seth and jane roberts

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
chas53
Poster
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:34 pm

seth and jane roberts

Postby chas53 » Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:10 am

does anybody have any critiques on the seth material and jane roberts?

I read the books years ago. would love to hear anything from you guys and gals?

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1951
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Blacksamwell » Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:31 am

It looks/sounds bogus as all get out.

Why would one think anything otherwise?

Bunyip
Regular Poster
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:56 pm
Location: Adelaide South Australia

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Bunyip » Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:16 am

I remember reading "The Seth Material' and "Seth Speaks' when they were first published.


Critique: I have no reason to doubt the late Jane Robert's sincerity. However,the books are crackpottery of the first degree.

WHY?

No credible evidence to support any of the claims made in the books.

Even a cursory read will reveal the philosophy contained in the books is was most recently seen in "The Secret". IE "you create your own reality" IE solipism.

From Wikipedia

Criticism

Roberts and the Seth Material have attracted critiques from outside the paranormal community. The poet Charles Upton, in his collection of essays titled The System of Antichrist, posited that Roberts multiplied the self due to a fear of death. His opinion was that the Seth texts are based on a misunderstanding of both Christianity and of Eastern religions.[18]

Professor of psychology and noted critic of parapsychology James E. Alcock opined, "In light of all this, the Seth materials must surely be viewed as less than ordinary. There certainly was the time and talent for fraud to play a role, but we cannot discriminate between that possibility and the possibility of unconscious production— At any rate, given these circumstances, there seems little need to consider the involvement of any supernatural agency."[16]

Since Roberts' death, others have claimed to channel Seth.[15] In the introduction to Seth's first dictated book, Seth Speaks, "he" says, "communications will come exclusively through Ruburt [Seth's name for Jane] at all times, to protect the integrity of the material". In The Seth Material, Jane Roberts wrote: "Several people have told me that Seth communicated with them through automatic writing, but Seth denies any such contacts." At least one person has claimed to channel Roberts.[19]





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Roberts
Man is not so much a rational animal as a rationalising one.

chas53
Poster
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby chas53 » Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:43 am

cool.

any other thoughts?

I found out about seth from a psychologist. he was into transactional analysis.
he was also a unitarian universalist minister. he had a Doctor of Divinity.
he was no dummy. he thought the seth stuff made sense. not sure of his specific views about the afterlife. this was 30+ years ago.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby xouper » Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:30 am

Bunyip wrote:I remember reading "The Seth Material' and "Seth Speaks' when they were first published.

Critique: I have no reason to doubt the late Jane Robert's sincerity. However,the books are crackpottery of the first degree.

WHY?

No credible evidence to support any of the claims made in the books.

That's pretty much my opinion as well.

One interesting notion I did take away from the Seth books is the idea that emotion follows belief*.

There's nothing paranormal about this idea, it is a matter of psychology, I presume. However, I do not recall ever seeing this idea mentioned in any of the psychology books I've read (popular or otherwise). Perhaps someone can point me to some good sources, since apparently I have not looked in all the right places. It's an idea I wanted to pursue as a research graduate student, but that got put on the shelf many years ago when I decided to do mathematics and computer science instead.



* Footnote:

One's emotional reaction to external stimuli is filtered through one's system of beliefs about the world. Alter your beliefs and your emotional response will adjust accordingly. In that sense, some emotions -- such as anger -- can be controlled. The hard part is discovering what needs to be altered to achieve the desired outcome.

Emotion follows belief. It's a simple and clear idea on the surface, but hides many layers of complexity the further you dig. It also depends on how some terms are defined, such as "emotion", "belief", etc., so there is much room to quibble about that without even addressing the core idea.

It's easy to find examples of this idea in action. Perhaps more difficult is finding counter-eaxmples.

Example: Consider a FIFA World Cup game. When a goal is scored, some people are elated, some feel the opposite dejected, and some feel neither. Some fans get rowdy and some do not. Same external stimuli but different emotional responses. What is the difference? They each have different beliefs about the meaning of that goal.

As I said, I've never really researched this in any depth, so I could be completely off my rocker. I 'm amused that I first heard about it in a Seth book.

chas53
Poster
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby chas53 » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:37 pm

I found the books to be fascinating. mind you I read them years ago. I remember struggling mightily and valiantly to understand alot of stuff that I could not grasp.
I must read some of it again. and perhaps report back to this thread.

I do think that there was much wisdom in the books. the emotion follows beliefs idea just seems so obvious once you've thought about it a little.
I've been aware of that concept for a long time now. it seems strange to think that anybody else thinks otherwise.



xouper wrote:
Bunyip wrote:I remember reading "The Seth Material' and "Seth Speaks' when they were first published.

Critique: I have no reason to doubt the late Jane Robert's sincerity. However,the books are crackpottery of the first degree.

WHY?

No credible evidence to support any of the claims made in the books.

That's pretty much my opinion as well.

One interesting notion I did take away from the Seth books is the idea that emotion follows belief*.

There's nothing paranormal about this idea, it is a matter of psychology, I presume. However, I do not recall ever seeing this idea mentioned in any of the psychology books I've read (popular or otherwise). Perhaps someone can point me to some good sources, since apparently I have not looked in all the right places. It's an idea I wanted to pursue as a research graduate student, but that got put on the shelf many years ago when I decided to do mathematics and computer science instead.



* Footnote:

One's emotional reaction to external stimuli is filtered through one's system of beliefs about the world. Alter your beliefs and your emotional response will adjust accordingly. In that sense, some emotions -- such as anger -- can be controlled. The hard part is discovering what needs to be altered to achieve the desired outcome.

Emotion follows belief. It's a simple and clear idea on the surface, but hides many layers of complexity the further you dig. It also depends on how some terms are defined, such as "emotion", "belief", etc., so there is much room to quibble about that without even addressing the core idea.

It's easy to find examples of this idea in action. Perhaps more difficult is finding counter-eaxmples.

Example: Consider a FIFA World Cup game. When a goal is scored, some people are elated, some feel the opposite dejected, and some feel neither. Some fans get rowdy and some do not. Same external stimuli but different emotional responses. What is the difference? They each have different beliefs about the meaning of that goal.

As I said, I've never really researched this in any depth, so I could be completely off my rocker. I 'm amused that I first heard about it in a Seth book.

Bunyip
Regular Poster
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:56 pm
Location: Adelaide South Australia

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Bunyip » Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:21 am

I did not and do not see anything 'wise' in the books. I repeat, in my opinion,they are crackpot,period. The notion that you create your own reality is pure solipism,and dualistic nonsense as indeed is the notion of the spiritual realm,let alone a spirit guide. The woman was either a conscious fraud or mentally unwell
I do not recall ever seeing this idea mentioned in any of the psychology books I've read (popular or otherwise).



Actually,I do. I first came across the notion in 1969,when I read "Memories Dreams And Reflections",the autobiography of Carl Jung. He posited that our most powerful beliefs are formed from direct experience,without the use of reason or logic. This has always made perfect sense to me,as the things in which we believe most strongly are inculcated before the age of reason. Few people ever seriously question their beliefs/world view,and become very defensive,even violent, if such beliefs are challenged.That indicates to me an emotional,not ratioanl base.

BUT this view is based on a proposition,it is not supported by empirical evidence.Nor are the most basic assumptions of psychology,such as Freud's Ego/Id/Superego model of consciousness.

To accept a proposition only because it seems reasonable or obvious is to use a logical fallacy, argument from personal incredulity. Right now,as before, I accept Jung's explanation MAY be the case( just as I believe Freud is probably wrong) I need credible evidence before accepting either set of ideas.


A hint of Jane Roberts truth/wisdom may be found by looking at the diverse bunch of credulous (at best) woo merchants she is said to have influenced.Seems to me very much a combination of confirmation bias and preaching to the converted.


