The Seth Material

Has anyone out there read the Seth Material by Jane Roberts?

I won't go into an explanation (yet) of who or what Seth is/was but repeat what he said about Creationism and Evolution. According to Seth, neither is correct:

from "Seth Speaks - The Eternal Validity Of The Soul" -

Now, if you had all been really paying attention to what I have been saying for some time about the simultaneous nature of time and existence, then you would have known that the theory of evolution is as beautiful as tale as the theory of biblical creation. Both are quite handy, and both are methods of telling stories, and both might seem to agree within their own systems, and yet, in larger respects they cannot be realities....

No - no form of matter, however potent, will be self-evolved into conciousness, no matter what other bits of matter are added to it. Without the conciousness, the matter would not be there in the universe, floating around, waiting for another component to give it reality, conciousness, existence or song."

Everyone knows there are two schools of thought, evolution and creationism. Is there anyone out there like me who sympathises with the viewpoint illustrated by Seth?

Originally posted by uknumpty
Has anyone out there read the Seth Material by Jane Roberts?

"Seth" is a kind of vague, wishy-washy philosophy that almost seems designed to encompass most people's beliefs in some way. That's its marketing strength. It steers away from dogma, but it contains a variety of the "positive" elements plucked from most of the world's religions. There's also a heavy dose of "me-ism" included in it, which gives people the feeling that they're special by just experiencing things, without actually having to do anything special. It was one of the first really "New Age" things to gain popularity among self-absorbed younger people who were bored with their parent's old religion. Had it tried harder to market itself and organize a little better, it would be bigger than Scientology, that's for sure. But the gnostic types of religion always have a hard time staying organized, essentially because of the focus on the individual, rather than the group.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Snake Pliskin]

I think its popularity is that it didn't try to market itself and without going into its precise content it seems to be a real experience, well documented. But going back to the point, are there more than two camps regarding the origins of Earth/life creation?

Yes we have creationism and evolution but is there another such as Seth describes, something more akin to the Aboriginal Dreamworld?

If u think its wishy washy, why not make some decisions?
Yes, he s very much to the point, sorry I took so long. Have a gander into Thomas Kuhn, get an idea about ideas. They tend to be temporary. If you dislike simulatneous theory, get a lot of Brane theory, suck on that. Its really good stuff. cant remember name of latest theorist, Linda something or another. Seth has been proved over and over again, much to our indignation.