pseudo-religious dogma of the worst kind. You choose to pervert the meaning of the words truth and evidence with gay abandon, throwing those words around as though you had a monopoly upon fact.

You are calling foul by default. The threads in which you have posted concern the Seth cult which is based upon certain far-from-normal claims. It is not incumbent upon anyone from outside that cult to provide evidence against those claims. Here's the situation which faces me - you are either a believer or a bare-faced liar. Yet you demand evidence from me to disprove YOUR wishful thinking. This is not the way the world works, Barrie, and you damn well know that.

Now stop whingeing because we've hurt your feelings and get that evidence up front. Until that occurs, my belief will be that you are a charlatan, a liar, or stupendously gullible. You may choose whichever of those descriptions fits like a glove, but you're definitely in there somewhere. You came to a skeptic forum - we did not approach you. Having given us the benefit of your Seth-derived wisdom, we challenged you to show us the truth, O Great Messenger From Beyond.

Once again, put up or shut up. You have provided nothing but angst so far.

EDIT: I note our resident apologist for Seth has STILL not posted in your defence. Either she's scared of you or she's embarrassed. Which one is it, do you think?


Poodle Writes:Thank you for your clarification on dates, Barrie. Now - that's the way to do it. Evidence, you see.

Barrie Responds: Oh, yeah, Poodle. I realize your game here. Where was your love and desire for evidence when Matt made and makes all of his outrageous, lying claims? You know what you said, something like, “Oh, I didn’t know that. It makes it much worse.”

I say this a fact: You are a hypocrite—selectively asking for evidence—and not realizing when you let your own beliefs substitute for evidence—but always going back to your self-righteous, phony-for-you skeptic quest for evidence. It is a joke and you have shown me, along with your sidekick, Matt, that this board, as you use it, is not what it purports to be.

Poodle Continues: But you also inadvertently hit the nail on the head. I do not trust anything YOU or people like you say.

Barrie Responds: Then why are you even asking me questions? You are such a disingenuous phony. That is observable—observing your written words, who you direct them to, and what they actually say. You don’t trust anything I say—coming into the discussion—and not knowing me at all—you group me in with people “like me.” So, let’s throw blind prejudice into the mix.

Just think for a SECOND: You don’t trust anything I say, and yet you persist in asking me questions and writing to me...and then you group me into an imaginary group in your head that you put together—with no evidence whatsoever—you just assume, assume, assume, believe, believe, believe—and ask selective people for evidence. Again, more evidence of you being disingenuous, manipulative and bigoted.

Poodle Continues: You are firmly within the category of woomeister which includes all those who espouse cult worship - and I do not exclude bible-thumpers.

Barrie Responds: This is a perfect example of your blindness and hypocrisy—you speak with no evidence at all—only beliefs and assumptions. I do not worship Seth or the Seth material. It is not a cult...but you are so arrogantly blind—you just go right on espousing beliefs as if they were facts and as if your opinions as evidence. But if someone you disagree with does that--they are charlatans and liars. That makes you a hypocrite. AND on top of that, you don’t trust a word I say—which just cements in place your self-imposed ignorance.

You have broadened the discussion to be about me...and then you claim to know me better than myself...all of course...with no evidence...you claim your imagination and assumptions and beliefs are more valid and true than what I actually say—and yet, here you are, a skeptic who worships evidence? Again, this is a joke.

Poodle Continues: Your ENTIRE position is indefensible, as I keep telling you. It is pseudo-religious dogma of the worst kind. You choose to pervert the meaning of the words truth and evidence with gay abandon, throwing those words around as though you had a monopoly upon fact.

Barrie Responds: IF you don’t realize that words have multiple meanings and those meanings breathe, live and expand over time and when used in different place—it shows the “depth” of your awareness (zero). IF you can’t see or understand that the concept of “evidence” itself--exists outside of your small box and understanding of it—and that you are not Lord or God of words and meanings and ideas—then you are pretty much a hopeless case, in my opinion. But you already don’t trust a word I say, anyway, and yet pretend to be trying to engage me in some sort of discussion. Manipulative phony, is what that is.

Poodle Continues: You are calling foul by default. The threads in which you have posted concern the Seth cult which is based upon certain far-from-normal claims.

Barrie Responds: There is no Seth cult—and speaking of creating your own reality—you keep doing that concerning me over and over and over. You have created a Barrie that does not exist and then demand of that Barrie to be the ne in your imagination. And the sad thing is that you so arrogantly don't even realize any of this.

There are a great many things in the Seth material—more so than the ones to which you try to allude and belittle--but you dont know that--nor do you trust a word I say.

You speak of "normal claims" as some sort of standard? Have you done testing of what is normal? Science would still be discussing the best way to use a stick as a weapon--if people stuck to "normal claims." On top of that, your claims about me are far from normal. Also, Matt’s claims are sick—and you never once asked him for ANY evidence. He says something, and you just believe it. You seem to be the one in a cult here.

Poodle Continues: It is not incumbent upon anyone from outside that cult to provide evidence against those claims. Here's the situation which faces me - you are either a believer or a bare-faced liar. Yet you demand evidence from me to disprove YOUR wishful thinking. This is not the way the world works, Barrie, and you damn well know that.

Barrie Responds: You are in no position to tell me what is incumbent of me. You are not a boss or a dictator--unless ou have assigned those roles to yourself in your imagination. You keep insisting that your view of me, of the Seth material and of the world—are FACTS—and that I must agree with them and go along with them—or else i am wrong, dishonest, in a cult, etc etc. Again, if anyone here is displaying cult tendencies, it is you.

Example, Poodles Writes: “It is not incumbent upon anyone from outside that cult to provide evidence against those claims.”

Barrie Now Responds: So...there is no cult. I am not in a cult. I don’t see you, skeptics or anyone as being OUTSIDE of anything. You don’t understand me, how I think, and yet you BELIEVE you do, act as if your beliefs are true...with no evidence, of course, and on top of that...you expect me to just go along with all this—AND on top of that...you don’t believe a word I say anyway. Putting all that together: THAT IS SICK.

Poodle Continues: Now stop whingeing because we've hurt your feelings and get that evidence up front.

Barrie Responds: I am not whining. If anything, you are whining. Do this, Barrie. Do that, Barrie. As i see it: Matt lies, you lap up those lies with no evidence given...you see people as “things” – you don’t believe a word a say—and I am the one in a cult?

