Housekeeping: As is posted on the EMF Message Board page, this forum is for support, sharing opinions and experiences for those who have left RSE and have doubts and concerns about their tenure there. It is NOT a place for proselytizing for RSE, JZK Inc or Ramtha. Play nicely or your post will be sent to cyberspace time-out for all eternity. The disclaimer for EMF is located on this page http://enlightenmefree.com/disclaimer.html and all posters agree to the terms of the disclaimer. Be sure you've read it before posting.
You may also want to visit a complementary forum at FACTNet http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/779.html
If you wish to use a Spell Checker, you may wish to use this free one: http://www.jacuba.com/
btw, happy new year y'all...
I am about to go home after putting in a 12 hour shift overnight and we were very busy early on, so I will be brief.
Tyger, is that "hehe" about Bach or Blavatsky, or does it matter?
This neo-occult "milieu" I mention---both the Blavatsky and Bach [aka Theosophy and New Thought] family of sects and teachers, they tap the ancient hope that the human psyche/mind can align with a force or God-mind and do magic or paranormal healing, read the future, etc.
Now I am not saying that these "powers" are not possible but I am saying that the groups, cults and new prophets like Mary Baker Eddy provide no real evidence that the "power" was improved by using their techniques. Mary Baker Eddy had dental pain and treatments by dentists after she discovered "christian science."
She died at age 88--a long life to be sure but consider my father:
He's nearly 86, still works 50 - 60 hours a week in an unheated concrete product plant as an electrician! My gritty, sometimes practicing Catholic father has no belief in "mind power."
In my observations, Christian Scientists and occultists in general are just as likely to die of disease, have an average lifespan or suffer pain as any average satanist or atheist--or even a Catholic!
That "hehehehe" was acknowledging your evidence of JZ's Blavatsky's connection. I tend to agree with you. Her stuff pre-dates Bach's, but like you said, they drank from the same well.
I too read Bach's stuff long before I attended RSE and was also unimpressed with his "theories", although he does write very well.
I'm also very familiar with Blavatsky and the rest of the kooks from what I call, "The Darwin Era".
Annnnd......the one time I attended the "school", I saw trappings of that old crapola all over the place.
So he actually made up the "soulmate/wife" character??? Daaaayuuuum. I didn't know that. Pathetic. LOL!!!
I was referring to Bach's real companion/2nd wife Leslie Parrish who he wrote about in Bridge Across Forever and One.
Here's a bit on his soul struggle to mate well:
"Bach had six children with his first wife, Bette. They divorced in 1970, because Richard didn't believe in marriage. [Bette Bach Fineman - she remarried - is also a pilot, and the author of Patterns, about her life as a single mother.] His son, Jonathan, is a journalist, who wrote a book about growing up without knowing his father, Richard; and then later meeting him as a college student. (Richard gave his approval; although he noted that it included some personal history he'd "rather not see in print"). His daughter, Bethany, was killed in an accident at the age of fifteen in 1985.
In 1977 Bach married actress Leslie Parrish whom he met during the making of the Jonathan Livingston Seagull movie. . She was a major element in two of his subsequent books — The Bridge Across Forever and One — which primarily focused on their relationship and Bach's concept of soulmates. They divorced in 1999. Bach was married to his third wife, Sabryna Nelson-Alexopoulos in April of 1999."
The last 'wiff' will not let him write about her...so do not look for another 'me and my wife are the perfect cosmically ordained pair' book.
Knew nothing about his private life. Or his 'new age' beliefs. Thought Jonathan Livingston Seagull was a lovely spiritual book. Did not see where it was new, or countering traditional religion. I was only 14 when I read it. I don't think its particularly dangerous, or likely to make anybody run out and join a cult. Maybe what followed, subsequent books, or a philosophy inspired by Bach was the problem?
About Christian Science. Did not see it as so way out either. Not dangerous.
I had heard, though, that Christian Scientists, and Mormons, really tend to be healthier than the rest of us. And the reason? Not because they have a closer relationship to God or a mainline to the Spirit World, or channel powerful healers, but because the lifestyles they adopt if they practice their faith devoutely really are healthier (though they probably won't cure toothache) because they refrain from alcohol, caffein, do not smoke, educate themselves about proper nutrition, and practice monogamy. Unlikely to die of aids or lung cancer, for instance.
On the other hand, alcohol - red wine - has been found to be beneficial for heart disease. Doesn't mean, of course, that we should all get sloshed.
Seagull dangerous? I hope you do not think I inferred dangerous... but yes to
silly and self-centered.
"About Christian Science. Did not see it as so way out either. Not dangerous."
Lost, tell that to CS children that suffered and sometimes died because their parents would not admit that anything was wrong and eschewed ever considering a regular doc.
Strict CS practitioners do not attend or have funerals. Death does not "exist".
Mary Baker Eddy was a fascinating and powerful woman. Even her great critic Mark Twain admitted as much. The Masons built a large granite Pyramid as a monument in her honor. The CS folks later blew it up.
It was a reminder that she actually "died." She died of pneumonia after 9 days of suffering at age 89. It took many days for CS witnesses to allow a medical examiner to check and report on it as requied by law.
As far as lifespan/health, yes the CS folks generally come from a higher strata of social success and are teatotalers but if you compare them to same social set outside of CS there is probably no difference. Of course, most CS people do see docs when necessary. As in any strict faith group, most members cheat a little and lapse too.
I was not saying anything about Ms. Eddy. Was talking about modern CS people I have met. Fascinating to hear about things that happened in days gone by, though. But as you may recall from previous posts, I consider that there are chapters in Catholic (and Protestant) Christian history that really are embarrasing and painful to dwell on for modern practitioners.
And u are right, CS people and Mormons don't have a corner on abstemiousness, or chastity, or anything like that. Just giving them credit for having sound health practices built-in to their faiths.
Also, other faiths I can think of also have that.
A higher strata, Joe? I am pretty egalitarian, I would say. But I grew up privileged. And I must tell you, the teenagers on my block had more money for drugs, more money for fast cars/motorcycles which they were likely to smash up, and a sense that they could get away with more, because "daddy will fix it" was their mantra = Daddy was a lawyer, a judge or a politician.
The real privilege I had, which is not the sole preserve of the affluent, was having parents who cared, who made themselves available to me, who were not selfish or narcissistic, who made sure I ate right, got enough sleep, behaved respectfully to others (I didn't get beat up), minded my manners, did my homework, obeyed the laws of the land (didn't get expelled or wind up in jail)...you get the picture. And there are parents like that everywhere, and parents who fail miserably, everywhere.
I noticed that some of my peers on "easy street" went home to empty houses and made themselves TV dinners, parking themselves in front of the TV, or asked themselves over to my house for dinner, because they were wretchedly lonely (even though Mom wasn't a great cook).
I was allowed to read whatever I wanted though...don't suppose that hurt me.
I am saying, it's not the beliefs, it's the behaviour that counts, when it comes to health, or values.
About the eschewing of traditional medicine///
Some home remedies work. Those kids might have died anyway. And I thought it was the Jehovah's Witnesses who would not permit their children medical treatment?? (at least, if that meant blood transfusions). Still, I don't think it's right to deny your kids medical care if they need it. The subject didn't come up with the CS people I have known. Is that true?
Or is it sort of like the Catholic Church's position on Birth Control - while understood to be a stern directive from respected spiritual leaders, in practice it is commonly flouted?
You can check out these articles above for a start. Sure CS people are nice [all the ones I ever met were sweet to me socially] but I would not let their practitoners "treat" my dog let alone my children.
You are right, it is the "behaviour" not the belief, per se. Treating people based on a belief is a behavior. Withholding perfectly good medicine when it is available and required is "mistreating" on my way of seeing the world.
My the same token, bringing this back to Bach, I think his subcurrent of subjective idealism can have a toxic effect on anyone that takes it in uncritically.
But thanks for the give and take, Lost. I mean that...
You are welcome, Joe.
Just because I argue with you doesn't mean I don't respect and appreciate you.
Well, read about 3 minutes worth (I read fast) of those articles, and cannot continue, too depressed. Does, unfortunately, outweigh the extent to which I was impressed by my friend's parents, one of whom had cancer, the other Parkinson's disease, receiving aid from CS, when medical science had written them off. They were healed. Maybe it was the placebo effect. anyway, 2 lives of adults cannot outweigh 167 lives of kids.