seth and jane roberts

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8245
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Poodle » Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:40 am

Barrie1 wrote: ... 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?


Oh, they can be a LOT ruder. I'm one of the nice, polite ones.

You've done it again. I don't give a monkey's fart what YOU see as evidence. This is something which people of wobbly mentality completely fail to understand, or cynically ignore (and I know which one of those is more likely). You're not in a place where there are grades of evidence. Nor are you in a place which has to justify your existence. I do not respond to your claims of evidence because they are typically fuzzy and inaccurate. In fact, I find your abuse of the term repulsive.

Put up or shut up - you have provided nothing but wishful thinking so far. There is not a shred of evidence (and please research the meaning of the word in a scientific environment before pleading for protection from the nasty skeptics) to support the Seth fairy stories in even the most minute way. But let's give you another go. Remember that YOU came HERE. WE did not go, looking for YOU - it is therefore incumbent upon YOU to PROVE your case. Remember also that evidence is TESTABLE in a CONTROLLED environment.

Please read that last paragraph a few times before responding. If you cannot meet the very basic criteria, then don't bother doing anything.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:02 pm

Barrie1, thanks for answering my questions. And I have more, if I may...

Regarding "our own creation of ourself and our world/life/circumstances" (according to what I understand of what "Seth" and believers are saying), how is it that, since I created you and me and you created me and yourself, neither one of us really knows anything about the other (and, apparently, about the other created/perceived self that is oneself) and things we learn of all those characters from the other do not normally adhere to what we actually know (or thought) of them? In other words, how come there is/can be no match? And what about the following conclusion that that opens the whole thing up to multifarious possibilities all playing out at the same time in all its multifarious versions? And that I probably wouldn't recognize myself as portrayed by you as one of your creations and vise versa?* And how come you - knowing what you claim you know - complain about what you yourself created?



Edit: Changed "their" in "...how come their is/can be no match?" to "there". Maybe I'll be getting an answer now? :-P



* Barrie, my left ankle is swollen and discolored and I do not know why? Do you?
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:13 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:1) How do you assess "Seth" as true, from channelling and "Ra" as false, from channelling?
Barrie1 wrote: I never said Ra was false. You did.
As your channelled "Seth" story is in total conflict to the other channelled "Ra" story.....both stories can't be true simultaneously, can they?

So either the Seth story is complete bull-shit or the "Ra" Story is complete bull-shit or they are both complete bull-shit stories.

I ask again. How do you assess "Seth" as true and "Ra" as false?



Matthew Ellard wrote:3) What is your hypothesis, using physics, to explain what you claim is going on?
Barrie1 wrote:What is your hypothesis that consciousness dies along with physical death?
The neurons in you brain stop working. Now stop dodging and answer my question.


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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:19 am

Barrie1 wrote: For example, people on this board repeatedly said how all Jane was after was money.


The Secret to Healing Cancer: A Seth Companion Book
Our Price: $13.00

The Seth Material
Our price: $16.95

Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul
Our Price: $11.38

The Nature of Personal Reality: A Seth Book
Our Price: $12.32

Seth, Dreams and Projections of Consciousness
Our Price: $15.56

The Early Sessions: Book 1 of the Seth material
$22.95


Your delusions are not connected to reality. :lol:

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:37 am

Poodle wrote:
Barrie1 wrote: ... 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?


Oh, they can be a LOT ruder. I'm one of the nice, polite ones.




Poodle Writes: You've done it again. I don't give a monkey's fart what YOU see as evidence. This is something which people of wobbly mentality completely fail to understand, or cynically ignore (and I know which one of those is more likely).

Barrie Responds: Perhaps you are not clear as to what my motives and purposes are of being here. I am not trying to prove anything to you or anyone on this board. I am just trying to clear up misconceptions you have about the Seth material—and explain what it actually is—and you can fart about that or not—as much as you wish. I am offering you an alternative view of reality—which you can reject—but then at least you are rejecting what is there in the material, as far as the Seth material goes—and not rejecting your fantasies of the material.

You had asked about evidence but I see that whole concept differently when it comes to physical things versus nonphysical things—one realm is very objective, the other is not. Therefore, I offer what type of evidence exists in the realms of subjectivity--to clarify how your question can actually fit into the discussion from my point of view—which is what I am offering.

You already know your point of view. We can discuss my point of view if you wish—or not. That is up to you because I am responding to your posts—not initiating new ones.

Poodle Writes: You're not in a place where there are grades of evidence. Nor are you in a place which has to justify your existence. I do not respond to your claims of evidence because they are typically fuzzy and inaccurate. In fact, I find your abuse of the term repulsive.

Barrie Responds: I am apparently in a place in which criteria for evidence can’t be discussed. I believe I have said a great deal of things that you have chosen not to respond to—which does limit the scope of an interesting and/or enjoyable discussion—and more becomes a monologue attempted to hijack the discussion, metaphorically speaking.

Again, I am offering you to chance to understand what a different perspective actually is, instead of just conjuring up your made-up different perspective that doesn’t exist as far as the Seth material goes. If you are incapable of having a discussion with someone who doesn’t fully share your beliefs about the nature of reality—then you are kind of locking yourself up in a dark room with only your own echoing voice.

If you lack the curiosity to understand how others may view differently some of the things that you view—then you should not engage me in discussion. I am here to offer insight into what the Seth material actually consists of—because I have read so many misconceptions and false hoods about it on this board. Once you actually understand what it consists of, then you can intelligently reject it all you wish. IF you wish to reject what it is NOT, then continue to do so as well.

Poodle Continues: Put up or shut up - you have provided nothing but wishful thinking so far.

Barrie Responds: I am putting up and providing exactly what I said I would put up and provide—clarifications concerning the Seth material so that people don’t rant against what it is NOT...but rather what it is, if that is your desire.

You seem to believe that you can use words like “evidence” and phrases like “wishful thinking” and that I must accept and use your definitions only even if those words may mean something else to me...or else shut up. Do you realize how intellectually dictatorial that is? You want evidence; while I initially just wanted to clarify misconceptions.

But OK, you want evidence...I’ll try to engage that direction of the discussion—but no...you are not interested at all about what I believe or how I define what evidence is and why...so that I can actually engage in discussion—and so we cannot have an honest discussion, as I see it.

Instead, it is your dogma insisted upon as the only true meanings of anything and your views on the nature of reality, the only true view. It is to lockstep think and believe along with you...as you dictate or the highway. But...if you recall...I came here trying to clarify with a willingness to go in the directions your questions led...but now you dictate precisely how I must march following your lead or else I don’t know how to walk.

I believe we can have an interesting discussion about what evidence is—and it how varies from belief system to belief system and how you think you are beyond belief systems—but we may be entering the realm of the lack of monkey farts.

You say I have provided “wishful thinking” – of course, I would disagree with that characterization...and may add that it is wishful thinking on your part to believe I have provided nothing but wishful thinking--but I assume you don’t give a monkey’s fart about what I believe or what my perspective is. You seem to like to ask questions so that you will not get the answer you want—so that you can pull on your suspenders, of course.

Poodle Continues: There is not a shred of evidence (and please research the meaning of the word in a scientific environment before pleading for protection from the nasty skeptics) to support the Seth fairy stories in even the most minute way.

Barrie Responds: I didn’t know that nastiness was innate to disagreeing with a skeptic. That’s sad...and cultish, even. Again, I am not here to convince you of anything. I am here so you can rant against the actual Seth material, and not your misguided misconceptions of it. There is a remarkable lack of curiosity on this board along with a mental arrogance that says, “Only what I believe is true—and I won’t even entertain out of curiosity what it is anyone else believes who I believe differs from me. Rather, I will make up what they believe and rant against that instead.” That is your choice, and yet you keep responding to my posts—maybe you do give a secret Monkey’s fart.

IF you dictate to me how I must define my words, then how can I speak the beliefs that I have and/or the truths that I see. It is like speaking to a French person, and insisting that he must use English to answer your questions—or that he must answer in French but only use the English pronunciations of the alphabet. There is something called honest curiosity and honest empathy—which I honestly find lacking in the responses that I have been receiving in my discourse with those who have chosen to respond to my posts.

Poodle Continues: But let's give you another go. Remember that YOU came HERE. WE did not go, looking for YOU - it is therefore incumbent upon YOU to PROVE your case. Remember also that evidence is TESTABLE in a CONTROLLED environment.

Barrie Responds: What are you, the Chief Dictator? It is incumbent upon me, if I am an honest and sincere person, which I am, to do what I said I would do—which is to clarify the misconceptions about the Seth material—and if anyone wishes, I would happily oblige to engage in an intellectual discussion of various differences of viewpoints when it comes to the nature of reality.

Given you are one of the gods of evidence, I can ask you to prove things that you believe and espouse--using evidence, too. of course: Prove what consciousness is? Prove where it came from or if exists or not? Prove what happens to consciousness after death occurs? Prove what love is? Prove that time is linear, and not simultaneous? You make so many assumptions and give so little of what you ask.

Fortunately for you...I don’t ask you to prove what you believe. I accept and appreciate that you believe them—and that’s good enough for me. I can easily accept that we have some differing beliefs—and also some in common. IF you find becoming more aware of systems of thinking that differ from yours and is outside of the box you wish to keep lit by a dim light—and about which you care less than a monkey’s fart—then why do you continue responding to my posts. I offer you visions of what may exist outside of your box, instead of your just imagining them.

I am here to offer you or anyone clarifications about your misconceptions of the Seth material. IF you want to understand my “evidence” how I see it—then I will provide it. IF you want me to speak in a language using only your definitions which don’t fit what I say—and you can’t accept that I don’t think lockstep with you—then that kind of ends any positive discussion in that direction.

Discussions about the nonphysical realms require different ways of thinking that you are either unwilling or incapable of understanding. I have explained what evidence is to me, and you shut the door on that discussion. And we are left with you dictating, “Use my way of thinking and my definitions of words, or else I will take my ball and go home.”

Well, I agree that no one came looking for me and brought me to this board. I’ve explained how I stumbled upon this board and why I began to post. Let me remind you, that I did not invite you or seek you out to respond to me...you have chosen to do so...and you have brought your own mental handcuffs with you...or perhaps I should say mental leash, to keep it in the canine motif.

Poodle Concludes: Please read that last paragraph a few times before responding. If you cannot meet the very basic criteria, then don't bother doing anything.

Barrie Concludes: Please read this sentence again...I will do the work for you so that you don’t have to find it elsewhere on your own: I am not trying to prove any case. I am trying to clarify misconceptions. I would gladly discuss differences in our views concerning the nature of reality, but if you don’t give a monkey’s fart about doing that—then at least you have identified evolution’s place in the level of desires.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:50 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:1) How do you assess "Seth" as true, from channelling and "Ra" as false, from channelling?
Barrie1 wrote: I never said Ra was false. You did.
As your channelled "Seth" story is in total conflict to the other channelled "Ra" story.....both stories can't be true simultaneously, can they?

So either the Seth story is complete bull-shit or the "Ra" Story is complete bull-shit or they are both complete bull-shit stories.

I ask again. How do you assess "Seth" as true and "Ra" as false?

Barrie NOW Responds: There is a difference between Ra being false and me disagreeing with information he gives. When it comes to assessing these types of communications--you go by what rings true deep down inside you. What rings true deep down inside YOU, is that it is fake BS. That is therefore your assessment. IF you wish to point out any specific differences between Ra and Seth, I will gladly discuss them with you.

But let's just take the concept of life after death...from what I've read about it...various books like "Life Before Life" by Dr. Jim Tucker...various accounts...but most importantly--how it all rings true deep down inside--makes me believe that here is life after death. What rings true deep down inside YOU--is that it is BS so that is your answer. And you acceot "evidence" that fits your beliefs.

Matthew Ellard wrote:3) What is your hypothesis, using physics, to explain what you claim is going on?
Barrie1 wrote:What is your hypothesis that consciousness dies along with physical death?
The neurons in you brain stop working. Now stop dodging and answer my question.

Barrie NOW Responds: So, the neurons in your brain stop working...how does that prove consciousness dies?

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?


Barrie NOW Responds: Seth is a personality that no longer needs a physical body. He has connections with Jane and Rob--and so he was able to communicate with her in altered states of reality--states which are not focused on the physical plane--think of it like dreams or drifting off into day dreams and imagination. Jan'e consciousness was able to move aside and allow Seth to use her body in order to speak.

You can and should disagree with all of that--based on your beliefs and what rings true to you--but I am just offering you their explanation of what goes on when Seth speaks thru Jane.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:51 am

Barrie1 wrote:
Poodle wrote:Oh, they can be a LOT ruder. I'm one of the nice, polite ones.

You've done it again. I don't give a monkey's fart what YOU see as evidence. This is something which people of wobbly mentality completely fail to understand, or cynically ignore (and I know which one of those is more likely). You're not in a place where there are grades of evidence. Nor are you in a place which has to justify your existence. I do not respond to your claims of evidence because they are typically fuzzy and inaccurate. In fact, I find your abuse of the term repulsive.

Put up or shut up - you have provided nothing but wishful thinking so far. There is not a shred of evidence (and please research the meaning of the word in a scientific environment before pleading for protection from the nasty skeptics) to support the Seth fairy stories in even the most minute way. But let's give you another go. Remember that YOU came HERE. WE did not go, looking for YOU - it is therefore incumbent upon YOU to PROVE your case. Remember also that evidence is TESTABLE in a CONTROLLED environment.

Please read that last paragraph a few times before responding. If you cannot meet the very basic criteria, then don't bother doing anything.

Image












:pardon:
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:59 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Barrie1 wrote: For example, people on this board repeatedly said how all Jane was after was money.


The Secret to Healing Cancer: A Seth Companion Book
Our Price: $13.00

The Seth Material
Our price: $16.95

Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul
Our Price: $11.38

The Nature of Personal Reality: A Seth Book
Our Price: $12.32

Seth, Dreams and Projections of Consciousness
Our Price: $15.56

The Early Sessions: Book 1 of the Seth material
$22.95


Your delusions are not connected to reality. :lol:


Barrie NOW Responds: Matt, are you a serious person and thinker? IF you don't understand the difference between making a living and only doing something for the money--which also implies ripping people off--than I don't know what to say--but only repeat myself--is a scientist a fake becasue he writes a book and receives money for that? Is he only in it for the money? IF you got paid to travel around and give lectures about how fake the Seth material is...would that make you a fake?

I explained, which you totally ignored, how Jane shunned publicity and hardly charged any money at all (like $3.50 or less), and sometimes none, for her 4-hour classes. This is not the MO of a person who is trying to make as much money as she can. She offered no private sessions in which you had pay large sums of money. She offered no private sessions at all--except the class sessions. You seem to speak in a bubble of self-imposed ignorance--and believe that repeating that ignorance somehow makes it more wise...not very scientific, I think.

By the way, "The Secret to Healing Cancer" is NOT a Seth book...but a book someone else wrote using his understanding of the Seth material.

The Early Sessions--which are actually NINE volumes--were published decades after jane's death. They are the Seth sessions that led up to her first book, Seth Speaks. Seth Speaks begins with session 504 or something. The Early Sessions are sessions 1-503.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:03 am

Barrie1 wrote: Perhaps you are not clear as to what my motives and purposes are of being here. I am not trying to prove anything to you or anyone on this board.
Your motives are clear. You are a cult member attempting to justify to himself that his cult is based on some form of reality, when in fact it is an insane religious framework invented by an ex-science fiction author, for profit.

All you have done is confirm the fact that all the cult followers on this forum don't answer direct questions and avoid dealing with reality.



Poodle wrote: But let's give you another go. Remember that YOU came HERE. WE did not go, looking for YOU - it is therefore incumbent upon YOU to PROVE your case. Remember also that evidence is TESTABLE in a CONTROLLED environment.
Barrie1 wrote: What are you, the Chief Dictator?
Poodle is a skeptic on a skeptic forum. You are posting cult bull-shit on a skeptic forum. Answer the direct questions or go away.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:17 am

Barrie Responds: Matt, if you don't believe me and my motives, why even ask me anything or write me. I am not a cult member. I am not trying to prove anything. You should go on believing exactly as you do, wish and want. I am trying to clarify misconceptions people have made about the Seth material. These people should be glad because if they listen to me--then their rants would be more powerful as they would actually be based on the Seth material and not their fantasies of the Seth material.

I believe I have answered all of your direct questions--and you have actually not responded to almost all I have written in response to you. Instead you repeat how I am dodging something. Present a list of 3 questions, or 5 or 10 and I will do my best to respond to them. Shall I propose questions for you not to dodge?

You don't understand that what you call "dealing with reality" is not some sort of objective statement of fact. I believe I am dealing with reality on a much deeper level than you are...but that doesn't upset me. You should deal with reality as you see and understand it. You can do nothing else, actually.

Does being a skeptic on a skeptic forum mean that one person should dictate to another how they must answer questions and which definitions must be used? Remember, I did not invite you are Poodle to respond to my posts--and I am only answering what you choose to respond to. Is that also not acceptable or allowed on a skeptic board? That, to me, actually sounds like a cult.

In summary, believe as you wish...rant against whatever you like. IF you don't want to understand what the concepts of the Seth material are, then don't.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:19 am

Barrie1 wrote: Matt, are you a serious person and thinker?
Yes. That is why I am asking you direct questions, that you, a religious cult member are currently avoiding. I have just completed a full debunk of the "Ra Material" as we have a "Ra" follower on this forum at the moment.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26243&hilit=reuckert&start=40#p491907

The woman who channelled "Ra" was an ex porn star. The bloke who wrote the "Ra Material" and that same woman made a science fiction film four years, before she decided to start channelling "Ra the alien" for profit. The lines from their movie end up in the "Ra Material". It was a simple con. Just like Jane Roberts.


Meet Carla Reuckert. First "servicing some aliens" in "Invasion of the Girl Snatchers" 1973
carla sex scene.jpg

And here channelling "Ra the alien spirit" in 1978
download (9).jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:25 am

Barrie1 wrote: if you don't believe me and my motives, why even ask me anything or write me.
Because you are posting on our skeptic forum and I specialise in cult busting and debunking holocaust deniers.

Barrie1 wrote:I am not a cult member.
You are a 100% cult member under all definitions of the word.

Barrie1 wrote:Does being a skeptic on a skeptic forum mean that one person should dictate to another how they must answer questions and which definitions must be used?
Yes, Next question. :lol:


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

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Barrie1 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 4:43 am

Matt--are you a serious thinker? It doesn't seem like it. You keep making declarations that are not true and/or that I disagree with--which apparently is not allowed. You keep calling me a cult member and then act totally like a cult member yourself. Where are your list of questions for me? Would you like my list of questions for you?

I am posting on your skeptic forum because people were expressing such misconceptions about the Seth material, but not realizing it. I do not believe that fits under the category of critical thinking. I wished to clarify what the material actually says--if anyone is interested. Then, they can rant against it in a more intelligent manner.

The mission of this board is to "engage leading experts in investigating the paranormal, fringe science, pseudoscience, and extraordinary claims of all kinds, promote critical thinking, and serve as an educational tool for those seeking a sound scientific viewpoint." Well, here I am, folks. IF you want to investigate the paranormal or extraordinary claims--you first have to understand what those claims are--and not just make them up in your fantasies. I can very well explain the concepts in the Seth material--and discuss them. That totally fits your stated mission. How can you think critically about something you don't understand or something about which you have such misconceptions? You can't. I didn't even realize to the great extent that I am here to help you fulfill your mission--except it seems that those active posters who engage me--don't wish to fulfull their own mission.

By the way, I didn't read something like..."and we are to be rude in nasty to those who offer alternative views so that we can better investigate them."

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:03 am

Barrie1 wrote:Matt--are you a serious thinker? It doesn't seem like it.
So ,you, a cult member, who religiously believes in magical channelled spirits, don't think I'm a serious thinker?

Thank you for the compliment. :D


Barrie1 wrote:Well, here I am, folks. IF you want to investigate the paranormal or extraordinary claims--

What is the scientific physical system that allows Seth to communicate with Jane at faster than light speeds?

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby gorgeous » Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:02 am

maybe it was a wormhole...our ideas of time and space are wrong as aliens have said and scientists are now learning...
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: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:08 am

gorgeous wrote:maybe it was a wormhole..


What exactly is going through the wormhole to allow reincarnated spirits from Earth to enter other babies, on Earth?

How do the reincarnated spirits get to the wormhole in the first place? Seth's spaceship? :lol:

Where is the closest black hole to Earth, to allow for your fantasy belief system?

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Poodle » Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:51 pm

gorgeous wrote:maybe it was a wormhole...our ideas of time and space are wrong as aliens have said and scientists are now learning...


And maybe - just maybe - it wasn't. Definitely, we don't know if wormholes exist. Our ideas of space and time are at their most advanced (and it's all weird) so I'll argue the toss with those aliens if you send me their email address or telephone number - I know you must have one or the other).

Finally, scientists are learning all of the time. That's what it means to be a scientist.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby gorgeous » Tue Jun 28, 2016 12:53 pm

I think aliens who travel through time and space dimensions would know more than you on the subject...
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: 8245
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 » Tue Jun 28, 2016 1:07 pm

They would, gorgeous!. Indeed so! Give your friends the info on this forum, and we''ll all have a whale of a time discussing things.

What's that you say? You don't know how to contact them? You must, gorgeous, otherwise how could you know so much about them? Get 'em signed up - we'll have them converted in a shake of a lamb's tail.

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

Famous Fictional Characters

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:23 am

gorgeous wrote:I think aliens who travel through time and space dimensions would know more than you on the subject...


Logic according to Gorgeous
I think Sherlock Holmes travels by horse and cart and would know more than you on the subject.

I think Superman can fly faster than a speeding bullet and would know more than you on the subject.

I think the Easter Bunny knows how to deliver chocolate eggs to all children and would know more than you on the subject.

:D

damonlrr
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:32 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby damonlrr » Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:41 am

Wow. The "skeptics" on this forum are so unprofessional I wouldn't take their arguments seriously. Barrie1 has been kind, gracious, thorough in his responses. Even if they are not what most people believe. He had never said you should believe him, only that if you're going to argue about something you should have all the facts.

I came across this thread specifically when trying to find critical thinking tools to use when considering the Seth materials. But every complaint people have posted about Jane Roberts had been answered, debunked or otherwise addressed in a cordial way by Barrie1. I hope he continues to post and that you militant materialists haven't pushed away a resource that could actually provide interesting and useful answers regarding this subject

You ask how Seth communicated with Jane. How the hell do we know? It's clearly not some physical (or just physical) method, so how can you ask what the physical process is?! Maybe we will have the tools to measure such things in the future, or maybe all of it is hogwash. But I'd prefer to think we are not yet omniscient and we do not yet know everything. Science doesnt have a process to measure the subjective. So if we did have a way to measure it that wasn't confined to material measurements, how could you ever accept it?

I can already picture the responses by some of the people here. You're going to say stuff about cults, about how ridiculous anything is that can't be measured by physical means, and then finish it off by being rude, condescending and full of yourselves. But if you respond in a cordial way, with sincere effort to understand Barrie1's points (not agree, just understand), then I'll eat my words and make a full apology. But I'm pretty confident that will not happen.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Poodle » Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:38 pm

damonlrr wrote:Wow. The "skeptics" on this forum are so unprofessional I wouldn't take their arguments seriously. Barrie1 has been kind, gracious, thorough in his responses. Even if they are not what most people believe. He had never said you should believe him, only that if you're going to argue about something you should have all the facts ...


Indeed, damonlrr. Exactly what we've been asking for - facts.

damonlrr wrote:... I came across this thread specifically when trying to find critical thinking tools to use when considering the Seth materials. But every complaint people have posted about Jane Roberts had been answered, debunked or otherwise addressed in a cordial way by Barrie1 ...


They have? Are you sure you're reading the correct thread?

damonlrr wrote:... I hope he continues to post and that you militant materialists ...


Aha! Someone's slip is showing.

damonlrr wrote:... You ask how Seth communicated with Jane. How the hell do we know? ...


Whoah! Considering you "came across this thread specifically when trying to find critical thinking tools to use when considering the Seth materials" then who's this 'we'? I'm beginning to suspect you're not such an innocent casual visitor, damonlrr.

damonlrr wrote:...It's clearly not some physical (or just physical) method, so how can you ask what the physical process is?! ...


You picked that up between starting this post and now? Remarkable for a person trying to find etc. Anyway, we can ask what the physical process is because there has never, never, ever been a discovery of a non-physical method of information transmission. I mean, wouldn't YOU ask the same thing? Assuming, naturally, that you hadn't already made up your mind. Who am I kidding? Of course you wouldn't.

damonlrr wrote:Science doesnt have a process to measure the subjective ...


Well spotted. Bricks also fall downwards.

damonlrr wrote:... So if we did have a way to measure it that wasn't confined to material measurements ...


What? I've checked and rechecked that bit of semantic magic. It's meaningless gobbledygook.

damonlrr wrote:...I can already picture the responses by some of the people here. You're going to say stuff about cults, about how ridiculous anything is that can't be measured by physical means, and then finish it off by being rude, condescending and full of yourselves. But if you respond in a cordial way, with sincere effort to understand Barrie1's points (not agree, just understand), then I'll eat my words and make a full apology. But I'm pretty confident that will not happen.


Oh, I understand Barrie's points only too well. I understand the Barrie type only too well. It is, of course, your prerogative to believe in fairy stories and nonsense from well-matured New Agers who haven't seen a calendar for a while. It is my prerogative to be exceptionally rude when I see someone attempting to pull the wool over anyone else's eyes. So, basically, you're darn tootin' right I'm not going to respond in a cordial way. Send the next one in - you're transparent.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Jul 07, 2016 11:55 pm

damonlrr wrote:Wow. The "skeptics" on this forum are so unprofessional I wouldn't take their arguments seriously.
Yet, here you are, making an effort to seek out our attention. Funny that.

damonlrr wrote:Barrie1 has been kind, gracious, ....He had never said you should believe him,
We didn't believe him and he offered incorrect facts, false citations and didn't know that Jane Roberts died of thyroid disease.

damonlrr wrote:But every complaint people have posted about Jane Roberts had been answered, debunked or otherwise addressed in a cordial way by Barrie1.
That is absolutely false and you know it. :lol:

damonlrr wrote: You ask how Seth communicated with Jane. How the hell do we know?
Experimentation, research and the application of simple logic would be a simple starting point. That Jane Roberts took thyroid medication while Seth the channelled alien, said not to take thyroid medicine is a clear indication Jane was a con artist.

damonlrr
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:32 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby damonlrr » Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:41 am

I did come across this discussion because I truly was looking for both sides of the story. Sure it's obvious by my remarks I do lean towards *wanting* to believe in something like what Seth / Jane talk about. That would indeed be nice. But I'm also self aware enough to know that's what I'm leaning toward which is exactly why I wanted to balance it out.

I didn't come here for any covert or sneaky reasons. I'm not part of a cult. I'm a fairly rational thinking man. I don't smoke weed, I don't worship crystals or believe in aliens. But I do think there is something to gain by reading Seth's materials. I believe there really is something to creating our reality. Whether it's just humans working hard and not quitting and believing they can make something happen or whether we actually do create our reality by some additional or alternate method. It seems to work.

The nice thing is, even if you don't believe in it, it could still be true and you could have benefited from it.

I don't have proof and my evidence is only anecdotal, but it's enough for me not to close my mind off from it just yet.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:49 am

Evidence - that's what we've been asking for. Of course, "I know in my very heart it's true!" doesn't get one very far, but if you have what you deem credible evidence, would you care to share it?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:53 am

Oh, btw:

damonlrr wrote:The nice thing is, even if you don't believe in it, it could still be true and you could have benefited from it.


sounds a bit like Pascal's Wager.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

damonlrr
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:32 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby damonlrr » Sun Jul 10, 2016 4:43 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Evidence - that's what we've been asking for. Of course, "I know in my very heart it's true!" doesn't get one very far, but if you have what you deem credible evidence, would you care to share it?


I can share one, something that isn't terribly hokey but seemed legit. This happened when I worked at a grocery store many many years ago (1987'ish). Had a dream where my manager brought me into an office and showed me an unfamiliar white machine that had receipts printing out of it. Again this machine was unfamiliar to me. Two days later (maybe three) a different manager pulled me aside and showed me I had just received a raise, and he showed this to me on a white terminal that I had never seen, looking very similar to the machine in my dream. Too similar to have been imagined. So they could be completely unrelated but nothing I said is false. That is one of the more mundane examples but it's along the same lines of the other occurrences or situations that seemed to be too close in timing to be coincidental.

Fwiw

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 10, 2016 5:37 am

damonlrr wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:Evidence - that's what we've been asking for. Of course, "I know in my very heart it's true!" doesn't get one very far, but if you have what you deem credible evidence, would you care to share it?


I can share one, something that isn't terribly hokey but seemed legit. This happened when I worked at a grocery store many many years ago (1987'ish). Had a dream where my manager brought me into an office and showed me an unfamiliar white machine that had receipts printing out of it. Again this machine was unfamiliar to me. Two days later (maybe three) a different manager pulled me aside and showed me I had just received a raise, and he showed this to me on a white terminal that I had never seen, looking very similar to the machine in my dream. Too similar to have been imagined. So they could be completely unrelated but nothing I said is false. That is one of the more mundane examples but it's along the same lines of the other occurrences or situations that seemed to be too close in timing to be coincidental.

Fwiw

Thanks. I can see how that would puzzle you. And I'm not trying to diminish your account, but there could be several explanations for something like that. One often is that memory is not what one thinks it is and the sequence/time frame of dream/occurrence might actually be different as recalled. But feeling so impressive, it leaves an imprint, so to speak, which makes for another memory of it's own, if I may say so.

I'm sure you've heard other explanations such as that you had seen that machine before without being aware of it, that the raise didn't come quite unexpectedly at that time, and so on...

Fwiw, I'm glad you got that raise. :)
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

roberto
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:10 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby roberto » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:04 am

Barrie1 , gorgeous and damonirr
" Science is apt to turn into a religion, if it has not done so already. Any fanaticism is truly vicious, one-sided, limiting, and causes an alarming shrinkage of focus that is explosive and dangerous "
Seth session 34

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Poodle » Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:33 pm

Ah, but from which side do you speak, roberto?

In any case, in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies ... "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"

Which translates as "Well she would say that, wouldn't she?"

EDIT: After some thought, it's a good quotation to pick. It demonstrates very succinctly that the speaker has no notion of the nature (or purpose) of science. So, what do we have? A statement from a being not of this Earth who has the know-how to communicate instantaneously over vast distances, or an Earth-bound fraud?

Errm .... errrmmmm ... it's a difficult one.

Kerrie
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:27 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Kerrie » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:14 pm

Finally, i get to comment. I have not read all of the posts but i have read enough to understand that Skeptism itself can prevent us from seeing what is there (but without skeptism we could no know what open minded meant?). When we remain without prejudices or fixed beliefs (as much as is possible, but holding the awareness that our beliefs prevent us from seeing anything but our beliefs). it follows on from quantum mechanics that when you are looking at the particles they respond to your consciousness. it behaves how you think it should. But when you are not looking they are in a multitude of possible places. this follows the law of attraction much of what Seth discusses.

If you want to see what i am talking about find the Double slit experiment. Has anyone seen it? There is also more about it from the documentary called 'What the bleep do we know'. what do we know?... Science is proving that we affect our reality. If the particles that we are all made of behave in different ways when we perceive them what does this tell you about our reality? Therefore we can really only see what we are willing to see...

I have not heard much of the Seth material but what i have heard I remain open too, as to not be open is only cutting off my own ability to see... So why am I on a site that holds a multitude of skeptical minds... because it is a good way to challenge my own biases. I was searching to find more information about the Seth material and I came across this site. I saw the fore and against discussions until Berrie1 came in to discuss, and this took my interest. Berrie1 in my humble opinion speaks a lot of sense.

Putting aside the concept of where Seth came from or who they are, which people are very hung up on, which is of course natural as it is not an everyday experience in this society... the material makes philosophical and spiritual sense. But this sense is not going to be heard in the first instance if we already hold a bias that we dont believe in channeled souls, end of. Therefore it is no wonder that Berrie1 has exhausted their own resources in attempting a debate with those who already disbelieve it in the first instance. You just cant discuss things with closed minded people. There is no room for debate.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:25 pm

Hi, Kelly. Good of you to join us.

This from your first post: "it follows on from quantum mechanics that when you are looking at the particles they respond to your consciousness. it behaves how you think it should. But when you are not looking they are in a multitude of possible places." - I've heard that (or versions thereof) and its debunk (I think?) several times and being QM impaired, I have a request: Could you please explain it in more detail?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:35 am

How do Skeptics work?
Kerrie wrote:Finally, i get to comment. I have not read all of the posts but i have read enough to understand that Skeptism itself can prevent us from seeing what is there.
No. That's complete crap. Skeptics don't stop anyone from doing anything. How could they? However, the moment you go to a skeptic forum and claim, on that forum, that "pixies are real", you have to start answering questions about your claim.


Seth Cult members don't understand physics
Kerrie wrote:..... it follows on from quantum mechanics that when you are looking at the particles they respond to your consciousness. it behaves how you think it should.
That is the most stupid thing anyone has posted here and absolutely false.

Kerrie wrote:...find the Double slit experiment. Has anyone seen it?
Everyone on the forum. More so, the members who studied physics. :lol:


Kerrie wrote:Barrie1 in my humble opinion speaks a lot of sense.
Barrie Gellis could not answer any questions that we asked him.


Kerrie wrote:Putting aside the concept of where Seth came from or who they are....
And why would we want to hide from this obvious elephant in the room? Does evidence about the real world frighten you?

Kerrie wrote:the material makes philosophical and spiritual sense.
The material contains dangerous medical advise that Jane Roberts, herself, ignored, as she knew she made it up. :lol:

this is too easy :D

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:49 am

Aw, Matt. I was already worried Kelly might be a drive-by poster. Now I'm fairly certain s/he won't explain quantum physics to me. :glare:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Poodle » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:40 am

[fairystorystart]Yep. I was holding my breath for that one, too[fairystoryend]

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4213
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby gorgeous » Sun Jul 24, 2016 2:13 am

------seth--------" I told Ruburt [Seth ascribes a male name, Rubert, to Jane Roberts] from our earliest sessions that he could call me Seth. I never said, 'My name is Seth,' (but 'I call myself Seth'—my emphasis), for I am nameless. I have had too many identities to cling to one name!"

"I have been sent to help you, and others have been sent through the centuries of your time, for as you develop you also form new dimensions, and you will help others. I am in this room speaking to Robert [Jane Roberts husband, Robert Butts] although there is no object within which you can place me. You have a vehicle to use, a body that you call your own, and that is all. You are as disembodied as I. I come here as though I appeared through a hole in space and time. What you call emotion or feeling is the connective between us."
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: 26786
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Jul 24, 2016 2:28 am

gorgeous wrote:------seth--------" I told Ruburt [Seth ascribes a male name, Rubert, to Jane Roberts]
No. It is a corruption of "Roberts", as in Jane Roberts.

There is no male name "Ruburt"


Try harder next time and stop making up stuff :lol:

Caleb Murdock
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:59 am

Re: Seth and Jane Roberts

Postby Caleb Murdock » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:55 am

I wish that I had known this conversation was going on. I would have joined it. The Seth Material forms the basis of my religious beliefs.

I haven't read every post yet, but I'll try to get to all of them.

Although Seth didn't want the Material to become a religion, that's really what it is. The entire universe is intertwined with God at its center, and everything that Seth said ties into the God concept that he set forth.

I did notice one person saying that Seth had already been "debunked" somewhere in the forum. The problem is that a religion can't be debunked. Yes, most religions are illogical (to me, Christianity is akin to a Grimm's fairy tale), but the Seth Material isn't illogical.

Religions can't be subjected to double-blind studies, and that's the problem for atheists. The best you can do is to look for peripheral evidence to discredit the religion. But in the case of the Seth Material, all the peripheral evidence seems to support it (just as the peripheral evidence supports the Edgar Cayce readings). For example, the Seth readings were given with many witnesses, and some of the things they witnessed were improbable at best. For example, around 1968 or 1969, Seth started dictating a book, and the way he dictated it was pretty much impossible. Roberts would hold three or four trance sessions a week, and friends would often witness the sessions. First, Roberts (as Seth) would dictate a page or two of personal advice for herself and her husband. Then, Seth would announce that he would do some dictation on his book -- and he would then pick up exactly where he left off a couple days earlier. In the books themselves, there would be no clue as to which material was dictated on which day because it all flowed so smoothly. Then, after book dictation, Seth might go back to giving personal advice for the two of them. Even if Seth hadn't done that, Roberts spoke so slowly in these sessions (because her husband's shorthand was rudimentary) that she couldn't have kept her place even if she had memorized the text before-hand. Besides, Roberts and her husband never knew when a friend would show up (in the 1960's they didn't have a telephone, which was common back then), so if Roberts were trying to fool her visitors, she wouldn't have known on which evening she should memorize the text before-hand. This is assuming that you believe that she was an out-and-out fake.

If you don't believe she was a fraudster, then you must believe that she was simply pretending or fooling herself or something like that. The problem with that hypothesis is that the depth of wisdom in the Material is just astonishing, and self-deluded fools don't usually produce volumes of insightful comments. Furthermore, Seth set forth a cohesive theology that was unique and consistent over 20 years of readings. In other words, with the Seth Material, the "proof is in the pudding" -- the quality of the Material is so high that it has to be authentic.

So the Seth Material isn't anything that can be debunked. If you don't believe it, fine -- but for me, it passes the sniff test.

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

Re: Seth and Jane Roberts

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:04 pm

Caleb Murdock wrote: The Seth Material forms the basis of my religious beliefs.
OK. You are now on a science based forum and need to provide evidence that Jane Roberts, the science fiction writer really did channel a mythical spirit called Seth in the late 1960s to 1970s.

Caleb Murdock wrote:Although Seth didn't want the Material to become a religion....
Seth didn't want anything. All words were spoken by Jane Roberts. It's Jane's registered copyright material registered by Jane Roberts as Seth was her creative invention. :D

Caleb Murdock wrote:The problem is that a religion can't be debunked.
It's the other way around. The Seth stories were never taken as being real but a mere fictional story by Jane Roberts. You can't debunk a fictional story in the same way you can't debunk Mickey Mouse or Sherlock Holmes. They are just fictional characters.

Caleb Murdock wrote:Religions can't be subjected to double-blind studies, and that's the problem for atheists.
Nope. It's not a problem for atheists. You can't do a double blind test on Mickey Mouse or Sherlock Holmes either. They are just fictional narratives.

Caleb Murdock wrote:This is assuming that you believe that she was an out-and-out fake.
Jane Robert's invented channelled spirit, Seth was a fake. Carla Reukerts fake channelled spirit Ra was a fake. Ron L Hubbard's alien Theatans were a fake. These people belong to a class of fraudsters that arose in post WWII USA.

I think you have misunderstood what skeptics do. You come present us evidence that your claim is real. You don't simply come here and say "I think it is real" as that is not evidence. The people who believe in the Tooth fairy could write the same thing "I think it is real" and that is pointless.


Jane Roberts, drunk and "in action" channelling Seth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRG-IR3aqec

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

Re: seth and jane roberts

Postby scrmbldggs » Fri Aug 04, 2017 12:43 am

:wave: Welcome back, CMurdock.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cadmusteeth, Magpie [crawler] and 2 guests