Poodle Continues: Until that occurs, my belief will be that you are a charlatan, a liar, or stupendously gullible. You may choose whichever of those descriptions fits like a glove, but you're definitely in there somewhere.

Barrie Responds: None of them fit at all; and you are free to believe whatever you wish. All I know is that when it comes to me, you are totally ignorant—and so I find it no surprise that that ignorance spreads out into other areas.

Poodle Continues: You came to a skeptic forum - we did not approach you.

Barrie Responds: YOU keep treating this board as a religious cult. There is no “we” – for if you haven’t realized it—you are an “I” and not a “we” – do you have evidence that a majority of this board has agreed to have you be their spokesperson? Oh, I forgot, you don’t need evidence. YOUR beliefs are fine as facts, but not so with those who disagree with you.

That said, need I remind you that I did not approach YOU to respond to me...I wrote on this board and YOU chose to respond to me. You were not obligated to, or compelled to do so--except in your own mind. It is your choice. Don’t whine and blame me for your own choices.

Poodle Continues: Having given us the benefit of your Seth-derived wisdom, we challenged you to show us the truth, O Great Messenger From Beyond.

Barrie Responds: I have given you no benefits of anything...I have attempted to clarify misconceptions concerning the Seth material. I don’t have Seth-derived wisdom...wisdom derives from within...and I think very well for myself; “we” have not challenged me to anything—YOU have--unless you include your rabid partner Matt. I am not a great messenger nor am I trying to be one. I’ve never claimed to show you the "truth" in any abstract way--other than to clarify misconceptions you have about the Seth material; and I never claimed that the Seth material was "THE TRUTH." Also, the Seth material is a topic that I did not invite the board to bring up, by the way.

Poodles Continues: Once again, put up or shut up. You have provided nothing but angst so far.

Barrie responds: Well, I didn’t invite YOU to respond to me; and you are not my dictator and your whiny commands are just that—displaying nothing but angst.

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

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:57 am

Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:
Monster wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
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?


Holocaust deniers? You are a sick person. I do not any longer trust anything you claim or say.

Maybe you don't know what he means. He's saying that a lot of Holocaust deniers come here, and he considers them to be in a cult. The Holocaust deniers tend to not answer certain questions.


Thanks, Monster, but I do know exactly what he means. The fact that he conflates Seth readers or spiritually-minded people, etc, with Holocaust deniers IN ANY WAY--is sick.

I have lost SO MUCH RESPECT for this board, it's not easy to put it into words. I used to admire skeptics--now I see that TOO MANY of them are phoneys, sick, cruel and thoughtless people--meaning both that they don't care how cruel they are--AND that they don't think very much or deeply and don't even realize it.

It is SAD for me...I don't enjoy feeling this way about people or groups that I once admired. And for those who just don't get it--and like to just throw out accusations--this is not whining or anything else--it is the open-eyed facts given the behavior displayed.

I came here with the best of sincere intentions to be helpful to people who I knew disagreed with me--but who I erroneously believed wanted to actually know what they were talking about. Example: jane was not an alcoholic; people in class were not laughing at her--and on and on--including going into Seth's concepts--a number of which are identical concepts scientists are looking into and psychologists use in their treatment.

I was excited and eager for spirited honest discussion with serious-minded and hopefully playful-at-times people. But I met cruelty, hostility lies and hypocrisy.

You folks have basically allowed MATT to be your spokesperson on this thread, your metaphorical ambassador or representative--and you really should be ashamed of yourselves--IF you are an honest skeptic. Given all of his TOTALLY FALSE COMMENTS about me, Jane being an alcoholic, his repeated lie that I have not answered direct questions...and on and on--go by with enabling silence and agreement-- AND NO ONE has ever once asked him for evidence or proof or anything.

This shows such a deep, blind hypocrisy here; a blind double standard. This is not meant as an insult--but as the sad facts that I witness here on this board...and WITH evidence given of some of his lying comments.


"... best of sincere intentions to be helpful to people ..."

You're a poor liar, Barrie1. You came here on an ego-trip looking to pit your wits against nasty people who didn't fall for your brand of religious BS. Face facts.

Matt does not speak for me, but I do agree with his stance on frauds such as you. You have signally failed to provide anything of substance here, preferring instead to fall back on responding to questions by asking questions. It's an old technique and a sure indication of a quack. But thank you for being sad - I return the emotion not because of any failure but because of people like you and the rubbish you launch upon the world.

You are a whinger, crying into your milk because you think it's not fair that anyone should ask you - the self-appointed High Priest of BS - for a teeny amount of evidence. Stand up for yourself - shove that evidence down our throats because, until you can and do, you have the standing of every other shyster and con-man who ever hit these pages.

Here's a bit of a secret for you to contemplate, Barrie1. I know and just about everyone on this forum knows that you cannot provide evidence supporting any of your claims. I can't even be bothered to hold my skepticism to the fore and allow that there may be something in what you say. You will go the way of all cultists, and the world will be a better place. Reflect upon that.


Barrie Wrote: "... best of sincere intentions to be helpful to people ..."

Poodle Responds: You're a poor liar, Barrie1. You came here on an ego-trip looking to pit your wits against nasty people who didn't fall for your brand of religious BS. Face facts.

Barrie Responds: Face facts, Poodle. You are so prejudiced that conversing with you is as fruitless as it is senseless.

There is not really much more to say: I say something honestly and sincerely and you call it a lie, etc, and then you ascribe to me motives I don't have...and I'm supposed to take you seriously--you don't trust a word I say anyway. And all the while, you are crying, "Evidence! Evidence!" --while being so void of evidence in almost all you have written in our exchanges.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8096
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth likes to tell whoppers

Postby Poodle » Thu Jul 07, 2016 10:13 am

Once again, Barrie1, you display the egotistic ignorance of the profoundly stupid. Here's your first post ...

Hi Folks,

I've just seen this thread tonight for the first time. I believe everyone here is sincere in their comments, and I don't expect to change any or many minds at all. But I do hope to clarify some of misunderstandings or misconceptions brought up in is this forum discourse about the Seth material--so at least you will then disagree with what the Seth material actually is and what it says--and not disagree with things that aren't in the material. Again, as you know, you are free to disagree with me and the Seth material, and I hope you follow your hearts and disagree until you feel otherwise, if ever. But my goal is clarify some misconceptions mentioned in this discourse so you can see more clearly what with which you disagree. I will now begin to go thru the posts and make my comments.

