seth and jane roberts

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
Barrie1
Poster
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:53 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:28 am

xouper--yes. There is a great deal of psychology found in the Seth material.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:29 am

xouper--yes. There is a great deal of psychology found in the Seth material.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:37 am

Matthew Ellard Writes: 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.

Barrie Responds: Jane was a poet and science-fiction writer. She "discovered" Seth while experimenting with a Ouiji board while doing research on a book about ESP. In reality, Jane shunned publicity her whole life--and her suggested "donation" for the Seth classes was around $3.50 per person. The classes were 4-hours long. IF you didn't have the money, she didn't care and you could come in anyway. I attended the classes for about a year back in 1972-3. I often didn't have the money and I brought a bottle of wine instead. No one noticed if you put any money into the basket or not.

Matt Continues: However Jane was an alcoholic and died from alcoholism. If you review her "performances" you can see she is drunk as a skunk.

Barrie Responds: She was not an alcoholic; nor was she ever drunk in class. She died from complications from rheumatoid arthritis.

Matt Continues: 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.

Barrie Responds: No one was laughing at Jane. They were laughing with Seth because he was very funny. She was taken very seriously back then...by people interested in these sorts of things.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 5:53 am

The idea of "you create your own reality" (YCYOR) is not very well understood. It involves many levels of creation and includes the very nature of physical reality itself. Again, I am not here to change anyone's minds, but to try to clarify and elaborate on the concepts as being discussed.

One aspect of YCYOR is that all objects of physical reality are created by the people. In other words, there is something about consciousness that literally congeals energy in such a way that makes the appearance of physical objects come into existence. In any case, we each create the objects that we see--while being in telepathic communication with those around us--so that there is a basic agreement as to what objects are where and what they look like.

Thus, if five people are in a room with a TV set in it--each person sees his "own" TV set which is sort of superimposed on the others, giving the appearance to everyone that there is one TV set. Each person can only see the TV set they "create" to see. Usually, discrepancies are minimal and only come into play when the police take reports at a crime. Then, the perp may have a mustache by one account and be clean shaven in another. May have a short sleeve short on by one account and a long sleeve shirt by another. Some may believe that the people just have differing memories because they are nervous, etc--OR, perhaps, that are remembering well and describing "their" perp as they created his appearance--after all telepathically agreeing as to what the "perp" is supposed to look like, so to speak.

At the same time, YCYOR via teleapthic agreements and commuication--which then "attract" certain events and people into your life. THIS is what is commonly referred to a "The Secret" -- but there is more to it than that--and it involves strongly held beliefs--and has nothing to do with wishful thinking.

By the way, none of this justifies harming others. Two MAJOR concepts in the Seth material is the violence is never justified--and we are here to help and not harm others.

Again, I'm just trying to explain the concepts--and welcome discussion. I do hope for friendly and civil discourse between us all.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:05 am

Bunyip, I believe here is something wise that Seth said:

Seth (Session, 5-3-72): "Now: There is nothing degrading in tears. Think of them, again, now, as being as natural as rain that falls out of the sky when the clouds are full. The rain refreshes the ground and tears can refresh the soul when depressions are freed to follow their natural course. Then, indeed, they flow away in tears. And, the soul is refreshed.

"It does not "hold onto its grudges". When you hold a grudge, you are like some angry, little black cloud that says: "I will hold onto this moisture. And, I will never let it go!"

"But, clouds have better sense. And so, easily they empty their contents. And, the rain refreshes the land. So can tears refresh the land of your psyche. And, used in such a manner, depressions fall away naturally and allow (if you will forgive me for a trite phrase) "the sun of joy to shine". Otherwise, the cloud becomes blacker and blacker and blacker, until the sun can not be seen. And, until the sun, when glimpsed, seems wrong, out of context and does not appear in such a dark landscape. And so, you try to hide it.

"If you do not trust your emotions, then you can no longer trust your joy. And, if you try to hide your fear, then you automatically hide your joy. Once you begin to inhibit emotions, the practice spreads like a plague, until all emotion must be inhibited, lest the one thing that you fear show its face."

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:31 am

Tre Writes: 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.

Barrie Response: I’m not sure how you define a “non humanoid.” According to Seth, as you know, he has been human 100s or even 1000s of times. He is very familiar with Earth, humans, and language. IF he is to be believed, he says that he now no longer needs a body because he has advanced passed the need for one. What is incredible about the Seth material is how well and with a lack of error the material is given—both in book dictation and when speaking extemporaneously in class.

When it comes to mediums, etc, there is telepathic communication going on—these personalities who communicate thru others, live outside of linear time—and know the language of the people with whom they communicate. Seth certainly spoke of things that Jane knew nothing or very little about, yet he uses her belief system, her vocabulary and so forth.

Tre Continues: 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.

Barrie Responds: He is not a non-native speaker. You have beliefs concerning how Seth is supposed to speak and why, and those expectations were not met. I would suggest to focus on the concepts themselves and if you agree or not—and not concern yourself with how well or poorly Seth speaks.

Tre Continues: 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.

Barrie Responds: You are mistaken. Rob obviously inserted his comments after dictation and never claimed otherwise. SOME comments were made during dictation, like how fast Seth was speaking, etc) but most comments were made after dictation and Rob was reflecting on what was said.

Tre Continues: I would expect Butt's real time reflections to be noted in present tense. Clearly they have generally been inserted "afterwards".

Barrie Responds: Yes, many were and some were not. This is not a secret or something that was trying to be hidden.

Tre Continues: 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.

Barrie Responds: Rob gave his comments because he was part of the experience. I’m not sure of your reasoning here. Rob did his best to explain what he thought were pertinent things as they arose.

Tre Continues: 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.

Barrie Responds: Rob and Jane spent years trying to test and understand who and what Seth was—part of Jane’s subconscious, was Jane crazy, etc et. This is all documented in The Early Sessions (9 volumes). They were not focused on trying to convince every skeptic of the validity of what they were doing. And IF they would have tried in the manner you suggest—people who didn’t believe them would just say that the witnesses were obviously lying.

As Seth said in ESP Class, 6-4-74: “You are each trying to rediscover for yourselves—in your terms now—after centuries of myths and distortions, the validity of your own being. I ask you not to trust the validity of my being, which is none of your concern, but to trust the validity of your being, which is very much of your concern.”

Tre Continues: 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".

Barrie Responds: There were people present in a number of book dictation sessions. They were usually private because this was their work. They were not there to entertain witnesses or forever trying to prove anything. There are 9 volumes of The Early Sessions, which lead up to the first session of Seth Speaks. Then there were around 10 official books. The parts of the book sessions that were not meant for the book but contained personal items or covered issues not a part of the book, were collected in 7 more volumes called The Personal Sessions. So, you can believe if you wish that all this work was faked or whatever...or not. I would suggest to let the material speak for itself. Even if a fire hydrant gave you great advice, the advice would still be great.

Tre Concludes: 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.

Barrie Responds: I disagree. Jane shunned publicity. Changed basically nothing to attend Seth’s 4-hour classes each Tuesday night. The tone, mood, diction, personality and concepts of the Seth that was recorded in class is identical to the Seth from the book dictations. IF Jane was a fraud, she certainly wasted her life on being a fraud while not trying to become rich or famous from her fraud. Yet, since her book dictations are identical to the taped class sessions—to me—it is clear she was no fraud.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:42 am

Matt E Writes: 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.

Barrie Responds: Seth did not “come about” in the manner you believe. There are nine volumes of Seth books, The Early Sessions, in which a great deal of testing was done.

Matt E Continues: 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.

Barrie Responds: No one ever said or suggested that Seth learned English as a 2nd language from Earth broadcasts. He was a human. He spoke English in some of his lives. You may not believe channeling, etc, is possible, but you don’t understand the theory behind it. A medium channels a personality. That personality exists outside of linear time and need not be limited to a language because they communication may be telepathic. In these cases, the medium “translates” when she gets and of course uses her own vocabulary. But in the case of Seth, he was not an alien, he was a human.

Again, Matt, I am not trying to convince you to change your mind. I’m just trying to point out the misconceptions built into your opinions as you state them.

Matt E Continues: 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.

Barrie Responds: But Jane never made any such type of claim. Seth uses Jane’s vocabulary and beliefs—he speaks thru her and there is an interaction going on. They both contributed to the words of the material—Seth was only able to use words that Jane consciously or subconsciously had some understanding of.


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

Barrie Concludes: Yes, please do so. That should be fun to discuss.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:45 am

scrmbldggs wrties: 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.)

Barrie Responds: Mediums can still be total fakes...as for Jane...I don't believe she was...there was no evidence for it in that she shunned publicity, did not try to become a personality, and charged almost nothing for her classes. That said, a great deal of the Seth material went beyond Jane's knowledge--altho the vocabulary did not--for the most part. Seth used jane's vocabulary to discuss knowledge that Jane did not have, so to speak.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:53 am

Matt E Writes: 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.

Barrie Responds: Seth’s concepts are much more vast and complicated than you are aware of. This is understandable as you have read very little of the material.

Matt E Continues: 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.

Barrie Responds: Seth never said that he built the pyramids or that he founded human civilization. These are simply false and misconceptions you have concerning the material. Also, your use of the word “mundane” does not fit the Seth material either. Seth would say that nothing is mundane or trivial.

Matt E Continues: 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.

Barrie Responds: Less than 1 percent. Do you think the daily newspapers wrote about simultaneous time and infinite probable realities? etc etc etc

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:00 am

Hi Gorgeous & Poodle, Seth and Jane clearly explained a number of times that he would only communicate thru jane in order to maintain the integrity and authenticity of the material. He didn’t want a number of “Seths” running about leaving their “Seth” quotes and “Seth” books in their wake. Pretty soon, over the years, all these “Seths” would blend together as “Seth quotes,” “Seth books” and the “Seth Material” – that it would be a weak mess on conflicting ideas—and this is what Seth wanted to avoid. Here are some brief quotes of Seth and Jane explaining this:

Here are 11 brief quotes on this topic. I’ve added the CAPS for emphasis only:

Seth (Session 876, from God of Jane): "A woman wrote that she was involved with. . . correspondences in which I was communicating with her, and she was certain that this would prove beyond a doubt my own independent nature, since I [would have given] messages to another medium besides Ruburt. The woman was quite convinced of that.

"Other people have written that I have given them such messages. Another woman dreamed of me, and had an experience in which a child was definitely healed. Now, I did not communicate with those women—but their belief in me helped each of them use certain abilities. One woman has done some writing—not very good—but still, those abilities came to the fore. The other woman was able to use her own healing abilities.

Jane (Ch.9, Seth Material): “Mrs. Brian had a terrific headache while reading the article (about Seth); suddenly she thought she felt Seth's presence. An inner voice, presumably Seth's, told her that she had been feeling sorry for herself that she must stop brooding over her health at once, get up, and go out for a walk. If so, she would improve at once....

“We asked Seth about the incident. In this case, he said, Mrs. Brian had used him as a symbol of her inner self, or supraconsciousness, to deliver help and healing influences as well as advice. The experience helped the woman to use her own abilities, and the idea of Seth enabled her to activate her own healing forces.”

Jane (Seth Material; Ch.9): "Several people have told me that Seth communicated with them through automatic writing, but Seth denies any such contacts, saying that his communications will be limited to his work with me, in order that the INTEGRITY of the Seth Material be preserved."

Seth (ESP Class, 4-17-73): “If you are quick, and if you are intuitive, and if you are courageous, and if some evening you listen to my voice in the proper mood, then you can follow yourself to the heart of yourself, using the voice as a road or vehicle.”

Seth (Session 463): It is quite natural that others...who are experimenting should go through a stage in which it seems to them they are receiving information from me. Suggestion operates, and any trance deeper than ordinary for them can be interpreted in these terms. He (Ruburt) should understand this, and explain it simply to his students.”

Seth (ESP Class, 12-19-72): “Seth Speaks should be called You Speak and You Speak and You Speak. So listen to yourselves.

Jane (from Dreams, Evolution, & Value Fulfillment--Essay 5, 4-18-82): “And--very troublesome to me--came the repeated news that various people were ‘speaking for Seth’ publicly, and charging hefty-enough fees. I felt that my work was being CONTAMINATED, and more, I was annoyed and disappointed by those readers who could apparently be so taken in by those other Seths. As he has said so many times, 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...”

Seth (Session 454): “My friend here, Ruburt, is my mouth, and speaks for me...I WILL NEVER SPEAK THROUGH ANYONE OTHER THAN RUBURT, simply because there must never be any doubt of the origin of the Seth material.”

Seth (Session 463): "Now, when you see what Ruburt can do occasionally, and the troubles I can have with distortion, then you can be sure that I WOULD NOT DOUBLE OR TRIPLE THE CHANCES FOR DISTORTION BY ATTEMPTING TO SPEAK THROUGH ANYONE ELSE.

Seth (Session 510): "While MY COMMUNICATIONS WILL COME EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH (JANE) AT ALL TIMES, to protect the integrity of the material...”

Seth (Session 15): "Joseph, your part in these sessions is extremely important. Without your participation they could not have begun, nor could they continue. Because of our past alliances the three of us are closely bound together. However, I need the two of you in order to come through at all.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19745
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 Jun 23, 2016 3:04 pm

Nice cop out...
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8214
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 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:35 pm

I didn't notice a cop-out. It was all too heavily disguised amongst the baloney and fantasy.

Still - we must be doing something right for such a person as Barrie1 to have to come along and help gorgeous out of the very deep holes she's dug for herself.

Sorry, Barrie1 - my considered opinion is that you, too, are away with the fairies. It would be interesting, though, to experiment with other texts to see if they contain as many irrelevant quotations as you dig up. The World According to Garp would be my selection.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19745
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 Jun 23, 2016 4:04 pm

The cop out was on Jane's part. Only Jane, ahem, "Ruburt", may "channel Seth"... :roll:



ETA And Shirley, I don't have “any doubt of the origin of the Seth material.” :lol:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8214
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 » Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:10 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:The cop out was on Jane's part. Only Jane, ahem, "Ruburt", may "channel Seth"... :roll:


Ah - so anyone believing in this stuff has to have absolute faith in Jane Roberts? It's sounding very familiar.

I am Poodle. Send me your money in a plain envelope.

I could get to like it. But I think it's already been done.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26755
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jun 24, 2016 1:31 am

Barrie1 wrote: But I do hope to clarify some of misunderstandings or misconceptions brought up in is this forum discourse about the Seth material
Which Seth Material? :lol:

Story Waters's channelled Seth? Jane Robert's channelled Seth? Maybe one of the many other persons currently channelling Seth?

Before you start, can you tell me the process you apply to determine which one is authentic and which one is a fraud? :lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26755
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Jun 24, 2016 1:36 am

Barrie1 wrote:Barrie Response: I’m not sure how you define a “non humanoid.” According to Seth, as you know, he has been human 100s or even 1000s of times.


When do you think modern humans evolved? How did an alien become a human before humans existed?

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29413
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Gord » Fri Jun 24, 2016 9:06 am

Poodle wrote:Sorry, Barrie1 - my considered opinion is that you, too, are away with the fairies.

Fairies, or faeries? There might be a difference. Hard to tell without a definition.

It would be interesting, though, to experiment with other texts to see if they contain as many irrelevant quotations as you dig up. The World According to Garp would be my selection.

Try Archer. There's a character who calls himself Barry, and talks to himself as Barry and Other Barry.

Image
"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
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3275
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:23 am

I've decided to become schizophrenic once I realized that that gave me twice as many votes in any election.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:30 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Nice cop out...


Scrmbldggs: Its not a cop out--or at least the reason and logic behind what they say makes total sense. IF Jane was fake or not, the desire to maintain the integrity of the material makes sense. Think of your own posts, or if people knew your actual name: Imagine if 10 people starting to claim to be you and saying things you didn't believe and would never say...and they all posted using your name. Pretty soon, no one would be able to distinguish which posts are actually from you, and which are from these fake scrmbldggs. What this means is that YOUR real and actual posts, thoughts and ideas--would get lost in the mix--which would mean YOUR posts would lose their integrity and authenticity.

You can't simply claim that this thinking and reasoning is a cop out. In fact, it is possible to also claim that the opposite thinking is a cop out, too...it's a cop out to say that anyone can communicate for Seth because so claiming would encourage people to do so--and keep "his "work" alive.

The main point is, that your beliefs dictate your observations. Since you believe she is a fake, etc, then this claim MUST be a cop out--in order to maintain that the belief is just a wee bit possibly correct...but no...the door must be slammed shut...even tho the reason and logic behind desiring to maintain the integrity and authenticity of the material--makes ver much sense sense.
Last edited by Barrie1 on Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26755
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:36 am

Barrie1 wrote: IF Jane was fake or not, the desire to maintain the integrity of the material makes sense.
No that is not true. Do you think that you cult members deceiving people is maintaining the integrity of anything?

What about the two con artists Don Elkins and Carla Reuckert who channelled "Ra"?

Should we respect their integrity to deceive people, also?

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:38 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:Barrie Response: I’m not sure how you define a “non humanoid.” According to Seth, as you know, he has been human 100s or even 1000s of times.


Matt Writes: When do you think modern humans evolved? How did an alien become a human before humans existed?


Why do you believe Seth is an alien? He never claimed to be an alien? The question of when modern humans evolved is not as closed an issue as you may believe. There are a number of people in this field of study who believe humans may have been around for even millions of years...or certainly much longer than is currently accepted.

But there are other issues at play here that you can make fun of or disregard--but you are not aware of them yet. For example, according to Seth (and maybe quantum physicists), time is simultaneous--and does not proceed in a linear manner Rather, the past, present and future are all happening at once. This means, if you will, that time is growing fatter and fatter like an ever-fattening onion, as opposed to growing like a single line that keeps getting longer and longer.

What this means, is that it is possible to die in 2016 and be reborn in 1975 as much as in 2020 or whatever.

Of course, this brings into play the concepts of reincarnation and consciousness--which are also open for debate and discussion.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:56 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Barrie1 wrote: But I do hope to clarify some of misunderstandings or misconceptions brought up in is this forum discourse about the Seth material
Which Seth Material? :lol:

Story Waters's channelled Seth? Jane Robert's channelled Seth? Maybe one of the many other persons currently channelling Seth?

Before you start, can you tell me the process you apply to determine which one is authentic and which one is a fraud? :lol:


Barrie Responds: OK. Seth allegedly communicated thru Jane from 1963-1984. A great deal of testing was done in those early years as to what Seth's abilities were and if Jane was crazy or not. These are documented in the 9 volumes called "The Early Sessions."

Nevertheless, this work for over 21 years was very consistent and contained the same tone, mood, diction, concepts, and so forth--with no contradictions. There was a philosophy displayed that remained consistent thru-out the material. Now, Seth and Jane--both said that he would never communicate thru anyone else in order to maintain the integrity of his 21-years of work with Jane. That is an understandable and reasonable position. Neither of them wanted to see their work get lost in a mushy hodge-podge of material using the name of Seth.

It would be the same IF people started posted things you didn't believe--using YOUR name, Matthew Ellard. Over a period of years, all the Ellard quotes would blend together and people would think that you contradicted yourself all the time, and really had mushy-nothing to say because it was so weak and contradictory. That would be true for you, me, Seth, Jane and anyone who cared to have the integrity and authenticity of their posts and/or writing intact.

So, then, when people came along while jane was still alive--Seth explained that it wasn't him--and that he wouldn't communicate thru others to maintain the intergrity and authenticity of the material. Then, when Jane died--people still came along making the same claim--that they are now communicating for Seth. It make sense to me that the same reason and logic holds up--if Seth didn't want to ruin the integrity of his material while Jane was alive, he wouldn't want it to be ruined after Jane died.

Now, you ask who is the real Seth and who is the fraud? I believe that the first Seth is the real Seth. Why was it that BEFORE Seth started communicating thru Jane--there were no people at all claiming to be Seth...but as soon as the books started to come out, all these people started to make these claims--using the name of Seth? It seems to me, that the first person making that claim would be the authentic one.

Also, another theory made much more sense. Instead of Seth no longer caring about the integrity of his material, it made much more sense that these people who using Seth's name as SYMBOL for their own inner communications--since they were all familiar with Seth. That is much more reasonable and logical explanation than Seth no longer caring about the integrity of his material.

So, I believe the first Seth to be the authentic Seth. It is much like asking, how do you know if the guy who started forging Picasso's paintings--isn't actually the real Picasso.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:11 am

Poodle wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:The cop out was on Jane's part. Only Jane, ahem, "Ruburt", may "channel Seth"... :roll:


Poodle Comments: "Ah - so anyone believing in this stuff has to have absolute faith in Jane Roberts? It's sounding very familiar.

"I am Poodle. Send me your money in a plain envelope.

I could get to like it. But I think it's already been done."


Barrie Responds: No, Poodle. Anyone believing this stuff may believe whatever they wish. They need not have absolute faith in Jane. In fact, Seth and Jane have said the same things themselves. They wanted people to think and decide for themselves...to trust themselves first over anything Seth said, and certainly Jane, too. One of the interesting things about the Seth material, is that one of his concepts--is that no one needs a Seth--all you need is yourself. He said things like, "The power you hear in my voice is but a dim echo of your own voice," and things like that. Seth is/was all about empowering this readers to trust and listen to themselves.

You mention money. Jane shunned publicity. She held weekly classes in her home every Tuesday night for about 10 years. Each of these classes were 4 hours long. Do you know how much she charged? Around $3.50 a person, IF you had the money. If not, you could go anyway. I know because I was one of the people who went to those classes, and most often I didn't pay...or just brought a bottle of wine for people to share. A quart bottle of Gallo Port--I was able to afford.

These classes weren't really classes like if you were going to a school. They were people gathered in Jane's living room and we talked about all different things, and often Seth would come out and join in the discussion. Each week began by receiving the transcript of the previous week's class, and so we would read and discuss that, events in the news, and sometimes there would be assignments...like to write a composition on a topic about yourself--but these were rare.

So, in summary, it would have been frowned upon to have absolute faith in Seth and Jane; and Jane shunned publicity and hardly charged any money to go to her classes.

Here's an example from Seth (Class, 6-4-74). This was the only class that was videotaped in part:

Seth: "I ask you not to trust the validity of my being, which is none of your concern, but to trust the validity of your being, which is very much of your concern. Now, class members here know what I am doing. I ask you, then, to sense the energy in this voice and know that it is your own joyful vitality. I ask you to feel it and enjoy it as your own. And to those who may view this class, I request that you also feel the energy of your being and know that this voice is but a dim echo of that vitality and validity that is your own."

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26755
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:11 am

Barrie1 wrote: A great deal of testing was done in those early years as to what Seth's abilities were and if Jane was crazy or not. These are documented in the 9 volumes called "The Early Sessions."
No. Describe these tests.

Barrie1 wrote: this work for over 21 years was very consistent and contained the same tone, mood, diction, concepts, and so forth
......exactly what you would expect as Jane Roberts was the sole forger when she was forging the Seth material.

Barrie1 wrote: Now, Seth and Jane--both said that he would never communicate thru anyone else in order to maintain the integrity of his 21-years of work with Jane.
and Amber-Allen Publishing to who Jane signed a book contract with, for profit. :D

Barrie1 wrote: Now, you ask who is the real Seth and who is the fraud?
Jane Roberts is the Fraud. Seth is an ancient Egyptian God from mythology. Don Elkins and Carla Reuckert are the frauds. Ra is an ancient Egyptian God from mythology. All these con artists were copying Ron L Hubbard.
start a cult for fun and profit.jpg


Now can you cut out all the crap and start explaining the mechanics of how "Seth" talked through Jane Roberts. Magic photons? Invisible pixies?

This is a science forum and not a gathering place for cult members to spread their ridiculous cult propaganda.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:16 am

Poodle wrote:I didn't notice a cop-out. It was all too heavily disguised amongst the baloney and fantasy.

Still - we must be doing something right for such a person as Barrie1 to have to come along and help gorgeous out of the very deep holes she's dug for herself.

Sorry, Barrie1 - my considered opinion is that you, too, are away with the fairies. It would be interesting, though, to experiment with other texts to see if they contain as many irrelevant quotations as you dig up. The World According to Garp would be my selection.


Barrie Responds: What baloney and fantasy are you alluding to, Poodle? By the way, I did not come here to help anyone out of a hole, even if she is gorgeous. I wasn't even aware of someone speaking up for Seth when I started to respond. I came here to respond because I wished to clarify the misconceptions that were being spouted concerning Seth and what was actually in the material. I figured if people were going to think that Seth's concepts were "baloney and fantasy," then they should at least be familiar with what those concepts were...and also to dispel the myth that Jane was money-hungry, etc.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8214
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 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:41 am

Barrie1 wrote:
Poodle wrote:I didn't notice a cop-out. It was all too heavily disguised amongst the baloney and fantasy.

Still - we must be doing something right for such a person as Barrie1 to have to come along and help gorgeous out of the very deep holes she's dug for herself.

Sorry, Barrie1 - my considered opinion is that you, too, are away with the fairies. It would be interesting, though, to experiment with other texts to see if they contain as many irrelevant quotations as you dig up. The World According to Garp would be my selection.


Barrie Responds: What baloney and fantasy are you alluding to, Poodle? By the way, I did not come here to help anyone out of a hole, even if she is gorgeous. I wasn't even aware of someone speaking up for Seth when I started to respond. I came here to respond because I wished to clarify the misconceptions that were being spouted concerning Seth and what was actually in the material. I figured if people were going to think that Seth's concepts were "baloney and fantasy," then they should at least be familiar with what those concepts were...and also to dispel the myth that Jane was money-hungry, etc.


Yes - we know what you claim to be here for, and we also know what you're really here for. Cut the crap.

The baloney and fantasy consists of a) the farcical recordings of Roberts' Seth visitations b) the farcical books published in her name c) the farcical responses to criticism of people such as Gorgeous and yourself who peddle sub-prime fiction to gullible innocents. We are familiar with the concepts, as Gorgeous has been here for a long time quoting them. You are here to back her up and we will, per se, soon have twice the baloney content we had before you arrived.

This is a skeptic forum. Rather than your pseudo-sagacious BS, why don't you give us one (just a little one - a teeny-weeny tiny scrap) bit of evidence of your claims? (Cue the response "Which one of the claims would you like me to ...." followed by the most blatant sidestepping ever seen). Just do it. Evidence. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E.

Over to you.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:04 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Barrie1 wrote: A great deal of testing was done in those early years as to what Seth's abilities were and if Jane was crazy or not. These are documented in the 9 volumes called "The Early Sessions."
No. Describe these tests.

Barrie Responds: From what I can recall, there were visits and letters to psychiatrists as well as various tests involving ESP...putting things in envelopes and guessing what was in them; as well as remote viewing types of experiments. Also, correspondence with various experts to comment upon some of Seth's ideas. I don’t expect you to find any value in these tests. My point was that these tests did go on for years, and she did not simply say, “This is Seth and screw you if you don’t believe it.” She felt she had to prove it to herself first, and then other people can decide for themselves what to believe or not.
.............

Barrie1 wrote: this work for over 21 years was very consistent and contained the same tone, mood, diction, concepts, and so forth

Matt Comments: ......exactly what you would expect as Jane Roberts was the sole forger when she was forging the Seth material.

Barrie Responds: Or...exactly what you would expect from a sincere and honest person. Do you think that Mark Twain was a fraud because his real name was Sam Clemens and his work was consistent for even longer than 21 years? Or perhaps, the Rolling Stones are a fraud for the same reason, etc etc etc. IF someone has something to say, and they are being themselves, there would be a consistency to what they say. You may always find ways to insist that Seth was fake, etc, because that is what you believe in the first place...and so that is the filter thru which you view and assess all you read on this topic.

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

Barrie1 wrote: Now, Seth and Jane--both said that he would never communicate thru anyone else in order to maintain the integrity of his 21-years of work with Jane.

Matt Comments: and Amber-Allen Publishing to who Jane signed a book contract with, for profit.

Barrie Responds: So, do you believe that all people who try to make a living are fakes and frauds? If a scientist takes money to do his work or publish a book, is he a fake and a fraud? Is jane not supposed to be able to eat? She spent her life on this work. It was very time consuming. She believed it was very important and something that would help people. She published what she could while maintaining her standards, even if you don’t agree with those standards. The fact that she published her work means that she is a fraud? If that was the case, every published author is a fraud and everyone who wants to be published, just wants to be a fraud. The work that Jane did with Rob—was very time consuming and tedious. Do you think they should have added homelessness and starvation to their agenda?

That said, and for the sake to clarify, Amber-Allen came along into the publishing after Jane died. Most of her Seth books were published by Prentice-Hall. After she died, there were a few by Amber-Allen, and more by New Awareness Network, and perhaps one other company.

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

Barrie1 wrote: Now, you ask who is the real Seth and who is the fraud?

Matt Comments: Jane Roberts is the Fraud. Seth is an ancient Egyptian God from mythology. Don Elkins and Carla Reuckert are the frauds. Ra is an ancient Egyptian God from mythology. All these con artists were copying Ron L Hubbard.

Barrie Responds: And is Seth Rogen also a fraud because his name is Seth? If you want to see all these people as similar and copying Ron L. Hubbard—that is your business. I don’t see them all the same—regardless if they are frauds or not. You may as well say they were all humans and therefore....fill in the blank.

Matt Continues: Now can you cut out all the crap and start explaining the mechanics of how "Seth" talked through Jane Roberts. Magic photons? Invisible pixies?

Barrie Responds: IF you want to believe she is a fraud, then continue to do so. IF you are not interested in what she actually did and said, and how she explained it—that, too, is your business—altho it does weaken your claim that she is a fraud—because it exposes that you seem to not know very much who or what it is that you are calling a fraud. Likewise, if I said Michael Jordan was the worst football player on the New York Giants, people may not tend to listen much further to all my explanations as to why that is the case. To use this analogy, I am clarifying that Michael Jordan played basketball...and you should factor that into your comments.

Matt Concludes: This is a science forum and not a gathering place for cult members to spread their ridiculous cult propaganda.

Barrie Responds: I’m not spreading any propaganda; nor am I a cult member. I am responding to YOUR posts on this science forum. I did not introduce the topic. I am simply responding to what people have already posted on this forum. Also, I have no desire to spread any propaganda. I am just clarifying what was in the material—I am not asking anyone to believe it if they don’t want to. Please, everyone, believe whatever it is you wish to believe. How’s that for propaganda?

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:51 am

Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote:
Poodle wrote:I didn't notice a cop-out. It was all too heavily disguised amongst the baloney and fantasy.

Still - we must be doing something right for such a person as Barrie1 to have to come along and help gorgeous out of the very deep holes she's dug for herself.

Sorry, Barrie1 - my considered opinion is that you, too, are away with the fairies. It would be interesting, though, to experiment with other texts to see if they contain as many irrelevant quotations as you dig up. The World According to Garp would be my selection.


Barrie Responds: What baloney and fantasy are you alluding to, Poodle? By the way, I did not come here to help anyone out of a hole, even if she is gorgeous. I wasn't even aware of someone speaking up for Seth when I started to respond. I came here to respond because I wished to clarify the misconceptions that were being spouted concerning Seth and what was actually in the material. I figured if people were going to think that Seth's concepts were "baloney and fantasy," then they should at least be familiar with what those concepts were...and also to dispel the myth that Jane was money-hungry, etc.


Poodle Writes: Yes - we know what you claim to be here for, and we also know what you're really here for. Cut the crap.

Barrie Responds: If you won’t even believe me when I tell you why I am posting, that pretty much paints me in a corner that I can do nothing about. When it comes to such mistrust, there’s not much I can say except that I would advise you to look within for why it exists.

You can understandably believe that I am totally mistaken, misguided, wrong and so forth...but I can be ALL of those things—while still being honest with you. But when you throw in dishonesty on top of everything, then that seems to become an issue within you and not in or concerning me or the Seth material. Very unpoodle like, I may add, given that dogs are very trusting creatures.

Poodle Continues: The baloney and fantasy consists of a) the farcical recordings of Roberts' Seth visitations b) the farcical books published in her name c) the farcical responses to criticism of people such as Gorgeous and yourself who peddle sub-prime fiction to gullible innocents.

Barrie Responds: Basically, you are saying they are baloney and fantasy because they are farcical. That doesn’t sound very logical, reasonable or critical-thinking-able. It’s more like Popeye than Poodle: “I yam what I yam” – but in this case – “They are what they are.”

Let me respond to your listing:

a. 1. Why are the recordings farcical?
2. Why do you say “Seth’s visitations?” That is not how they were explained or described. To borrow from another one of my responses, that’s like saying Michael Jordan was a bad football player because he never hit a home run.

b. Why are the books farcical? What actual concepts are farcical?

c. 1. Why are my responses farcical? Is this the best that this science board can come up with as a discussion?
2. I am not peddling anything to anyone—I am responding to posts that said things in them that I believe to be inaccurate—something I thought people would appreciate since this is a science board. Inaccuracies don’t fit very well into scientific or critical thinking.

Poodle Continues: We are familiar with the concepts, as Gorgeous has been here for a long time quoting them. You are here to back her up and we will, per se, soon have twice the baloney content we had before you arrived.

Barrie Responds: From what I read, people basically castigated Gorgeous for posting way too many Seth quotes without even trying to explain them—and most posters found them not understandable as they proclaimed why even bothered to try to read them. IF you think that you are familiar with some of Seth’s concepts—that are baloney and fantasy or farcical—why not list a few so we can at least discuss them—or at least so others can see what it is you are exactly talking about.

Poodle Continues: This is a skeptic forum. Rather than your pseudo-sagacious BS, why don't you give us one (just a little one - a teeny-weeny tiny scrap) bit of evidence of your claims? (Cue the response "Which one of the claims would you like me to ...." followed by the most blatant sidestepping ever seen). Just do it. Evidence. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Over to you.

Barrie Responds: It may be a skeptic forum, but I hoped it was a thinking forum and not just a name-calling, dismissive forum. It sounds very much like how you would describe a “fraud” – just pushing their beliefs as propaganda. You deride my question of “what claims?” How am i supposed to give any evidence of anything when you don’t even specify what it is your talking about?

I can address the concept of evidence, tho:

First, I must talk about beliefs. No one is free from their beliefs at the level at which I am discussing them. I am not talking about surface, conscious beliefs concerning how an experiment may turn out. But rather I am talking about deeply-held subconscious beliefs concerning the very nature of reality itself--which THEN dictate to the scientist what evidence itself can be and what cannot be evidence; and how do you test for it, evaluate it; and instruments you create and what goes into the testing.

Evidence, like logic and like what is or is not baloney, does not exist in some objective way. What you may see as evidence is based on your belief system of what is the true nature of reality. Same with what I see as evidence. When it comes to the inner, nonphysical realms—you may not even believe that they exist—because your pre-existing belief system can’t accepr their existence.

Yet, I believe these nonphysical realms exist. Thus, I accept as evidence things like coincidence, hunches, and intuitions. When it comes to the inner, nonphysical realms--realms which you think don’t exist (based on your beliefs on reality), you obviously would have totally different explanations for coincidences, hunches and intuitions.

So, if I dream of a friend I haven't seen in 20 years and then that day he calls me on the phone, I say that I received dream information that this friend would call. You would say it was just a coincidence. You have just as much evidence for your POV, as I have for mine.

Please remember that what you deem evidence or not evidence--is based on your BELIEFS about the nature of reality. It is only once those beliefs are in place, that you may file things into the "new evidence" file or the "bogus-baloney" file. Yet, there may be more explanations to these events that your beliefs do not allow you to see as evidence; that your belief system disallows for this evidence to be valid.

Again, let’s look at coincidence. I believe it is often a method of communication between the two realms of reality. I hold this belief because of my beliefs concerning the nature of reality in the first place. To you, coincidence is probably simply a random or chance event. You hold this belief because of your beliefs about the nature of reality.

Your belief system dictates to you how you evaluate and judge reality--and what events fit into what slots. Same with me. Same with everyone.

Your beliefs dictate to you what is evidence or not. I have found plenty of evidence in what I have seen and read. You may not agree that what you see as "evidence" is not an absolute. It is only evidence to you—based on your belief as to what is the actual nature of reality. And so it follows that what you see as "not evidence" is also not an absolute. It is only not evidence to you--because of your beliefs about the nature of reality.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26755
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jun 25, 2016 9:01 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: No. Describe these tests.
Barrie1 wrote:: From what I can recall, there were visits and letters to psychiatrists as well as various tests involving ESP...putting things in envelopes and guessing what was in them
Has it occurred to you that your memory and someone's written word may not be evidence against real world trickery. Show me the experiments.

1) How do you assess "Seth" as true, from channelling and "Ra" as false, from channelling?

2) Can you set out this belief system's story in any logical order? Why would an ancient being, channel Jane Roberts an ex-science fiction writer?

3) What is your hypothesis, using physics, to explain what you claim is going on?



Matthew Ellard wrote: ......exactly what you would expect as Jane Roberts was the sole forger when she was forging the Seth material.
Barrie1 wrote: Or...exactly what you would expect from a sincere and honest person.
I'd expect, building up your confidence in them. That's how confidence artists work.


Matthew Ellard wrote: : and Amber-Allen Publishing to who Jane signed a book contract with, for profit.
Barrie1 wrote: So, do you believe that all people who try to make a living are fakes and frauds?
Eric Von Daniken wrote Chariots of the Gods and lied to make a living. Does that make an impossible story true?


Matthew Ellard wrote: : Now can you cut out all the crap and start explaining the mechanics of how "Seth" talked through Jane Roberts. Magic photons? Invisible pixies?
Barrie1 wrote:IF you want to believe she is a fraud, then continue to do so. IF you are not interested in what she actually did and said, and how she explained it—that, too, is your business—blah blah blah
Stop dodging. How did the physics work?

Matthew Ellard wrote: This is a science forum and not a gathering place for cult members to spread their ridiculous cult propaganda.
Barrie1 wrote: I’m not spreading any propaganda; nor am I a cult member. I am responding to YOUR posts on this science forum. I did not introduce the topic. I am simply responding to what people have already posted on this forum. Also, I have no desire to spread any propaganda. I am just clarifying what was in the material—I am not asking anyone to believe it if they don’t want to. Please, everyone, believe whatever it is you wish to believe. How’s that for propaganda?
You are refusing to answer direct questions about your cult.

Will you answer direct questions?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8214
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 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:41 am

Barrie1 writes: Blah blah

Poodle responds: ... precisely what I said he'd say. This makes me precognisant and I can see that in the future Barrie1 will continue to evade and claim alternative realities exist because it's impossible to prove they don't. We've already been here, done that, Barrie1.

Poodle continues: It's very simple, Barrie1. Don't plead for questions which you will answer with vagaries and imagination. Provide ONE - just ONE - little bit of evidence that Seth is not a figment of yours (or someone else's) imagination. Do not try to evade by asking us to provide evidence of our own existence - calling a being Seth and claiming contact is saying something very definite.

That's all we ask for - something definite which can be tested (and I use the word tested as it is commonly used in this dimension). If you cannot satisfy such a simple request then you are either a) driven by faith b) making things up c) lying d) deluded. I think that covers all the bases. We've already told Gorgeous all of this. I'm surprised she didn't inform you of that.

So - don't forget. EVIDENCE. We know what it means despite your desperate attempt to redefine the word.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19745
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 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:36 pm

New Member Barrie the First, is this perchance a friend of yours?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19745
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 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:45 pm

(...and why did you ignore responding to user rm9h3m?)
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8214
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 » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:06 pm

I'm confused.

Are we talking to Barry Ian Responze or Celia Murdoch?

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4998
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Monster » Sun Jun 26, 2016 3:05 am

Good luck, Barrie1.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:57 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: No. Describe these tests.
Barrie1 wrote:: From what I can recall, there were visits and letters to psychiatrists as well as various tests involving ESP...putting things in envelopes and guessing what was in them
Has it occurred to you that your memory and someone's written word may not be evidence against real world trickery. Show me the experiments.

1) How do you assess "Seth" as true, from channelling and "Ra" as false, from channelling?

Barrie Responds: I never said Ra was false. You did. I don't expect you to change your mind about anything. I am explaining to you a different perspective than the one you have. People who believe in channelled information rely on what rings true deep down inside them. They have a whole different relationship with their minds than you do. I expect you to be judgemental...and that is sad because you can't just accept people do not all think and believe as you do.

2) Can you set out this belief system's story in any logical order? Why would an ancient being, channel Jane Roberts an ex-science fiction writer?

Barrie responds: Seth came thru Jane Roberts because they had a reincarnational connection, along with Rob. Why did certain ideas come to Einstein? Or Mark Twain? They responded to their inner voices, their nonphysical connections. In the case of Jane, she was connected with Seth in ways that you do not believe even exist. You should stick with your beliefs. I am not here to change them.


3) What is your hypothesis, using physics, to explain what you claim is going on?

Barrie Responds: What is your hypothesis that consciousness dies along with physical death? Your questions are meant to detract from sincere discussion. What is your hypothesis that time is only linear and not simultaneous? Use physics to explain what YOU claim? Or...why not engage in an honest discussion with me.


Matthew Ellard wrote: ......exactly what you would expect as Jane Roberts was the sole forger when she was forging the Seth material.
Barrie1 wrote: Or...exactly what you would expect from a sincere and honest person.
I'd expect, building up your confidence in them. That's how confidence artists work.

Barrie Responds: You are just repeating yourself. You believe she was a fake, etc. Nothing I can say will make you believe otherwise. Your examples are silly if you knew any of the facts, tho.


Matthew Ellard wrote: : and Amber-Allen Publishing to who Jane signed a book contract with, for profit.
Barrie1 wrote: So, do you believe that all people who try to make a living are fakes and frauds?
Eric Von Daniken wrote Chariots of the Gods and lied to make a living. Does that make an impossible story true?

Barrie Responds: Are you serious? Who said that people who write books can't be fakes? I said that just because someone has a book contract, it doesn't make them a fake. Be real please.


Matthew Ellard wrote: : Now can you cut out all the crap and start explaining the mechanics of how "Seth" talked through Jane Roberts. Magic photons? Invisible pixies?
Barrie1 wrote:IF you want to believe she is a fraud, then continue to do so. IF you are not interested in what she actually did and said, and how she explained it—that, too, is your business—blah blah blah
Stop dodging. How did the physics work?

Matthew Ellard wrote: This is a science forum and not a gathering place for cult members to spread their ridiculous cult propaganda.
Barrie1 wrote: I’m not spreading any propaganda; nor am I a cult member. I am responding to YOUR posts on this science forum. I did not introduce the topic. I am simply responding to what people have already posted on this forum. Also, I have no desire to spread any propaganda. I am just clarifying what was in the material—I am not asking anyone to believe it if they don’t want to. Please, everyone, believe whatever it is you wish to believe. How’s that for propaganda?
You are refusing to answer direct questions about your cult.

Barrie Responds: Again, be real. IF you don't believe that I am not a member of a cult, there's nothing I can do about that. But even you must realize, IF I say I'm not a member of a cult, then I can't very well answer direct questions about the cult that I am not a member of. Do you have any sincere questions about the Seth material? IF you believe people who read Seth books are members of cult, then I disagree. They come from all walks of life and have all sorts of various beliefs. Are YOU a cult member because you are a part of this group? Do people in this group all think the same and thus are cult members?

Will you answer direct questions?


Barrie Responds: I have probably answered more of your direct questions than anyone else who was ever on this board.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:15 am

Poodle wrote:Barrie1 writes: Blah blah

Poodle responds: ... precisely what I said he'd say. This makes me precognisant and I can see that in the future Barrie1 will continue to evade and claim alternative realities exist because it's impossible to prove they don't. We've already been here, done that, Barrie1.

Barrie NOW Responds: You don't seem to realize that your view of the nature of reality is not necessarily correct or the only view; or that your method of testing is the end-all and be-all method. I believe that there is much more to reality than meets the five senses and that there will one day be a marriage between physics and metaphysics that you cannot even yet dream of.

Poodle continues: It's very simple, Barrie1. Don't plead for questions which you will answer with vagaries and imagination. Provide ONE - just ONE - little bit of evidence that Seth is not a figment of yours (or someone else's) imagination. Do not try to evade by asking us to provide evidence of our own existence - calling a being Seth and claiming contact is saying something very definite.

Barrie NOW Responds: I am not pleading for anything. You are CHOOSING to respond to me--that is your choice, not mine. I am choosing to respond to you. That is my choice, not yours. I am not evading anything. I don't see and have the same answers that you have. You seem to lack the empathy to understand that to ME--you are the one evading and avoiding things. I've made a great deal of comments that you just fully ignored. That is your right, of course...but there is such a thing as hypocrisy as well--or is it projection? You see in me what you yourself may be doing.

IF you don't want to hear or read my sincere attempts at answering your questions, then don't ask questions of me. IF you don't wish to take the change to read my sincere attempts to respond to your comments, then stop commenting on my posts. But you can't have it both ways...you comment on my posts and then pigeonhole me and narrow-mindedly judge my responses and tell me how poor they are. IF you feel that way, and you are entitled to, then why are you even responding to me? IF you have no desire to explore and understand how people who are different from you think and reason--from their perspective--then why engage them in discussion.

That's all we ask for - something definite which can be tested (and I use the word tested as it is commonly used in this dimension). If you cannot satisfy such a simple request then you are either a) driven by faith b) making things up c) lying d) deluded. I think that covers all the bases. We've already told Gorgeous all of this. I'm surprised she didn't inform you of that.

Barrie NOW Responds: Are you serious? You guys keep making statements that are just nuts. I don't know gorgeous and have never written to her or communicated with her other than one comment on this board--unless she goes by another name somewhere else--of which I have no idea. Where is your evidence and physics examples to the contrary?

You don't seem to understand that I view the world very differently than you do. The difference between us is that I don't judge you for your differences. I have done so in this post--in parts of it--to make the point that I COULD judge you in very similar ways as you judge me. It is not easy to receive such hostility and name-calling repeatedly by people who I assume are intelligent. Yet, why do you feel such a need to be so judgemental about people who see the world differently than you do in some ways?

So - don't forget. EVIDENCE. We know what it means despite your desperate attempt to redefine the word.


Barrie NOW responds: For example, right here and now. I tried to honestly and sincerely explain how I see "evidence" and you tell me that I am being desperate, etc--instead of engaging in the precise level of discussion you so claim to seek from me. Why don't YOU respond to my actual comments about evidence--instead of just dismissing them as being "desperate." You are the one who is doing the evading...but I guess you cannot see that. Why not look back at all the other things you just let slide by--so you can make you snide comments instead. Are all self-defined skeptics so rude?

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:19 am

scrmbldggs wrote:New Member Barrie the First, is this perchance a friend of yours?


Barrie Responds: I don't know what you are talking about? I clicked on "this" and found the discussions there. I don't know anyone there. I don't know anyone here. I stumbled upon this site while doing a search about something else and when I saw the Seth discussion, I joined it--I had hoped for a friendly discussion--but now I am skeptical of the chances of that occurring--and I do hope you appreciate the pun just a bit.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:21 am

Poodle wrote:I'm confused.

Are we talking to Barry Ian Responze or Celia Murdoch?


Barrie Responds: Yes, you are confused...but it may take a few lifetimes to realize just how confused you may be. Does anyone poster on the board have faith in fellow human beings that they can be sincere and honest even IF they disagree with them and/or with each other? Is thought so lockstep that those who differ must face ridicule? It is a strange world in which we live.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:27 am

scrmbldggs wrote:(...and why did you ignore responding to user rm9h3m?)


Barrie Responds: I'll check it out. I didn't respond because either I didn't see it or didn't find it worthy enough to warrant a response. But when I click on the link I will know better. Please understand that I am just trying my best to navigate thru this site and respond to people the proper mechanical ways. I find it difficult to find posts and then find them again and to respond in such a manner than is easy to read. I'm not used to sites with these mechanics involved.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:49 am

Barrie1 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:(...and why did you ignore responding to user rm9h3m?)


Barrie Responds: I'll check it out. I didn't respond because either I didn't see it or didn't find it worthy enough to warrant a response. But when I click on the link I will know better. Please understand that I am just trying my best to navigate thru this site and respond to people the proper mechanical ways. I find it difficult to find posts and then find them again and to respond in such a manner than is easy to read. I'm not used to sites with these mechanics involved.


Barrie NOW Responds: Oh, I think I found what you refer to...but I'm not sure...so here goes:

Is this what you refer to? I didn’t respond to it because it was not addressed to me and it seemed to be in the middle of a discussion that I was not away of the details.


rm9h3m Writes: 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.

Barrie NOW Responds: Reading this now, I believe this person is referring to Georgeous and her posts containing Seth quotes. I don’t know this, but I believe it to be the case.

RM Continues: 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.

Barrie Responds: Well, I would disagree, altho some people may be unstable, but not any more so than I have found on this board. My experience is that I have responded to people’s specific points and instead of engaging in further discussion on those points, they leap to something else in a hostile or semi-hostile manner.

For example, people on this board repeatedly said how all Jane was after was money. And I pointed out FACTS that people here claim to love so much, about how that was not the case at all. And instead of responding to my facts, they just went on to something else or just repeated their claims as if no response was given to them at all. This is what I refered to as being closed-minded.

RM Continues: 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.

Barrie Responds: I can’t speak for what motivates Georgeous or what her relationship is to what she reads. I do agree that Jane would not condone people looking at her work with Seth in any sort of dogmatic, cultish or Christian fundamentalist way.

RM Continues: 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.

Barrie Responds: RM, and everyone on this board, this is at least something “concrete” we can actually discuss. Seth’s basic idea about reality creation does not involve blame at all. And NO ONE had it coming at all. This description displays a misunderstanding of the concepts. Somehow I doubt that anyone is interested in actually understanding the actual concept—but would rather just go on believing their misconceptions. You are speculating on false assumptions—and they are not true because they are actually not true—what you have written does not reflect the concept of creating your own reality. IF anyone is interested in a friendly and intelligent discussion on what this concept actually includes and so forth—please feel free to engage me in that discussion. I would suggest not to continue blindly believing in falsehoods tho. By “falsehoods” I don’t mean things that you disagree with. I mean things that you think are true about something but it is not actually true.

Reality Creation concerns the mechanism of how events come into play on the physical plane in the first place. And one important rule of the Seth material is that “violence is never justified.”
RM Concludes: It seems Jane was innately talented in some sort of "natural" propaganda technique, maybe it was an experiment in propaganda.

Barrie Responds: This is silly. jane was just a person, like everyone else. She was not involved in propaganda—unless you call honestly trying to understand the nature of reality and sharing what you find for others to agree with or use and/or use what they wish—as propaganda. I don’t. Actually, I find more propaganda on this board than I’ve found in the whole Seth material.


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests