Originally posted by Hollywood11
However Edgar Cayce knew what he knew, and however he was able to go into trance, I don't see anything bad or wrong in his readings. Why does there
have to be some sinister side to it? Because the bible said something you took a certain way?
Edgar Cayce's readings seem very righteous and good to me, so it makes little sense that the info would have come from somewhere bad.
The
bible has nothing to do with it. Yes, the bible is a great place to read about a warped and disjointed history of mankind, but it has no license over
me.
If you researched Edgar a little deeper you will find that when he was young, in the woods as I remember, a voice came to him "Edgar, Edgar".
Correct me if I am wrong but it had something to do with a blindness he suffered with. If someone has information about this, please post it.
Was Edgar a true prophet, and for whom? If you compare this debate with the current elections, you are given two choices and these choices are
offered to the public, but in reality there are many other choices that can be made. In this case the question is, did Edgar have contact with
unknown forces. The answer does appear to be yes, but is it the only option?
Your claim basically is what's the harm if good comes from it. If there is any good to have been found it was with the people who were cured. I
remember one reading where "Oil of Smoke" was prescribed. It drove them all nuts trying to find it, finally they did, applied it, and the condition
was cured. Today Oil of Smoke is illegal, how can it help us now?
What harm? Let me take you to a "honest" court room. The witness comes in and is asked a series of questions. Did you see the crime, yes or no.
Did you see who committed what ever. The witness is there to give testimony, not to talk about rumors or play the he said she said game. Who told
you what, when. That is all the court is interested in, the facts. If a witness came in and said "Well, I wasn't there, but I did hear a voice in
my head that said Joe Blow did it, they would be escorted out of the room, without lunch. If a witness can not come into the court room or make
arrangements to let their identity be known, it then only becomes hear say and can be ignored.
Who or what told Edgar what he knows, let them stand in courage in front of the court of public opinion, and state their, it's, case.
Edgar Cayce's readings seem very righteous and good to me, so it makes little sense that the info would have come from somewhere bad.
How
in Gods green earth can you come to this conclusion, honestly? How? Because it sounds good? In all honesty, "sounds good" doesn't cut
it in a court of law. Yes, but people were helped. Sure they were, but how many have been lead down a rosy path, with no end in sight, putting money
out to read a passage with a unknown and uncheckable genesis? Lets all read a book by an author with no name, and no way to check him, lets believe
everything in this book, and question nothing. The author must be good because there are things in the book that are good and true, so everything
else must be true too.
I honestly and humbly mean no disrespect for anyone who cares to research Edgar Cayce, but please be honest with yourself, don't come to conclusions
based on assumptions that may be wrong. Always allow for "assumptions", but don't build too much on them at any one time. If the assumption turns
out to be correct, fine, but if it turns out to be faulty, everything you have built upon them will come crashing down.
Assumptions are only place holders for "Fact's", until the fact is found, or dismissed.

Assumptions, are not facts.