... which was, of course, your first whopper on the forum. You have signally failed to address any 'misconception'. Here's how you go about it at the moment, Barrie1 ...

B: Seth exists ...
F: Hold on - can you prove that?
B: Proof isn't important. As I was saying, it's the thought that counts ...
F: Hang on - does Seth exist or not?
B: Irrelevant - now, about spirituality and ,,,
F: No, wait, B. We need evidence of your claim.
B: No you don't.
F: Then I draw the conclusion that your claim is in error.
B: That is unreasonable and unfriendly.
F: You're a fruitcake.
B: Boo Hoo. I'm taking my ball home ...

And here's how you SHOULD do it ...

B: Seth exists ...
F: Hold on - can you prove that?
B: Yes. Here's the proof ...

See how much simpler that is? And it lends itself to a much more friendly atmosphere. Try it, Barrie1. If there is any substance to any of your claims, then where's the difficulty? Why the histrionics? One incy-wincy bit of proof and you'll force the Nasty Matts and Poodles Who Will Burn in Hell into grovelling apologies. It's a guaranteed, tried and tested method, Barrie1. And frankly, it's the only one which will work. I'm bored with calling you names trying to goad you into a constructive statement. Less of the astral plane, please, and more of the truth, pretty please, else Ra may strike you down.

EDIT: It's not just you, Barrie1. If the Pope came on here with your attitude he, too, would have strips ripped off him. Now if God turned up and proved that it really WAS God, that would be different.

EDIT2: Oh - I nearly forgot. Thank you very much for your offer to clarify the meaning and import of the Seth material. Fortunately, I can read so your services will not be required in that area. Should I ever require such services in the future I will contact you via one of your egostistical sites on the web where you profess to be of service.

EDIT3: Every member of this site is fully capable of expressing their own opinions. Neither Matt nor I assume anything remotely like what you imply, both of us having been slapped down soundly by those members when we step too far in the direction of error. It's just me and, I assume, Matt when he wakes up. We are not bullies, but neither are we idiotic enough to accept the kind of crap you gush at the drop of a hat. Just so you get that clear.

EDIT4: I'm going to try to stop responding to you now, Barrie1. It's a hopeless task and you're a hopeless case. I have better things to do - my fairy cage is in need of repair, for instance.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19616
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 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:57 pm

Thanks Poodle.

Barrie, is it becoming clearer to you now where some of the difficulties stem from? Maybe putting this side by side this will help...


Barrie1 wrote:Hi Folks,

I've just seen this thread tonight for the first time. I believe everyone here is sincere in their comments, and I don't expect to change any or many minds at all. But I do hope to clarify some of misunderstandings or misconceptions brought up in is this forum discourse about the Seth material--so at least you will then disagree with what the Seth material actually is and what it says--and not disagree with things that aren't in the material...
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17139#p520429

Barrie1 wrote:I came here with the best of sincere intentions to be helpful to people who I knew disagreed with me--but who I erroneously believed wanted to actually know what they were talking about. Example: jane was not an alcoholic; people in class were not laughing at her--and on and on--including going into Seth's concepts...
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=25074&p=523231#p523218
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19616
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 » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:58 pm

Barrie1 wrote:Also, the Seth material is a topic that I did not invite the board to bring up, by the way.
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=25074&p=523227l#p523227


:blink:
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4966
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Monster » Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:03 pm

Barrie1 wrote:I have lost SO MUCH RESPECT for this board, it's not easy to put it into words. I used to admire skeptics--now I see that TOO MANY of them are phoneys, sick, cruel and thoughtless people--meaning both that they don't care how cruel they are--AND that they don't think very much or deeply and don't even realize it.

...

I was excited and eager for spirited honest discussion with serious-minded and hopefully playful-at-times people. But I met cruelty, hostility lies and hypocrisy.


Perhaps we're not the skeptics that you're looking for. Perhaps you need to find another board with a broader group of people. I don't know.

Matthew Ellard is frequently very mean. I don't like that. However, I've generally been impressed with his logic and research.

Regarding this thread, I personally didn't want to take the time to peruse every single thing. Barrie1, I've encountered an endless array of wooists and wooisms. At some point, one must give up on this stuff. Some of the stuff that is attributed to "Seth" is the same stuff I've heard a quintillion times. Must I contemplate it again?
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Con artist activities of Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:55 am

Barrie Gellis wrote: Jane also had thyroid problems. YOU have so many more problems.
Barry, you are avoiding the elephant in the room.

Jane Roberts was taking thyroid medication. Yet simultaneously, as "Seth, the channelled alien", says


"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."

Jane Roberts did not believe in her own "Seth" nonsense, yet informs her cult's followers, as Seth, to not worry about thyroid medication.

Don't you think this is a criminally misleading act? How many sick people is Jane Robert's responsible for?
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Debunk ; Seth and Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:02 am

Barrie Gellis wrote: The fact that he conflates Seth readers or spiritually-minded people, etc, with Holocaust deniers IN ANY WAY--is sick.
Holocaust deniers spread false facts to their followers, using deceptive techniques.

Jane Roberts spread false facts about thyroid disease to her cult's followers, using deceptive techniques, which she herself didn't follow.


Next question.
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Skeptic debunk Jane Roberts Seth

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:45 am

gorgeous, the Seth follower wrote:no I can't prove Seth was a reality.......do any of you think the seth teachings are accurate?
We just proved the exact opposite, using the example of Jane Roberts taking thyroid medication, against the advice of "Seth", her own religious creation, to garner followers. :D

Even more fascinating: Why is it that "Seth, the channelled alien" doesn't warn us about the alien lizard people, that you simultaneously claim control Earth? :lol:

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4123
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby gorgeous » Fri Jul 08, 2016 2:23 am

he's not an alien
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19616
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 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 2:24 am

Watch it, here he comes...
Hi, Io the lurker.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26338
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jul 08, 2016 2:40 am

gorgeous wrote:he's not an alien
Really? How come Seth is a "He"? :lol:

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

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Barrie1 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:26 am

Monster wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:I have lost SO MUCH RESPECT for this board, it's not easy to put it into words. I used to admire skeptics--now I see that TOO MANY of them are phoneys, sick, cruel and thoughtless people--meaning both that they don't care how cruel they are--AND that they don't think very much or deeply and don't even realize it.

