tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post1554673418217519328..comments2024-03-02T23:26:33.502-08:00Comments on Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia: Vassula Ryden on Wikipedia ~ Working Backwardssgerbichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14354138750695010886noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post-62964870215195162072012-12-30T14:37:35.538-08:002012-12-30T14:37:35.538-08:00@ sgerbic: I suppose you do not believe in the Apo...@ sgerbic: I suppose you do not believe in the Apocalypse, either. You see, Saint John does not mention dates and addresses. Vassula's books were published in many languages several years before prophecies materialized. And please, if you have not read sth, do not comment on it. Ah, yes, also please learn to distinguish between prophets and psychics!M.H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13816575038002060560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post-64239584577691051062012-09-10T15:45:12.903-07:002012-09-10T15:45:12.903-07:00I and the World await the proof that she predicted...I and the World await the proof that she predicted this. <br /><br />BTW "Anonymous" why didn't she alert the FBI? Your saying that she had 10 years notice, maybe she could have given names and addresses for the terrorists. Should "psychics" that make predictions in advance be prosecuted for not acting on that information? In the same way the average citizen can be held responsible for holding onto knowledge that would have prevented a crime? <br /><br />I'm sure CNN or many of the news agencies out there will be having a slow day after the elections are over and need some filler. Maybe they will pick up your story that God (which one I think is the next question) is giving us messages, would love to see your evidence. <br /><br />I mean you can only report on escaped bears and treed cats for so long before viewers get bored. <br /><br /> sgerbichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354138750695010886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post-60210414237180290472012-08-19T14:32:02.618-07:002012-08-19T14:32:02.618-07:00Vassula prophesied, among other things, the collap...Vassula prophesied, among other things, the collapse of the Twin Towers, ten years before the exact date (i.e. in a message dated September 11th 1991). These were all published many years before September 11th 2001. If this is not enough proof of the divine origin of her writings, then I do not know what else is. People are willing to believe anything (astrology, UFO, reptilians, you name it) but they find it hard to believe that God speaks to us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post-11992363681243900942011-10-26T21:37:46.305-07:002011-10-26T21:37:46.305-07:00Google alert today gave me this blog from "Ou...Google alert today gave me this blog from "Our Catholic World". Has some nice images of Vassula meeting the Pope in 2008 and giving him a copy of her book. Probably a very big moment in both of their lives. <br /><br />Here is the link for safe keeping. No idea if there is anything to do with it. <br />http://catholicdaily.net/ourcatholicworld/2011/10/15/vassula-ryden-with-pope-benedict-xvi/sgerbichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354138750695010886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post-21514445779522732812011-09-19T18:48:11.480-07:002011-09-19T18:48:11.480-07:00My Google alert just brought me this YouTube video...My Google alert just brought me this YouTube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2NEA3aPRNw<br /><br />I tried to get through it but only made it a minute into it. Did you know that Jesus has the most beautiful baby blue eyes? I wonder if Vassula communicated that? <br /><br />Anyway, wanted to point out that I still use Google Alerts, rarely get anything from Vassula Ryden but I'm still looking just in case.sgerbichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354138750695010886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post-35071684433842955152011-06-27T21:39:26.541-07:002011-06-27T21:39:26.541-07:00Anna send me your address to my email.
Your going...Anna send me your address to my email.<br /><br />Your going to love the magazine!sgerbichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354138750695010886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post-5249639035281043762011-06-27T21:29:30.546-07:002011-06-27T21:29:30.546-07:00hhmm..I just tried looking for that issue on csico...hhmm..I just tried looking for that issue on csicop and its not offered in past issues, or on the site. They just posted the Jan/Feb issue so it's possible the March/April issue will be posted too, but that will probably take a while I'm guessing...so I'm kinda stuck. I'm thinking I can expand the skeptical section with his content, link the auto-writing, and call it a day, but I have to wait till I can get access to his article first.<br /><br />I did order a subscription though! So it wasn't a total loss.<br /><br />Did Karr indicate how I would order a past issue that they didn't have up in their past issue section?Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08554331332586784863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post-1491096850555303802011-06-27T21:03:50.375-07:002011-06-27T21:03:50.375-07:00Thank you Anna!
I am not as articulate as you a...Thank you Anna! <br /><br />I am not as articulate as you are, I have no problem with people re-editing my blurbs. I'm sure you will be able to work it better than I did. <br /><br />Yes, it does look like a giant ad for her.sgerbichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354138750695010886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post-83374473113978484492011-06-27T20:23:58.045-07:002011-06-27T20:23:58.045-07:00Awesome! I'm going to order it.. I would love...Awesome! I'm going to order it.. I would love to throw in some more of what Mr. Nickell has to say! I'll also do the link up you suggested re the automatic writing..options for what's going on should be represented..otherwise it just looks like a giant ad for the woman...Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08554331332586784863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post-36502258743990088672011-06-27T19:38:06.454-07:002011-06-27T19:38:06.454-07:00Berry Karr says that a lot of SI articles are on-l...Berry Karr says that a lot of SI articles are on-line, but not ALL articles. This is one of those cases. You can get the magazine from www.csicop.com. On the citation on Vassula's page you will find the issue #.sgerbichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354138750695010886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post-64520474914252477732011-06-27T16:34:45.163-07:002011-06-27T16:34:45.163-07:00Religion is based on faith. It will always come d...Religion is based on faith. It will always come down to that. Proof will only ever be possible with the material. You can challenge her books, but you can't really challenge what's in her head producing them. That's the bottom line.<br /><br />As for my presumptions, they are not presumptions...obviously entities in a person's head are not personalities with the ability to write without the seers hands...how is that a presumption? It will always be the seer who is writing...always. Until we see a pen moving by itself...that's what I meant by that.<br /><br />And that was me pointing out Mr. Nickell's presumptions...now *those* were presumptions. I understand he was a Baptist until college...that explained the slant I picked up in his language..<br /><br />..and yes, it is convenient...you're absolutely right...good observation on your part...and this is why mystics have had problems proving their visions since time immemorial...you can't prove what's in your own head to another...<br /><br />You can't prove what you're channeling, *but* you CAN prove the RESULT of the experiences. And there are tried and true results. I've written paper after paper on this stuff...and I've used nothing but experts as sources..this is not an unexamined field.<br /><br />I can comment because I've seen some things myself...*that* material has certain consistent qualities to it that experts in the field of mysticism have identified. They are consistent world wide. <br /><br />And I was not insulting Mr. Nickell, I was making a serious suggestion. But it's entirely possible that the few lines representing him are just simply not doing him justice, that's not his fault.<br /><br />As for who has the burdon of proof, something I've noticed about skeptics, they think they can force people to give a shit about whether *they* believe a claim...this is very arrogant. Someone who has mystical experiences has no reason to care whether we believe them...they just throw it out there and get followers..anyone who doesn't believe them is not even in the conversation.<br /><br />And as for the Church's proof, they DON'T NEED PROOF FOR A SKEPTIC, this is a very very important point...they offer proofs for *believers*. And they have it! You'd have to be Catholic though, to buy into it. They set down standards hundreds of years ago, and continually modify it, to suit their needs. Their rules are in the Catechism of the Catholic Church...you will not be approved a mystic by the Roman Catholic Church unless you fit THEIR CRITERIA...<br /><br />Those that were claiming mystical knowledge that didn't match their criteria were burned at the stake in the middle ages. Remember them? They can't do that today, they can just claim the mystic doesn't follow doctrine and Catholics must let her go...or risk being excommunicated.<br /><br />Mystical experience is not something someone can just come along and disprove with a few swipes, this is a huge area of study in an arena that the average person knows nothing about. <br /><br />The Roman Catholic Church has over one billion adherents, it has a seat at the United Nations - no other faith does, it has its own astronomers, biochemists, physisists...they are not in the dark ageas AT ALL anymore...they have full time scholars with access to the same, and better, technology, sources, etc., than you and I could ever have.<br /><br />When I say that Ryden is better off being attacked by them it's because I know exactly what they require from a mystic...and she doesn't fit it...she overstepped...<br /><br />We are ants among elephants.<br /><br />On another note, I tried searching Nickell's article on the SI site and it didn't return anything...what do I need to do to find it? Should I pursue the hard copy of the magazine? I'd love to order it if I knew when it was printed...Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08554331332586784863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post-37811924123309479142011-06-27T08:45:10.056-07:002011-06-27T08:45:10.056-07:00"Entities seen in visions are not personaliti..."Entities seen in visions are not personalities that they should have their own handwriting, they are images in the form of humans, or angels, or Jesus, or as is the case with "God," he is often seen as light."<br /><br />That's a lot of presuming Anna. <br /><br />"They don't write, the visionary does. Anything a mystic writes is literally filtered through *her,* and so *will* be expected to have errors such as those she will make herself."<br /><br />I'm sure that is what Vassula and others like her state. How convenient to them. How are you able to prove the writing is not just something she is making up then? Again this is presuming all this is true.<br /><br />"In order to claim that these writings are *not* from a supernatural source, you'd have to have examples of writings that are agreed to BE from a supernatural source, and to my knowledge, there aren't any that a skeptic will agree are. So how can he say any writings aren't from a supernatural source?"<br /><br />The burden of proof is not on the Skeptic Anna as you well know. She is making the outrageous claim that she is channeling spirits. It is up to her to prove that. How could we know she is not channeling demons, Satan or smurfs? <br /><br />"He can't. He's not qualified. But the Church has had 1,700 years of practice in discerning what is and isn't of a supernatural, Christian source. They are the experts in alleged Christian revelation. "<br /><br />Again you are presuming that the Church has some evidence that the rest of the world does not. Where is the supernatural proof?sgerbichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14354138750695010886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1061799050413445026.post-41309510192498463562011-06-27T00:55:31.714-07:002011-06-27T00:55:31.714-07:00Ok... a couple things...bear with me...there's...Ok... a couple things...bear with me...there's a happy ending...<br /><br />Nickell's information makes some important points, but whether it's editing, or really how he said it, he includes *a lot* of conjecture and supposition in his conclusions.<br /><br />For starters, he supposes how "God" would presume to write, or whether the entities would know how to stay in lines. Or that they would not all have the same handwriting. How would he know this?<br /><br />This implies he has an idea of "God", et al., and that what this woman is displaying isn't what he imagines "God" and the others to be like. He is expressing his own prejudices here, as much as the writer of the wiki page, whether he realizes it or not.<br /><br />Entities seen in visions are not personalities that they should have their own handwriting, they are images in the form of humans, or angels, or Jesus, or as is the case with "God," he is often seen as light. <br /><br />They don't write, the visionary does. Anything a mystic writes is literally filtered through *her,* and so *will* be expected to have errors such as those she will make herself. <br /><br />In order to claim that these writings are *not* from a supernatural source, you'd have to have examples of writings that are agreed to BE from a supernatural source, and to my knowledge, there aren't any that a skeptic will agree are. So how can he say any writings aren't from a supernatural source?<br /><br />He can't. He's not qualified. But the Church has had 1,700 years of practice in discerning what is and isn't of a supernatural, Christian source. They are the experts in alleged Christian revelation. <br /><br />Mr. Nickell should spend more time looking into the vast collection of writings amassed by the Church's mystics before attemting to claim that anyone is *not* one.<br /><br />However...there are many holes in the site, and many things that can be said to both bolster Mr. Nickell's existing comments, and correct any of his implications.<br /><br />Personal note:<br /><br />Of all the subject matter than I can contribute to, Christian Mysticism is probably the one I know best. Not only because I have *had* mystical experiences of the kind Ms. Ryden alleges she's had, but because I have chosen to pursue advanced degrees in the topic, through and including a Ph.D. All with a skeptical attitude. <br /><br />But a skeptic seeks truth, not slant. So any other skeptic that wants to enter this particular arena will be expected to have their ducks in a row as much as they demand from the target of their skepticism.<br /><br />Now let's go shred this page!!! 8-))Annahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08554331332586784863noreply@blogger.com