I think you’re a celebrity of sorts. The SDMB will be the poorer without you.
This might get me banned, but I read that as a cheap shot. One not worthy of a true Doper.
.02
You’re surprised?
Yeah? Come back in a month…
when we’re on page 48!
YOU!!!
Has anyone else noticed that Don has never apologized for starting this thread?
I can’t blame you. Ed even had the statement on his website, at one time, essentially stating that if he was wrong about 1998 we could ignore all his other predictions. That was for his old company, which he apparently lost control of. However, I was not aware that he claimed his whole team (whoever that might be) had remote viewed his nuke prediction.
His increased details of the alleged future NK atomic blast do seem to make his prediction even more impossible. However, let’s say it does eventually happen. Would that change your opinion in any way? Or would you insist it was a lucky guess?
Phoenix Dragon,
I never got an answer on this. Not that it’s critical, but I am curious…
No, what I am saying is:
When you squeeze an orange you get orange juice, everytime.
But when people are squeezed, with stress and frustration, you get whatever they’re holding inside themselves. If they’re holding fear/anger/hate it comes out directed at the person they believe to be the cause of their problems. This is called an attack. What they don’t realize is their fear/anger/hate is the sole product of their own personal perception, it is totally under their influence and control.
It is like the old '60’s saying,“we have found the enemy and it is us.” These people become their own worst enemies. The negative feelings they carry weigh them down with anxiety, depression, etc., in direct proportion to the intensity of these feelings. Their attacks become calls for help, and love answers every call, because that is the nature of love to help.
However, the person must realize at some point, their responsibility for the problems they incur. It is at this point they can “take charge” of their lives and begin to release the fear/anger/hate, which will make room for love to begin the healing process.
What happens next, is instead of being their own worst enemy, they become their own best friend. It is a simple process. Negative thoughts are replaced with positive ones. There are many ways to do it, one very good way is through affirmations.
Love
Leroy
You won’t find this quote in the Bible. I believe it was in the '70’s that Jesus dictated a book called “The Course In Miracles” to the spiritual people of the world. This book has been translated into all the major languages and millions of copies have been sold. In the US most spiritual churches use it and many study groups are formed around it. It is used in Unity churches and Science of Mind congregations and well as others.
In the book Jesus clears up some of the meanings of the Bible, but most important the book has no contradictions. It comes in three sections, a text, a workbook, and a teachers manual. I recommend reading the teachers manual first. The book is not easy to understand, it will require some thinking.
The story of its creation is told in another book, “A Journey Not Far” I think is the title, but I am not sure. It will be easy to find out.
Love
Leroy
Apparently you mean the C.E.1970’s, not the C.E. 0070’s as I first thought. That means Jesus would have dictated not only after his death, but nearly 2000 years afterwards. It takes a very gullible person to believe any part of this claim, let alone the whole of it.
You’re gonna have to believe that channelling and spiritualism exists first, before even examining these specific claims. Your beliefs, sir, are rooted firmly in fantasy, and don’t even have a toehold on science or anything remotely resembling hard evidence.
The correct quote is from Walt Kelly’s Pogo, and according to the lithograph signed by Selby Kelly (his wife), displayed on the wall to my left, goes like this: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
However, Mr. Pogo Possum was referring to pollution (see image), not “anxiety, depression, etc.,”.
And your beliefs, Sir, are firmly rooted in skepticism, and don’t even have a toehold in the real world or anything remotely resembling hard evidence.
Yes, I am aware of the saying, that is why I used the word “like”, perhaps I should have used similar for literalists.
I have to ask, Lekatt: What do you hope to accomplish here? Whatever it is, you might do better at it if you stopped trying to adopt the language of skeptics–phrases like “hard evidence”, “reality”, and such–and admitted that your experiences and beliefs are intensely personal and not really subject to the sort of scientific rigor that you claim for it.
I already answered this, and to tell the truth, the answer you put foreward to me comes across as a strawman (Though for some reason, I doubt you intended it to). My answer was that we couldn’t know what method he had truely used, because it is not a controlled environment. There are hundreds or thousands of ways he could come out with the answer. Your presented “answer” is only one of them.
Same answer. The absolute absurdity and unlikeliness of it being true would draw a bit more attention and interest, though.
After the last several hundred posts by yourself, you should have learned that you don’t have any grounds to complain about other people not having hard evidence… And that the logical and reasonable responce to incredibly claims, when lacking any backing by hard evidence, is skepticism.
I might have related this story before in your previous thread, but I don’t feel like digging through it to find out, and I doubt anyone else is… So I’ll tell it again.
This whole thing reminds me of a situation with a former roommate. She would get virus warnings mass-emailed to her, and would then forward them to everyone on her list, which included me. She believed they were real, simply because someone told her. I however, am not the type to immediatly believe something just because it’s said so. I’ll take due caution, should I get an email that matches the description there, and I havn’t gotten to the truth of the matter, but at the same time, it doesn’t sound right. So I check. Searching around the virus data-base for hoaxes, I find the very same virus she sent a mail for. It’s a hoax. So, very politely, I reply to her email with a message that it is a hoax, that most of the warnings you get are, and I give her the address for the hoax virus list so that she’ll be able to find out if it’s a hoax or not.
Never get a reply from her. A week later, I get another virus warning from her. I reply with a similar message. Polite, informative.
Ends up, she was pissed. She is angry that I tried to correct her, even though it was in a completely polite and helpfull way. She even decides to -continue- forwording all the virus warnings she gets to everyone -except- me, because she thinks they may be usefull to someone else. She refuses to face the fact that they are hoaxes, and continues to spread misinformation, just because she believes what some random person online tells her is true.
You, Leroy, remind me of my ex-roommate. And you have no grounds to complain about other peoples’ skepticism at your claims.
Right you are. Since I am not the one making the fantastic claims [that channelling is possible, that Jesus is a supernatural being and dictated a book 2000 years after his death], I am proud to be skeptical.
Skeptics are from Missouri, the “show me” state. You have a fantastic claim, we say, “OK. That’s nice. Now show me the evidence.” Until that happens, your claim is no more than hot air. All 26 pages are full of it.
Excuse me, I didn’t know that only skeptics could use such words as “hard evidence” and “reality”. I guess the rest of us poor foolish people should have known we were not intelligent enough to understand the rigors of real science.
Now you know why I am here.
Love
Leroy
Frankly, I think most of us are kinda curious.
~mixie
[QUOTE
After the last several hundred posts by yourself, you should have learned that you don’t have any grounds to complain about other people not having hard evidence… And that the logical and reasonable responce to incredibly claims, when lacking any backing by hard evidence, is skepticism.
I might have related this story before in your previous thread, but I don’t feel like digging through it to find out, and I doubt anyone else is… So I’ll tell it again.
This whole thing reminds me of a situation with a former roommate. She would get virus warnings mass-emailed to her, and would then forward them to everyone on her list, which included me. She believed they were real, simply because someone told her. I however, am not the type to immediatly believe something just because it’s said so. I’ll take due caution, should I get an email that matches the description there, and I havn’t gotten to the truth of the matter, but at the same time, it doesn’t sound right. So I check. Searching around the virus data-base for hoaxes, I find the very same virus she sent a mail for. It’s a hoax. So, very politely, I reply to her email with a message that it is a hoax, that most of the warnings you get are, and I give her the address for the hoax virus list so that she’ll be able to find out if it’s a hoax or not.
Never get a reply from her. A week later, I get another virus warning from her. I reply with a similar message. Polite, informative.
Ends up, she was pissed. She is angry that I tried to correct her, even though it was in a completely polite and helpfull way. She even decides to -continue- forwording all the virus warnings she gets to everyone -except- me, because she thinks they may be usefull to someone else. She refuses to face the fact that they are hoaxes, and continues to spread misinformation, just because she believes what some random person online tells her is true.
You, Leroy, remind me of my ex-roommate. And you have no grounds to complain about other peoples’ skepticism at your claims. **[/QUOTE]
I think skepticism is not logical at all. It is ok to not believe another’s experience, no fault in that. However, there is great fault in hurling insults at others with no proof to back them up.
Skeptics can not prove there is no spiritual world, God, life after death, no they can’t, yet they are willing to call those that do all kinds of names. That is illogical, unacceptable behaviour.
About your roommate, why didn’t you just delete them and go on, realizing she thought she was doing you a favor. Why the big deal.
Love
Leroy
Why would you think channelling is impossible, its been done for thousands of years. Just read the book, find out for yourself.
Not in the way of proof, but evidence.
William James wrote “Varieties of Religious Experience” around the turn of the century last. Jane Roberts channelled a book called “The Afterdeath Journal of William James.” The two books were compared by a computer for word use and writing style. The computer showed that the two books were written by the same author.
Incidentally the “Journal” is excellent reading and tells about James adventures in the afterlife.
Love
Leroy