...

I was excited and eager for spirited honest discussion with serious-minded and hopefully playful-at-times people. But I met cruelty, hostility lies and hypocrisy.


Perhaps we're not the skeptics that you're looking for. Perhaps you need to find another board with a broader group of people. I don't know.

Matthew Ellard is frequently very mean. I don't like that. However, I've generally been impressed with his logic and research.

Regarding this thread, I personally didn't want to take the time to peruse every single thing. Barrie1, I've encountered an endless array of wooists and wooisms. At some point, one must give up on this stuff. Some of the stuff that is attributed to "Seth" is the same stuff I've heard a quintillion times. Must I contemplate it again?


Matt is not just mean, in my opinion. He is a liar and he jumps to false conclusions as much as he breathes. He's called Jane an alcoholic; he's said people in class were laughing at her; he said I published my poetry book to sneak it past Rob or something,...and more...he's just lied and lied and lied--and no one asks him for ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL. So, when you say you are impressed with his logic and research--that is from some other place--not on this thread.

Monster Wrties:"Some of the stuff that is attributed to "Seth" is the same stuff I've heard a quintillion times. Must I contemplate it again?"

Barrie Responds: This is exactly my point. You haven't. What you think you heard a quintillion of times, and then just assume that that is also what Seth is saying--is exactly what I'm trying to address. Pick a topic you heard over and over--and let's just discuss it--and so you can see what I mean. You still don't have to agree with it--but at least you can see what you're taking about. Seth is different than most others around--and the tendency on this board is to lump people together. It dehumanizes people--perhaps enabling the cruelty that is found here.

I am now a wooist; not an indiviudual with thoughts, ideas, etc--but just thrown into a block of people that I don't even know. When people do this, it is called bigotry and prejudice. IF I acted or thought that way, I'd say all skeptics everywhere--including you--are callous, mean liars--like Matt. And if you acted nice, you were just lying or pretending. And likewise, it is true that all those individual humans that you call wooists are also not all the same or even believe the same.

Just pick a topic that you believe you know best or are interested in, curious about, wonder about or for whatever reason--and let me see your thoughts on it--and so we can then discuss it.

I've basically given up responding to people like Poodle, who outright says he doesn't believe a word I say, and calls me a liar at the drop of the hat when I sincerely express how I honestly feel. And people like Matt who are just so sick, dense and ugly to my sensibilities.

Let me give you something Seth said, that just gives you the idea or example that he is not some run of the mill channeled personality--just like the rest, etc. Again, you don't have to agree with this, but at least you may see Seth as not living "down" to your expectations and stereotypes; but rather, he is more interesting and diverse than you may realize or imagine. And its not all metaphysical BS.

The following excerpt followed a class discussion in which some people using the word "s h i t" in a derogatory manner. It is filled with humor but is also very serious and intended to make some significant points. Because the following excerpt would be much more in line with its own spirit if this board allowed for the spelling out of the word {!#%@} or sh*t – I will use s h i t.

This type of repression is, in part, exactly what Seth was talking about. I'm sure there are some people here who love physical reality and think it is pretty glorious and understand the connection that s h i t has to its very existence.

Seth (ESP Class, 12-10-74): "Now many of you here use the word 's h i t'. Piles of s h i t – unending – and you apply the word in a derogatory manner to yourselves, and you think 'I am s h i t,' and where does the great spectacular reality, the physical reality of your earth spring from? Why is not s h i t considered sacred and blessed and glorious? You consider s h i t, unfortunately, as the antithesis of good, and when you play around in it or with it, you think you are being childish at the best and wicked at the worst.

"A child sits, perhaps three years old, with his finger stuck up his ass, feeling the s h i t that warmly runs down, and that child knows the s h i t is good. Then give him credit!

"You think that the soul is a white wall with nothing written upon it, and so your idea of sacrilege is to s h i t upon it, not realizing that the s h i t and the soul are one, and that the biological is spiritual, and, that again if you will forgive my homey concept, that flowers grow from the s h i t of the earth; the true communion is that all things of this earth return to it and are consumed and rise up again in a new life that is never destroyed, never annihilated, though always changing form.

"So when you shrink from such words or such meanings, why do you shrink? Because you do not trust the biology of your being or the integrity of your soul in flesh. You are people! You are made of the stuff of earth, and the dust from the stars has formed into the s h i t that lies in piles – warm piles that come from the animals and the beasts and the warm creatures of the earth, and that s h i t fertilizes the flowers, and the ground, and is a part of it.

"How dare any of you, therefore, set yourselves up against that or in conflict with it? What joy there is that you do not, socially at least, acknowledge! And it does not mean, my dear young friend (to Larry), that you need go about speaking to those who do not like the word, and saying, 'F-ck you!' He (Larry) wanted me to say the word on tape! But it does not mean that you need use that word to make other people uncomfortable.

"Your soul and your flesh are wedded together. One is not better than the other. Both are good. Both are, and you are both! The heritage of the earth, in your terms, is ancient and yet ever new, and when you write your letters, you write, in your terms, with your intelligence and your intellect and your wit. Yet, if it were not that you s h i t once or twice a day, you would not be writing any letters!"

Barrie Comments: You don’t have to agree with what Seth says—but you don’t have to shout “EVIDENCE!” for the rooftops, either. So, what is Seth saying—he’s saying that physical reality is spectacular and there is a perhaps some sort of hypocrisy to be upset by the use of the word “s h i t” or to use it in the negative most of the time. He says that the soul and flesh are wedded together; that one is not better than the other.

Now, I'm not saying that you should believe in the existence of the soul; and I'm not trying to offer evidence of a soul. I AM saying that according to Seth, the soul and flesh are equal, wedded together, one is not higher than the other--and physical reality is stupendous.

Again, it is reasonable for a skeptic to demand evidence of a soul, and that's fine and makes sense...but at the same time you can understand that Seth sees the soul as something wedded to the body and that the body and the physical plane are stupendous.

You may think the soul does not exist--but you may also joyfully feel or think physical reality is grand... and perhaps that feeling of joy is wedded to the body.

Both concepts are saying the same thing on so many levels--there is a joy--regardless of what you call it- and this opens up a window and a bridge to understand the feeling of the concept of the soul. You may not believe in the soul; but you may believe in joy being felt. And in that case, you will greatly understand what Seth is talking about even if you think the soul does not exist. And so, you can just appreciate the quote on that level. It doesn't lose any of its significance regardless.

Seth also saying that nothing is wrong with cursing but don’t do it just to upset other people. He advises to “trust the biology of your being or the integrity of your soul in flesh.”

What does this mean? Trust and appreciate yourself and who you are, proudly. And Why? Because “(y)ou are people! You are made of the stuff of earth, and the dust from the stars has formed into the s h i t that lies in piles – warm piles that come from the animals and the beasts and the warm creatures of the earth, and that s h i t fertilizes the flowers, and the ground, and is a part of it.”

Seth speaks in a very poetic manner and there is humor to be found as well. Think of him as a poet if you want—and perhaps the ever-present prerequisite belief that there must be evidence needed for EVERYTHING Seth says--will be a little less angst-producing as his material does not simply fit into one little metaphysical box...but there are many boxes--and the concept of needing evidence does not apply to every box.

So, please understand, I am not here trying to give "evidence" concerning what this quote says or to prove it is true--for it is mostly an expression of something; of emotions; of the physical joy of being human and so forth. These are not things one must need or demand evidence for. When you see a beautiful sunrise and it makes you happy, you don’t have to demand of yourself or others who try to share their experience with you-- evidence to prove the existence of happiness or that the sunrise makes you or them feel happy inside.

In any casee, these types of joyful or thought-provoking sentiments are parts of the Seth material.

Is it “woowoo” to say that the physical world is spectacular? And that people should try to figure out why they are repulsed by or see the word “s h i t” as a negative--when it plays such an important part in maintaining the existence of physical life on earth?

Is the following short quote woowoo BS?

Seth: "The true communion is that all things of this earth return to it and are consumed and rise up again in a new life that is never destroyed, never annihilated, though always changing form."

Barrie Comments: No. My point is, there is so much more to Seth than people on this board realize. AND, there is much more to the concepts that they THINK they do know and understand because they heard “them” a million times. And yet I read how the whole thing is BS, etc, nonsense, and on and on.

In any case, if you want, pick a topic you heard a million times that you can stomach talking about one more time, and tell me your understanding of it. And then we both can see what’s going on.

And please don't answer this post--just to be mean, derogatory, to lie, etc etc...I don't invite your response.

Now, I realize that you don't need my invitation to respond, but some of you have said how I was not invited here--and so I shouldn't be here---and so I say to you--then apply your own rule to yourself as well. Your added and repeated callousness really adds nothing new that you have not already said multiple times. We all know what you think, at least I do.

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

Re: Con artist activities of Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Barrie Gellis wrote: Jane also had thyroid problems. YOU have so many more problems.
Barry, you are avoiding the elephant in the room.

Jane Roberts was taking thyroid medication. Yet simultaneously, as "Seth, the channelled alien", says


"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."

Jane Roberts did not believe in her own "Seth" nonsense, yet informs her cult's followers, as Seth, to not worry about thyroid medication.

Don't you think this is a criminally misleading act? How many sick people is Jane Robert's responsible for?
:lol:


Matt, it is truly so repugnant to respond to you...and pointless...and so I am actually responding to others who may read this...and not to you at all. Seth had a philosophy about disease and medicine...and beliefs, etc. He also said that as long as a person believes in medicine and so forth, he or she should take it.

It is also true that just because someone may intellectually understand a concept, it doesn't mean that they can emotionally believe or follow it--as was the case with Jane and her being sick.

No one has to believe in mediums, but understand that just because someone is a medium--it doesn't follow they can therefore follow the advice given by whom they channel. When it comes to that end of things, they are just like anyone else.
Last edited by Barrie1 on Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:39 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:Also, the Seth material is a topic that I did not invite the board to bring up, by the way.
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=25074&p=523227l#p523227


:blink:


I did not invite the board to bring up this thread on Seth and the Seth material. I found it here already in existence.

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

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:52 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Thanks Poodle.

Barrie, is it becoming clearer to you now where some of the difficulties stem from? Maybe putting this side by side this will help...


Barrie1 wrote:Hi Folks,

I've just seen this thread tonight for the first time. I believe everyone here is sincere in their comments, and I don't expect to change any or many minds at all. But I do hope to clarify some of misunderstandings or misconceptions brought up in is this forum discourse about the Seth material--so at least you will then disagree with what the Seth material actually is and what it says--and not disagree with things that aren't in the material...
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17139#p520429

Barrie1 wrote:I came here with the best of sincere intentions to be helpful to people who I knew disagreed with me--but who I erroneously believed wanted to actually know what they were talking about. Example: jane was not an alcoholic; people in class were not laughing at her--and on and on--including going into Seth's concepts...
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=25074&p=523231#p523218


No, scrm, it is not clear. I came here, as I said, with a trust in the posters I expected to meet--believing they were sincere and so forth--and I came here with respect for posters as well--as I think it is healthful to be skeptical in many ways. What I found was that the most active posters were metaphorically sick and ugly people--who were disingenuous liars as well.

When I spoke of not changing people's minds, I was talking about the Seth concepts themselves. I had no idea that such BS lies would be told by Matt about Jane and myself. Those lies I actually thought I could change people's minds about.

These lies are not part of the Seth material. They are delusions of Matt.

Matt spoke and speaks his lies with no evidence whatsoever--yet no one asks him for his evidence. That is a hypocrisy I did not expect to find here either. And as I said, these discoveries about this board were very saddening to me--and I lost much respect for this board--for enabling such despicable behavior in such an ongoing manner. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link; and a group is only as respectable as the behaviors it enables and encourages...and that makes this board not one to be respected much. That said, some people have been somewhat decent--but mostly in comparison to the really sick ones here.

So scrm, what is your point here in this post?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8096
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Poodle » Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:52 am

Barrie1 wrote: ... Is the following short quote woowoo BS?

Seth: "The true communion is that all things of this earth return to it and are consumed and rise up again in a new life that is never destroyed, never annihilated, though always changing form." ...


You're darn tootin' right it is. It's a stock construction used by many religions. It's totally untestable and unprovable. The simpler version is OK - 'all organic material is recycled' - but the rest of it is emotive decoration and not-so-subtle propaganda.


Barrie1 wrote: ... but some of you have said how I was not invited here--and so I shouldn't be here ....


I'm not going to go back over every word, Barrie1, but I do not believe that to be true. Some of us have lampooned your logic and outlandish claims (and will continue to do so) but I don't think anyone has said what you claim. People like you are the food of mirth in here - we LOVE it. No one has to be invited here - it's an internet forum and you are fully entitled to express your opinion within the forum rules. But it's a skeptic forum (as we keep telling you) so when regale us with pseudo-religious cant we feel a deep-seated urge to take the piss out of you. It's not the same thing.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8096
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 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:59 am

Oh dear - I see that you refuse to respond to me any longer. That's a shame - I thought you were SO much fun. I was going to join in your recent foray into scatology as I sense some agreement to my accusation that you're peddling {!#%@}. Ah well. I'll simply keep posting my comments regardless when I feel the need.

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

Re: Seth likes to smoke and drink.

Postby Barrie1 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 8:04 am

Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote: ... Is the following short quote woowoo BS?

Seth: "The true communion is that all things of this earth return to it and are consumed and rise up again in a new life that is never destroyed, never annihilated, though always changing form." ...


You're darn tootin' right it is. It's a stock construction used by many religions. It's totally untestable and unprovable. The simpler version is OK - 'all organic material is recycled' - but the rest of it is emotive decoration and not-so-subtle propaganda.


Barrie1 wrote: ... but some of you have said how I was not invited here--and so I shouldn't be here ....


I'm not going to go back over every word, Barrie1, but I do not believe that to be true. Some of us have lampooned your logic and outlandish claims (and will continue to do so) but I don't think anyone has said what you claim. People like you are the food of mirth in here - we LOVE it. No one has to be invited here - it's an internet forum and you are fully entitled to express your opinion within the forum rules. But it's a skeptic forum (as we keep telling you) so when regale us with pseudo-religious cant we feel a deep-seated urge to take the piss out of you. It's not the same thing.


Poodle Writes: People like you are the food of mirth in here - we LOVE it.

Barrie Responds: I wouldn't be so proud to be a drooling cannibal...or to take joy in the imagined discomfort you cause in others. This is a sick and ugly place.

Barrie Had Written: Is the following short quote woowoo BS?

Seth: "The true communion is that all things of this earth return to it and are consumed and rise up again in a new life that is never destroyed, never annihilated, though always changing form." ...[/quote]

Poodle Responds: You're darn tootin' right it is. It's a stock construction used by many religions. It's totally untestable and unprovable. The simpler version is OK - 'all organic material is recycled' - but the rest of it is emotive decoration and not-so-subtle propaganda.

Barrie NOW Responds: You make no sense, Poodle. You may as well type, "bow wow" -- and you can become a wowwowist. What is untestable?

"All tihngs of this earth return to it..." -- check or do you find this woowoo

"and are consumed and rise up again in a new life that is never destroyed, never annihilared, etc etc" Is this woowoo? Is it woowoo to say that energy never dies, but changes form or contributes to forms changing? A person dies and is buried--and grass now grows from that spot, rises up.

You know, you are pretty repugnant to write to as well as Matt. I would enjoy a normal neutral, if not friendly discourse with you, but you infuse your posts with ugliness and such unpleasantness--that i realize it is so pointless to elaborate things to you. You are like a wall--lined with glue that is made out of sh*t--and it becomes difficult to get that smell off of me after we converse.

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

Re: Seth likes to tell whoppers

Postby Barrie1 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 8:15 am

Poodle wrote:Once again, Barrie1, you display the egotistic ignorance of the profoundly stupid. Here's your first post ...

Hi Folks,

I've just seen this thread tonight for the first time. I believe everyone here is sincere in their comments, and I don't expect to change any or many minds at all. But I do hope to clarify some of misunderstandings or misconceptions brought up in is this forum discourse about the Seth material--so at least you will then disagree with what the Seth material actually is and what it says--and not disagree with things that aren't in the material. Again, as you know, you are free to disagree with me and the Seth material, and I hope you follow your hearts and disagree until you feel otherwise, if ever. But my goal is clarify some misconceptions mentioned in this discourse so you can see more clearly what with which you disagree. I will now begin to go thru the posts and make my comments.

... which was, of course, your first whopper on the forum. You have signally failed to address any 'misconception'. Here's how you go about it at the moment, Barrie1 ...

B: Seth exists ...
F: Hold on - can you prove that?
B: Proof isn't important. As I was saying, it's the thought that counts ...
F: Hang on - does Seth exist or not?
B: Irrelevant - now, about spirituality and ,,,
F: No, wait, B. We need evidence of your claim.
B: No you don't.
F: Then I draw the conclusion that your claim is in error.
B: That is unreasonable and unfriendly.
F: You're a fruitcake.
B: Boo Hoo. I'm taking my ball home ...

And here's how you SHOULD do it ...

B: Seth exists ...
F: Hold on - can you prove that?
B: Yes. Here's the proof ...

See how much simpler that is? And it lends itself to a much more friendly atmosphere. Try it, Barrie1. If there is any substance to any of your claims, then where's the difficulty? Why the histrionics? One incy-wincy bit of proof and you'll force the Nasty Matts and Poodles Who Will Burn in Hell into grovelling apologies. It's a guaranteed, tried and tested method, Barrie1. And frankly, it's the only one which will work. I'm bored with calling you names trying to goad you into a constructive statement. Less of the astral plane, please, and more of the truth, pretty please, else Ra may strike you down.

EDIT: It's not just you, Barrie1. If the Pope came on here with your attitude he, too, would have strips ripped off him. Now if God turned up and proved that it really WAS God, that would be different.

EDIT2: Oh - I nearly forgot. Thank you very much for your offer to clarify the meaning and import of the Seth material. Fortunately, I can read so your services will not be required in that area. Should I ever require such services in the future I will contact you via one of your egostistical sites on the web where you profess to be of service.

EDIT3: Every member of this site is fully capable of expressing their own opinions. Neither Matt nor I assume anything remotely like what you imply, both of us having been slapped down soundly by those members when we step too far in the direction of error. It's just me and, I assume, Matt when he wakes up. We are not bullies, but neither are we idiotic enough to accept the kind of crap you gush at the drop of a hat. Just so you get that clear.

EDIT4: I'm going to try to stop responding to you now, Barrie1. It's a hopeless task and you're a hopeless case. I have better things to do - my fairy cage is in need of repair, for instance.


F: Does Seth exist?
B: Do I know it for sure? No. Do I believe it? Yes.
F: Do you want people here to believe that Seth exists?
B: Absolutely not. I don't care if people here or anywhere believe that Seth exists or not. That's their business; not mine.
F: Hold on - can you prove that?
B: Prove what? That I don't care if people believe that Seth exists? I don't care.
F: Hang on - does Seth exist or not?
B: I just answered you.
F: No, wait, B. We need evidence of your claim.
B: What claim?
F: Then I draw the conclusion that your claim is in error.
B: What claim?
F: You're a fruitcake.
B: You are a dense dog who doesn't seem to understand human discourse.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8096
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 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 8:19 am

ADVICE: Read what someone has actually posted before jerking knees. You will note that I said "The simpler version is OK - 'all organic material is recycled'". I think this is a problem you have, Barrie1 - you do not fully read or do not fully comprehend what you have read.

APOLOGY: Going back through our conversations, Barrie1, I note that I accused Jane Roberts of being a one-time porn star. I had confused her with Carla Rueckert (she of the Ra version of your delusions) and so must offer my apologies to Jane.

But OK - I will try to be less repugnant to you if you promise to keep to claims which you can substantiate. Fair?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8096
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Seth likes to tell whoppers

Postby Poodle » Fri Jul 08, 2016 8:23 am

Barrie1 wrote:F: Does Seth exist?
B: Do I know it for sure? No. Do I believe it? Yes.
F: Do you want people here to believe that Seth exists?
B: Absolutely not. I don't care if people here or anywhere believe that Seth exists or not. That's their business; not mine.
F: Hold on - can you prove that?
B: Prove what? That I don't care if people believe that Seth exists? I don't care.
F: Hang on - does Seth exist or not?
B: I just answered you.
F: No, wait, B. We need evidence of your claim.
B: What claim?
F: Then I draw the conclusion that your claim is in error.
B: What claim?
F: You're a fruitcake.
B: You are a dense dog who doesn't seem to understand human discourse.


Barrie1! I am shocked to the core! You have deliberately reordered and edited what I said to make me appear to be silly. I am mortified.

But you're learning. We'll have you lying with gay abandon soon. Oh - no, you've already started.

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

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 8:34 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
gorgeous wrote:he's not an alien
Really? How come Seth is a "He"? :lol:


Matt, you are the only alien here--and that includes Seth--your lack of empathy and compassion make you an alien to the human race, as I see it.

For others who care, if or why Seth is a he, here is what Seth said. You can disagree with it all you want, with my blessings which you don't need--but this is the answer to that question::

Seth (Seth Class, 4-17-73): Person Asks: “Seth, why do you represent yourself as masculine?”

Seth Responds: "Because it was the easiest way that Ruburt would relate to me.

Barrie Now Responds: For reasons that you don't care about at all, Ruburt is what Seth calls jane. So, to clarify, Seth is saying in your terms, "I represent myself as masculine because it is the easiest way that Jane would relate to me."

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

Re: Seth teachings by Jane Roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:21 am

Poodle wrote:ADVICE: Read what someone has actually posted before jerking knees. You will note that I said "The simpler version is OK - 'all organic material is recycled'". I think this is a problem you have, Barrie1 - you do not fully read or do not fully comprehend what you have read.

APOLOGY: Going back through our conversations, Barrie1, I note that I accused Jane Roberts of being a one-time porn star. I had confused her with Carla Rueckert (she of the Ra version of your delusions) and so must offer my apologies to Jane.

But OK - I will try to be less repugnant to you if you promise to keep to claims which you can substantiate. Fair?


Take your own advice, Poodle, and let’s look at what you actually wrote:

Poodle FIRST Said: “It's a stock construction used by many religions. It's totally untestable and unprovable. The simpler version is OK - 'all organic material is recycled' - but the rest of it is emotive decoration and not-so-subtle propaganda.”

Poodle THEN Summarizes Himself As Saying: "The simpler version is OK - 'all organic material is recycled'"

Barrie NOW Comments: You have taken your words out of your own context. You didn’t SIMPLY and ONLY say, “"The simpler version is OK - 'all organic material is recycled'".

And I actually DID respond to ALL you said in context of the Seth quote about which I asked if it was woowoo BS:

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

Barrie Had Written: Is the following short quote woowoo BS?

Seth Said: "The true communion is that all things of this earth return to it and are consumed and rise up again in a new life that is never destroyed, never annihilated, though always changing form."

Poodle Had Responded: You're darn tootin' right it is. It's a stock construction used by many religions. It's totally untestable and unprovable. The simpler version is OK - 'all organic material is recycled' - but the rest of it is emotive decoration and not-so-subtle propaganda.

Barrie Then Responded: You make no sense, Poodle. You may as well type, "bow wow" -- and you can become a wowwowist. What is untestable?

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

Barrie NOW Responds: This is what makes no sense...the WHOLE quote, which you rightly summarized said, “All organic material is recycled.” You left out the other half that once it is recycled to contributes to new life. In any case, THAT IS WHAT SETH SAID. You totally agree with the quote.

But, of course, you also had said about this quote:

Poodle Also Had Said: "It's a stock construction used by many religions. It's totally untestable and unprovable... it is emotive decoration and not-so-subtle propaganda."

Barrie NOW Comments: And THAT is why what you said is senseless. First, you agree with it and then you say it is all unprovable etc. Can you prove that all organic material is recycled? Yes. Is that what Seth said? Yes.

So, what are you even talking about?

“All things of this earth return to it” vs “All organic material is recycled” – YOU AGREE FULLY WITH THE QUOTE.

So, where is the propaganda? The BS? The untestable?

And why do you take your own words OUT OF CONTEXT and then accuse me of not fully comprehending what I read? You tried to manipulate your comments by taking yourself out of context? Was that on purpose or does it come natural to you?

Next, let’s go to your apology:

Poodle Writes: Going back through our conversations, Barrie1, I note that I accused Jane Roberts of being a one-time porn star. I had confused her with Carla Rueckert (she of the Ra version of your delusions) and so must offer my apologies to Jane.

Barrie Responds: First, because I am a decent human being with compassion and empathy, I accept your apology. But second, you have called me a liar when I stated my reasons for being here and how I felt about it, etc, and you said that you do not believe a word I say...how am I supposed to have discourse with you and not see you as disengenous? And didn’t you also say that you enjoy people’s discomfort? So, despite your one apology—why should I have discourse with you? At any moment you may call me a liar, perhaps to get out of feeling uncomfortable yourself...or at any moment you may switch to being grossly insulting, etc. How can I trust you when you have said these things about yourself and me?

So, you accuse me of lying...why don’t YOU tell the truth...what is your agenda here? Why are you even writing me? So you can call me a liar when I sincerely respond? Or so that you can mock and make fun when I sincerely answer?

Poodle Concludes: But OK - I will try to be less repugnant to you if you promise to keep to claims which you can substantiate. Fair?

Barrie Responds: No, that is not fair. I don’t believe people must be given some sort of intellectual litmus test, or else they will be treated in a cruel fashion. If you don’t feel or understand the maybe unprovable concepts of compassion and empathy, I can’t help that. But I do feel and understand them...and feel a joy in expressing them.

I have tried to explain the difficulty in talking to you about evidence and so forth—in order for you to see and understand where I am coming from and why. And all I got was that I shouldn’t make up new meanings for words. But what you actually say is: You must see everything like I do or else you are a fool to be mocked.

On top of that, I explained that I am not trying to prove anything to you.

For a simple example, the concept, “you create your own reality.” Someone said that that concept blames the victim. That is not true. The concept does not blame the victim. I have no desire to prove to you the validity or veracity of the concept—but I want to CLARIFY it—that it doesn’t blame the victim. Therefore, when you debunk the claim, you at least would know what you are debunking and not be debunking what is not there.

IF you want to understand the depth of “you create your own reality” – I would be happy to help in that endeavor. THEN, you could really debunk it from a place of knowledge—instead of just sounding empty to people who know better. Note: It is not empty to debunk the concept; it IS empty to not know what you are talking about during the debunking.

Now, I don’t even know if I can trust your answer to me here—given our past history and your comments, etc. I would have to think about it first—for I am FAR MORE CAUTIOUS now than when I first came here.
But if you sincerely wanted to understand the concept—and understand that I am NOT offering proof of the concept—then I would think about it. My purposes here have changed in that I don’t want to clarify anything with nasty, hurtful, cruel and callous people. But I still do, with friendly or neautral people.

In the course of our discourse, there may be some things that approach what may be testable in some ways. You would be able to see that more clearly than I could.

So, is your response back, if there is one, going to be repugnant, neutral or friendly? That, too, is up to you.

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

Re: Seth likes to tell whoppers

Postby Barrie1 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 9:30 am

Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:F: Does Seth exist?
B: Do I know it for sure? No. Do I believe it? Yes.
F: Do you want people here to believe that Seth exists?
B: Absolutely not. I don't care if people here or anywhere believe that Seth exists or not. That's their business; not mine.
F: Hold on - can you prove that?
B: Prove what? That I don't care if people believe that Seth exists? I don't care.
F: Hang on - does Seth exist or not?
B: I just answered you.
F: No, wait, B. We need evidence of your claim.
B: What claim?
F: Then I draw the conclusion that your claim is in error.
B: What claim?
F: You're a fruitcake.
B: You are a dense dog who doesn't seem to understand human discourse.


Barrie1! I am shocked to the core! You have deliberately reordered and edited what I said to make me appear to be silly. I am mortified.

But you're learning. We'll have you lying with gay abandon soon. Oh - no, you've already started.


Barrie Responds: No, Poodle. I have not tried to make you appear silly, altho that was your intent.

As for me, I tried to show you that your depiction of what I believe, what my answers would be, and our conversation that would follow from that--is wrong. I tried to use your format to show you how far off you are concerning what I really think and believe--and to hopefully show you how difficult it is to communicate with you who keeps insisting that I am saying and doing things that I am not...like you have just demonstrated once again.

My dialogue correctly reflects what it is like for me to try to have a conversation with you and how much you actually do not listen or hear even because you seem to have your own agenda that is not influenced by the facts of what I actually say and believe. Oh, and it actually has my answers in them; not the ones that you fabricate. You just make them up, and then respond to them as if I said them.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8096
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 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:19 am

Ah, Barrie1 - now I understand. Your last but one posts clearly shows that you are semi-literate. Please accept my apologies - I had assumed some small measure of language skill on your part, but I now see my error.

So, let me make things really, really easy for you to understand. In my opinion, you and people like you are pariahs whether or not you are sincere in your beliefs. Your stories of Seth are offensive to me on a very basic level. Religious and pseudo-religious belief systems have been the bane of this planet for centuries. Poor education and entrenched self-interest provide some excuse and explanation if we're looking at a time centuries ago, but in this era there is no excuse at all. If I had my druthers, you and people like you (and I'm extremely broad in my definition of people like you, including, as it does, popes, archbishops, vicars, high priests and priestesses, druids, Satanists, and god-botherers in general) would be put in the stocks to have rotten cabbages thrown at them on a regular basis.

I become angry when I think of all the people who have been enslaved, impoverished and everything on the sliding scale between those two and being simply conned BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU. I believe, Barrie1, that you are a boil on the arse of civilisation. The Brothers Grimm were harmless, as they never claimed their tales were anything but stories to delight children. But you, Barrie 1 - you are an adult purporting to be a sane and educated member of the society in which we find ourselves, yet you make a mockery of everything which has been discovered since the Enlightenment.

And more, Barrie1 - the people of this ilk I most despise are those who make a living from peddling jewjaws in real or metaphysical form to unsuspecting simpletons. You will have to decide for yourself how much of that fits you, but I know that you will completely exclude yourself from my given categories of bloodsuckers.

You, and all like you, are a complete waste of space and air.

I hope that clarifies the situation for you, Barrie1. I have tried to couch it in terms you cannot fail to understand, but please read it three times just to make sure. Oh, and then you have to say "Rumplestiltskin" whilst holding a banana and standing on one leg. The spell won't work if you don't do that.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest