Celestine Prophecy is true

Cecil seems to think author James Redfield’s book the Celestine Prophecy (here after CP) is fiction. Not so this book is really the allegorical story of the life of Pierre Teilhard and his science-spiritual philosophy which is destined to be the major science-religious knowledge and faith of the third millennium. And this science-spiritually is starting from the bottom up, that is the support for this new science is from the average person. CP means “noosphere omega” and this idea will sweep aside the skeptic scientist in to history’s dustbin it’s allready started and will not stop until all forms of intellectual thought bow before it’s supremacy. That’s what the Celestine Prophecy is all about. And no man can stop the tide of history. Redfield wrote the CP as fact but the story didn’t “flow” so he changed it to allegory and the book sold in historical numbers and has not stopped selling and will not stop selling for the next 1000 years!! All naysayers please step aside. Now there are some dramas in the writing of CP that need to be cleared up, as Redfield says when you show a person their drama they will drop it. First of all Pierre Teilhard’s estate is entitled to half of all the profit’s that Time-Warner and James Redfield have made on Teilhard’s life and philosophy that’s only fair because James Redfield had read that Pierre Teilhard was the most admired thinker only his ideas were hard to understand so Redfield wrote Teilhard in allegory and called it “new age” Time-Warner came along and sensing there would be a possible spiritual plagiarism charge changed the book to “new age fiction” but to be sure Time-Warner made James Redfield co-write a factual workbook and cited Teilhard as “one” of the sources on the ideas in CP when in fact the Celestine Prophecy is mainly the science and spiritually of Pierre Teilhard You see what this boils down to is spiritual fraud commited by James Redfield and Time-Warner in using Pierre Teilhard’s ideas and not only not giving credit but in making it look like Pierre Teilhard was writing fiction thereby damaging humankind’s accessibility (short term) to Teilhard’s science-spiritually if “authorities” are allowed to call the story fiction.People like Jay Gould who has a axe to grind because of psychological problems. So what to do ? Give half the profits to Teilhard reinterment to France the remains of Teilhard and a formal apology to the world by James Redfield and Time-Warner for their deception. Facts from Celestine Prophecy the title means Noosphere Omega. the manuscripts are Teilhards manuscripts as he was not allowed to publish his writings by order of the Vatican. the peruvian catholic church in CP is really the Vatican catholic church.searching the ruins in CP is Teilhard as a scientist looking for the ‘missing-link’ of humankind, which Teilhard found called Peking Man this is scientific fact. the coincidences in CP come from Ira Progoff who said that made Teilhard science and spiritually complete it’s also Karl Jung’s term synchronicity. smoking guns redfield stated in the preface to his workbook that "He(redfield) was forced to write the workbook guide to Celestine Prophecy that’s prima facie evidence that redfield was not going to give credit to any source to the writing of CP. It was over two years later when Time-Warner bought in that redfield was “made” to write a workbook citing Teilhard as one of the sources of CP
in CP redfield states it’s the evolution idea the church doesn’t like that what the Vatican didnt’accept in Teilhard’s spiritually. The love energy in CP is Teilhard’s radial energy based on love,as Wayne W. Dyer in his book page states "Pierre Teilhard de Chardin speaks of love and energy as being interconnected. There are hundreds of Teilhards ideas in Celestine Prophecy all you do is have to look

Well, I’m convinced.

The original poster is referring to a mailbag column written by David, not Cecil. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcelestine.html
I’m moving it to the mailbag forum.
Jill

Do I have this right? We’re supposed to take the word of someone with atrocious grammar as to what something written in English prose is supposed to be saying? For the love of whatever deity you hold holy, please tell me you’re not actually a teacher!

p.s. Where the heck is “calirornia?”

His post didn’t make any sense when I read it. After 5 shots of Glen Eden single malt, I read it again.
It still doesn’t make any sense, but I no longer feel the need to flush my monitor down the toilet. :slight_smile:

I’m imagining being trapped into a conversation with this guy at a cocktail party…shudder…

I figure that someone like this deserves to get at least one polite response besides all the nasty ones he’s going to get leter.

willaust,

Go back and rewrite your entire post. Show it to someone who knows how to write well and ask for corrections. Don’t use run-on sentences. Break up your post into paragraphs. Make sure every word is correctly spelled and all the grammar is correct. Ask someone who isn’t already familiar with the Celestine Prophecy to read it and see if they can understand what you’re saying.

Till you do that, you will get nothing except scorn from this message board. Why should you expect anything else? Are we supposed to be waste our time reading your incoherent post when there are lots of well-written ones on other threads that we can get more information from?

Incidentally, your main point seems to be that Redfield stole most of his ideas from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Even if that’s true, so what? Why should anyone waste their time reading Redfield’s silly book when they can get the same ideas from Teilhard de Chardin’s?

And speaking of misspellings, “later”, not “leter”.

I smell a troll.


>< DARWIN >
__L___L

You think? I personally found it curious that despite the attrocious grammar and general paranoid raving there were only two spelling errors in 962 words (according to spell and wc commands).

Normally people at this poster’s level of gullibility would have poor spelling too.
Perhaps it is a carefully crafted troll.

Maybe, but if you check willaust’s profile, you’ll see the following “words:” consulant, calirornia and budddism S/He’s a consultant who lives in California and follows Buddhism and yet can’t spell those words, yet correctly spells 960 words out of 962. I smell a spell-checker being used in the post, but not in the profile. Also, all those words may have been spelled correctly, but what of the terrible punctuation and the lack of space between sentences?

He may not be a troll–he may genuinely believe what he’s written–but I wouldn’t want to meet him at a party, as Lucretia said. If he talks like he writes, you could never get a word in edgewise.


>< DARWIN >
__L___L

I regret that I must confess to being able to understand about 80% of the OP. Unfortunately, what I did understand appears to be simply wrong.

It is true that de Chardin was not highly esteemed by the RCC hierarchy. The reason for that, however, is that he was so often out of place. His theology is tied too closely to mysticism to be systematically expanded; his mysticism is tied too closely to science to be accepted by students of mysticism; and his science is wrong.

Teilhard wrote some wonderful conjectures that can be used as a point of meditation or as a starting point for personal explorations of the nature of God and Man and their relationship.

Unfortunately, he read his Darwin incorrectly and developed a whole exploration of God’s interaction with humanity and nature based on a teleology that he assumed was present in evolution.

Rather than seeing evolution as an undirected force that provides a mechanism wherby good traits are selected for propagation to allow future generations to survive, Teilhard saw the entire thrust of evolution as a God-directed mechanism to create humanity from “lower” creatures. Now, for all I know, Teilhard got that right. Unfortunately, basing his thoughts on scientific discoveries and theories undercut his purpose, since nothing that we have been able to discern in the story of evolution supports that conjecture.

If the Celestine Prophecy is a re-write of Teilhard de Chardin’s ponderings, then we are better off reading de Chardin. I prefer my loons in the original and de Chardin (even translated from the French) is a better writer than Redfield.


Tom~

I’d like to suggest that the term “troll” is usually inappropriate in the “Comments on Mailbag Answers” forum. Seems to me that a “troll” is someone who purposely and consistently posts jibberish or offensive offal with the intention of manipulating others to react (by getting them pissed off, for instance.)

New posters who don’t read the rules, use poor grammar or spelling, write poorly (or incoherently), post without providing links to the column, bring up topics that have already been discussed, etc. usually do not fall into the “troll” category, in my opinion. At least, not in this forum.

So I guess I’d like to ask that we refrain from the “troll” term.

I think we also need to be careful in questionning someone’s credentials, not to fall to an ad hominem level. We’ve been very good in this forum about focusing on the comments, not on the speaker, and I’d like it to stay that way. (I’m not suggesting that anything in this thread crosses that line, it’s just a while-we’re-on-the-subject thought.)

Agreed?


(BTW, this is cribbed liberally from Jill’s similar posting in the COMMENTS ON CECIL’S COLUMN forum.)
[Note: This message has been edited by CKDextHavn]

Agreed.


>< DARWIN >
__L___L

But are you SURE he wasn’t a troll?
}:->

Trolls are very hard to detect. I thought his spelling had given him away. Thats what we were discussing - whether it was a carefully crafted posted designed to elicit hordes of comments on its sheer idiocy.

Jeez

that’s what I love about reading replies to “Cecil’s” mailbag, lots of rants and incoherant ravings from people who don’t use “spellcheck” or use good grammer.
The whole “New Age” or “Sew-Age” movement is proof of the failure of the American School system to educate the teaming millions.
Heck, I used to be an avid follower, until I couldn’t help but notice the misguided ignorance disguised as “wisdom”, the ineffective “Alternative” remedies and the rank spritual dishonesty of most of the adherents. That “post” condemning us all us nonbelievers to oblivion is just as pathetic as the Fundies belief that you must “believe in me or Perish”!
What next, tealeaf readings and phrenology making a comeback?
What about those prophecies that failed?
(Comet Kouhoutek, Nostradomus, the “Rapture”, the comeback of championship bowling.
C’mon, the “X-Files” is just a fun TV Show not fact.
Don’t stop doing those knee-jerk reactions to Cecil’s anti-hysteria posts, I need something to brighten up my day and make me laugh.
Claw

Are willaust and Dr. Bonner the same person?

CKDextHavn- I’m not sure if “troll” the correct term, but shouldn’t there be somederagoratory term for someone that posts a cryptic statement and never returns to explain it or defend it?

If the O Poster is a troll, he has set up an e-mail address just to fool us all. I’ve read the e-mail addressess of most trolls on this board, & willaust’s is unfamiliar to me.


You should tell the truth, expose the lies and live in the moment."-Bill Hicks
“You should tell the lies, live the truth and expose yourself.” - Bill Clinton