If you could reason with religious people there wouldn't be any. (Greg House)

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

From Wikipedia

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_f ... magination
Man is not so much a rational animal as a rationalising one.

chas53
Poster
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby chas53 » Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:36 am

I never got the vibe that jane roberts was a conscious fraud or mentally unwell.

dealing with some heavy stuff. yeah.

did you read much of or many of the books? there are quite a few. I am very interested in what it was about them that makes you call them crackpot. I mean this with respect. for all I know, when I go start reading them again, I will agree with you.

I'm different from how I was when I read them. more skeptical. I think its a good thing.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby xouper » Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:00 am

Bunyip wrote:The woman was either a conscious fraud or mentally unwell

My impression -- which is worth no more than you paid for it -- is that Jane Roberts was neither a fraud nor mentally unwell. My impression is that she sincerely believed her own fantasies, which is not much different from most people who believe in God and heaven, etc.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby xouper » Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:03 am

Bunyip wrote:
xouper wrote: I do not recall ever seeing this idea mentioned in any of the psychology books I've read (popular or otherwise).

Actually,I do. I first came across the notion in 1969,when I read "Memories Dreams And Reflections",the autobiography of Carl Jung. He posited that our most powerful beliefs are formed from direct experience,without the use of reason or logic. This has always made perfect sense to me,as the things in which we believe most strongly are inculcated before the age of reason. Few people ever seriously question their beliefs/world view,and become very defensive,even violent, if such beliefs are challenged.That indicates to me an emotional,not ratioanl base.

That doesn't sound anything like what I described. Apparently I am missing your point?

Bunyip
Regular Poster
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:56 pm
Location: Adelaide South Australia

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Bunyip » Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:35 pm

Apparently I am missing your point?


No, I would not patronise you by suggesting that. I obviously explained myself poorly. My point was that I understood that Jung was asserting that reason plays no part in the formation of our most powerful beliefs.IE that they come from and are maintained by emotion. I may have misunderstood or misremembered. (it's over 40 years)


Of course Roberts may have been completely sincere but mistaken, and suffering from cognitive dissonance.This is common among believers of all kinds.
Last edited by Bunyip on Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Man is not so much a rational animal as a rationalising one.

chas53
Poster
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby chas53 » Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:00 am

xouper wrote:
Bunyip wrote:The woman was either a conscious fraud or mentally unwell

My impression -- which is worth no more than you paid for it -- is that Jane Roberts was neither a fraud nor mentally unwell. My impression is that she sincerely believed her own fantasies, which is not much different from most people who believe in God and heaven, etc.




I also think she was quite sincere. must read a bit.

Oversoul1
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:40 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Oversoul1 » Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:45 am

For update:
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/ans ... lds-138014

From Jane, UR1:
"All probabilities are probed and experienced, and all possible universes created... Therefore, there are realities in which the endless probabilities of one given event are probed and all experience grouped about that venture."

tre
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:11 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby tre » Thu Aug 27, 2015 5:11 pm

I am reading "Seth Speaks" and I'm troubled by the language, which seems to contain some suspicious elements and characteristics. Allegedly the manuscript was dictated in modern English by a non humanoid who was using a language he'd learned as a "second" language. I would therefore expect the language to contain errors, especially errors of grammar, (since English is such a mongrel language derived from numbers of other languages) yet Seth's language errors are rare. If, as Seth claimed, he'd been human in ages past and if he'd learned English then, I'd expect it to contain obsolete forms. It doesn't. It is very contemporary - especially for nearly 50 years ago. I am surprised too, by some of "Seth's" language choices that are unnecessarily poetic (eg. "Dimensions of reality through which we can hopscotch" - chapt 3). This does not sound like the authentic voice of a non-native speaker.

The intrusion of commentary by Butts is another problem (Butts claimed to be capturing the dialogue in real time in his own invented shorthand). Most of Butt's comments are made in past tense, even though he purports to they were inserted during the dictation. I would not expect that. I would expect Butt's real time reflections to be noted in present tense. Clearly they have generally been inserted "afterwards". The comments pose an authenticity problem of some magnitude therefore. It seems more likely they were inserted by Butts to establish his own authorship - since to present the manuscript without commentary would attribute the work to a third party.

Moreover one must ask why, given the obvious doubts to be raised, Butts, Roberts and (most importantly) Seth did not make sure the manuscript was witnessed in the making, by individuals of unquestionable reputation. Given it is known Butts and Roberts used a tape recorder in their classes, why were not Seth dialogues taped and witnessed? This question is especially important given that the alleged dialogues always took place "by appointment".
On balance, while one might read Seth for the pleasure of chewing on the ideas it contains, i believe the probability of fraud is high.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:15 pm

tre wrote:I am reading "Seth Speaks" and I'm troubled by the language, which seems to contain some suspicious elements and characteristics. Allegedly the manuscript was dictated in modern English by a non humanoid who was using a language he'd learned as a "second" language. I would therefore expect the language to contain errors, especially errors of grammar, (since English is such a mongrel language derived from numbers of other languages) yet Seth's language errors are rare. If, as Seth claimed, he'd been human in ages past and if he'd learned English then, I'd expect it to contain obsolete forms. It doesn't. It is very contemporary - especially for nearly 50 years ago. I am surprised too, by some of "Seth's" language choices that are unnecessarily poetic (eg. "Dimensions of reality through which we can hopscotch" - chapt 3). This does not sound like the authentic voice of a non-native speaker.


I think you are "spot on the money". I think it would be interesting to set out a couple of tests, as a hypothetical exercise, to review these anachronisms and linguistic inconsistencies and apply them to the Seth material.

The first one i would go for is localised vocabulary use. If Seth learnt English as a second language from all Earth's broadcasts , then it is unlikely he is going to use local words unique to Saratoga Springs, New York, where Roberts grew up. If we could identify a couple of words of this nature, in Robert's channelling, then we are already starting to fundamentally debunk her claim, because it means that Roberts must be "contributing" to the alien's words.


Let us try think of some other simple tests to debunk the Seth Material.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19641
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:44 pm

Ah, butts you guys are forgetting the "no fake!" catch and clause: All channeled material is filtered through Roberts (or any "medium") who naturally will use her(/his) own vocabulary/knowledge for the most part. (That's why they never can truly go beyond their own knowledge except for unprovable weird stuff they make up on top of all else.)
Hi, Io the lurker.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:56 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Ah, butts you guys are forgetting the "no fake!" catch and clause: All channeled material is filtered through Roberts (or any "medium") who naturally will use her(/his) own vocabulary/knowledge for the most part. (That's why they never can truly go beyond their own knowledge except for unprovable weird stuff they make up on top of all else.)


OK. That's leads us to the "How on earth did she know that?" test. Is there any bit of "wisdom" of knowledge that "Seth channelled" to Roberts, that Roberts could not have simply heard on the radio or reading newspapers? I don't think there is any claim that "Seth did this". Perhaps Gorgeous, as our "Seth expert", knows of one example. :D

On the other hand it does seem ridiculous that Seth built the pyramids and founded human civilisation, but talks to Roberts about mundane topics from 1960's newspapers, like television. If I was to write up columns and list all the topics Seth talks about, I wonder how many would match the newspaper Roberts read in the morning before her channelling sessions, in the afternoon. I think the result would indicate that Roberts was fabricating.

User avatar
rm9h3m
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 6:03 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby rm9h3m » Sat May 28, 2016 6:12 pm

I have read most all of Jane's published material. I have a critique video, on youtube, it's called seth stuff 112614. I don't know that I can post a link in here to it, so you can search for it that way.

I got interested in her writing because of vivid dreams and curiosity about survival after death. I have to say however that there are strong criticisms anyone can make after reading her books that basically destroy most of the value of whatever is there. I spent many years pondering and I'm basically open-minded and curious. I don't think Jane and Rob were frauds at all, but I do think something was amiss. There is some great wisdom in the writing and helpful ideas but like anything else it's hit and miss. I now find it more interesting to look at criticisms of her work instead of their fans. Their fans can be cultish for sure. There have been two academic papers written on her, both of them giving credence to her efforts with no critical or rational analysis whatsoever, a real shame. The latest is a 249-page dissertation one can easily find online. Coming from academic people, I have to say I was surprised to see no criticisms.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby gorgeous » Sat May 28, 2016 10:53 pm

it's good stuff
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4972
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Monster » Sun May 29, 2016 2:31 am

rm9h3m wrote:I have read most all of Jane's published material. I have a critique video, on youtube, it's called seth stuff 112614. I don't know that I can post a link in here to it, so you can search for it that way.

I got interested in her writing because of vivid dreams and curiosity about survival after death. I have to say however that there are strong criticisms anyone can make after reading her books that basically destroy most of the value of whatever is there. I spent many years pondering and I'm basically open-minded and curious. I don't think Jane and Rob were frauds at all, but I do think something was amiss. There is some great wisdom in the writing and helpful ideas but like anything else it's hit and miss. I now find it more interesting to look at criticisms of her work instead of their fans. Their fans can be cultish for sure. There have been two academic papers written on her, both of them giving credence to her efforts with no critical or rational analysis whatsoever, a real shame. The latest is a 249-page dissertation one can easily find online. Coming from academic people, I have to say I was surprised to see no criticisms.

Peruse this for some critiques.

http://skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 4&p=444827
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
rm9h3m
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 6:03 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby rm9h3m » Sun May 29, 2016 3:06 am

Monster: I would not call that critiques necessarily, I perused all 16 pages and it looks more like a fanatic (or troll) who cannot do anything but post long-winded Seth quotations from Jane's books. That is a huge problem in even discussing these books, the people who become "fans" are quite unstable in my opinion and cannot hold an intelligent conversation, for long, if at all. It's no different than a Christian fundamentalist quoting the Bible. In fact, Jane would not condone that kind of behavior, which is quite ironic. In any case, most of the basic ideas blame what we would call evil on the victim and that "they had it coming," or they "drew it to themselves." One can speculate on the possibility of that, but it does not take too long to figure out that cannot possibly be true. It seems Jane was innately talented in some sort of "natural" propaganda technique, maybe it was an experiment in propaganda.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29108
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Gord » Sun May 29, 2016 3:14 am

gorgeous wrote:it's good stuff

rm9h3m wrote:...the people who become "fans" are quite unstable in my opinion and cannot hold an intelligent conversation, for long, if at all.

:ok:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Poodle » Sun May 29, 2016 5:21 am

gorgeous wrote:it's good stuff

rm9h3m wrote: ... it looks more like a fanatic (or troll) who cannot do anything but post long-winded Seth quotations from Jane's books.


I'm loving this.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby gorgeous » Sun May 29, 2016 1:29 pm

typical hostile condescending science fan...they are all alike....you too will learn..
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Poodle » Sun May 29, 2016 2:22 pm

Who are you calling a typical condescending science fan?????

Oh - me. Well, you have to be right sometimes.

NB - Yes, I know who were really referring to, gorgeous. This was a little amusement on my part. Life has to have fun sometimes, otherwise people start believing in the ramblings of Jane Roberts.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon May 30, 2016 12:20 am

We have already thoroughly debunked the Jane Roberts / Seth nonsense elsewhere in the forum.

Jane Roberts was a mid 1950's, B-grade science fiction writer, with her SF stories appearing in Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction She simply saw Ron L Hubbard (Scientology) in Astounding Stories convert popular SF story themes, into a controlled religion for profit and Jane Roberts joined that band wagon.

However Jane was an alcoholic and died from alcoholism. If you review her "performances" you can see she is drunk as a skunk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J9CyIOlMys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRG-IR3aqec

If you look at the footage, every one in the room is laughing at Jane. I don't think she was taken very seriously back then.

Humorously, when Jane Roberts died, another fraudster simply announced he was channelling Seth and took over Jane Robert's established donation scam. Exactly the same thing happened when Carle Reukert, who channelled "Ra" died and David Wilcox announced he was channelling "Ra". There people are all just grifters (con-artists).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRyAqeZtkMM
Last edited by Matthew Ellard on Mon May 30, 2016 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby gorgeous » Mon May 30, 2016 12:21 am

she was joking ,they laughed..
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Poodle » Mon May 30, 2016 12:32 am

gorgeous wrote:she was joking ,they laughed..


Saved for posterity. Jane Roberts was, indeed, joking.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon May 30, 2016 12:35 am

gorgeous wrote:she was joking......
...and taking their money. :D

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby gorgeous » Mon May 30, 2016 12:38 am

and scientists never charge...yeahhhh right....they lived poorly ---worked 2 jobs..
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon May 30, 2016 12:45 am

gorgeous wrote:and scientists never charge...yeahhhh right....they lived poorly ---worked 2 jobs..


Gorgeous? Tell us about Seth?

Does Seth work with the alien lizard people who you claim, control Earth or does Seth work with the Zionist Illuminati who, you also claim, control the Earth?

Is Mr Story Waters, who currently channels "Seth" the real McCoy or a con artist?

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby gorgeous » Mon May 30, 2016 12:54 am

I doubt Seth is active here now..after Roberts' death he said those claiming to channel him were not true...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8121
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Poodle » Mon May 30, 2016 1:00 am

gorgeous wrote:I doubt Seth is active here now..after Roberts' death he said those claiming to channel him were not true...


Another neat trick from the Outer Limits. How did he do that, exactly? You know - considering his only true channeler was recently defunct.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby gorgeous » Mon May 30, 2016 1:04 am

oops...meant when she was alive others claimed to be channeling him...he denied it..
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon May 30, 2016 1:19 am

gorgeous wrote:oops...meant when she was alive others claimed to be channeling him...he denied it..


You mean Jane Robert's and her publisher claimed Jane was the the only source of Seth. It is their scam.

"SETH SPEAKS ONLY THROUGH ME, TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE MATERIAL. AND IT IS INDEED THAT CONTRACT BETWEEN HIM AND ME THAT ALWAYS ASSURES YOU OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF SETH'S WORK...”
Jane Roberts.

Have you read this exclusivity contract between Jane Roberts and Seth, Gorgeous?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon May 30, 2016 1:21 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Does Seth work with the alien lizard people who you claim, control Earth or does Seth work with the Zionist Illuminati who, you also claim, control the Earth?


Gorgeous? You didn't answer my question.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby gorgeous » Mon May 30, 2016 1:38 am

idk
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26371
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon May 30, 2016 1:40 am

gorgeous wrote:idk
Well, can you think for yourself as an adult?

All three statements can't be true, simultaneously as you claim. Which one of your claims is true then? :lol:

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:04 am

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.

Be well & happy,
Barrie

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:24 am

Bunyip Writes: I remember reading "The Seth Material' and "Seth Speaks' when they were first published.
Critique: I have no reason to doubt the late Jane Robert's sincerity. However,the books are crackpottery of the first degree. WHY? No credible evidence to support any of the claims made in the books.

Barrie Responds: Actually, there has been credible evidence to support some claims. What claims do you have in mind?

When it comes to books about characteristics about a nonphysical reality. metaphysical books, you will often not find "credible evidence" because the inner realms, so to speak, are subjective realms. Yet, I believe there have been scientific tests about how consciousness does affect physical reality--as well as quantum concepts concerning the same thing--as well as simultaneous time and more. So, some concepts spoken of in the material, have been speculated about and/or studied in ways that point to evidence and agreement. Concepts like simultaneous time, infinite probable realities (commonly referred to as parallel universes) and various psychic abilities have been studied as well.

All that said, IF a person does not believe that there even is a nonphysical reality--then there will never be any proof that is acceptable to that person. And any potential evidence would be seen the filter of the beliefs of that person.

To use an analogy. that is also in play here: There is no credible evidence that love exists and motivates people to bond...or whatever. It is subjective. You can't put love under a microscope.

Bunyip Continues: Even a cursory read will reveal the philosophy contained in the books is was most recently seen in "The Secret". IE "you create your own reality" IE solipism.

Barrie Responds: "The Secret" contains a bare surface minimum of what is found in the Seth material. That said, the Seth material cannot be summed up as a solipsism.


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests