Theos-Talk Archives (September 2004 Message tt00748)

My views are:


You wrote:
"Cayce has had more books written about him than have
Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, HPB, or any other
founder of an American-born new religious movement."

The are other new religious movements than the American ones.
To say that Blavatsky and Theosophy are American-born
is to miss the point - as far as I understand theosophy.


M. Sufilight



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 2:50 PM
Subject: Theos-World Why take them seriously if they are demonstrably wrong?


> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "stevestubbs" <stevestubbs@y...>
> wrote:
> > This is a naive question I am sure, but if the Cayce readings are
> > demonstrably wrong why take them seriously? I am not suggesting
> that
> > we should not, since Aristotle was wrong about a lot of things but
> > worth reading nonetheless. Cayce never did strike me as being on
> a
> > par with Aristotle or even Blavatsky.
> >
> Dear Steve,
>
> The question is phrased in a way that illustrates the fallacy of
> misplaced concreteness, and could be applied to the Bible,
> Blavatsky, any figure in religious or political history, ad
> infinitum. Until someone finds a figure who was NEVER demonstrably
> wrong about anything, this objection is universally applicable.
>
> The fallacy is translating "elements of the Cayce readings (Bible,
> etc.) are demonstrably wrong" as "the Cayce readings are
> demonstrably wrong." A whole lot is lost in that translation which
> obscures the possibility that some elements are demonstrably
> correct. (Which is a fact and not a probability with Cayce.)
>
> Even if the readings were demonstrably wrong on everything, they
> would still be worth taking seriously for their historical
> significance. E.g. Wouter Hanegraaff who devotes as much attention
> to Cayce as to anyone in his magisterial study of the New Age
> movement. Cayce has had more books written about him than have
> Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, HPB, or any other
> founder of an American-born new religious movement.
>
> But that scholarly kind of taking seriously would probably account
> for very few memberships in ARE. Most members take them seriously
> for the usefulness of the advice they contain on health, meditation,
> dreams, astrology, and such. (I did a study years ago of which
> books were circulated most by ARE library, and these were the higher-
> ranking subjects.)
>
> Of course many members do take Cayce seriously as a clairvoyant time
> traveler depicting ancient prehistory and the near future. I don't,
> and think that the emphasis on this aspect of the readings will
> shrink over time.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>