Talk:Edgar Cayce: Difference between revisions
Crunch McGee (talk | contribs) →Implications of opening sentences: new section |
|||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
== Conservative Christians == |
== Conservative Christians == |
||
Well it seems quite clear that conservative christians would have objections against Cayce. I wouldn't give it too many words because then you could add a similar section to every new age guru. And what about other religions' objections against... etc.? To me the informative content of such a statement approaches zero, unless there really are some remarkable facts. Lawsuits or some such.--[[User:130.89.166.237|130.89.166.237]] 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Edgard Cayce article == |
== Edgard Cayce article == |
Revision as of 16:49, 30 October 2007
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edgar Cayce article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Really long reply
Please go ahead an put you views, I will not touch it then.
>But we still have to find some way to give it as much perspective as possible.
- - - -
>Can't we let the New Agers have their section, and us skeptics have ours?
>I got peeved when some New Ager removed the skeptical voice I
I believe in perspective.
I am not advocating or deleting any major skeptical material.
The truth is, it would be good to give both sides. Many new agers tend to become cultic and detached from reality. I resent this very much and wish very much that they never knew about Cayce other new age stuff. There are just too many new agers who are not down to earth.
Could I ask which deleted portion you are referring to that you (dino)are peeved?
Well my own edit was that he really never claimed to be a medical authority. That 's exagerating his claim. He really focused on spiritual stuff. And for some , his advice is enlightening, eg. --You go to heaven on the wings people youve helped , You are your brothers keeper etc.. - -- I will try hard not touch the skeptic stuff though. It would be good for people to see both the bad and good side of things. Pls do insert your (skeptic)views to give a balanced perspective. At least I telling you guys out in the open.
About the Lindenberg case, as with others psychics are at times, affected by the mental state of the participants. Thingking and believing it won't work affects the psychic. But I am not touching the Lindberg paragraph.
New age stuff is Not for everyone it is only an alternative
Gnostics, Rosicrucians, Cayce may not be good with out the sufficient amount of spirituality ( and Chrisitanity if you were raised as one.) I don't recommend it for everyone, although I read and follow it. It was however, a power revelation for me because with the concept of Karma (which I got from Cayce not Buddhism/Hinduism), everything because fair and just and evolving, getting better. If Cayce's Christian background helped me a lot. It would have taken me a lot longer if I had to research Hinduism and Buddhism.
A great article !
If this gets deleted, I understand, but from the articles I've seen in Wikipedia, this is a rare one involving spiritual concepts that has not been totaly dominated by a secular humanist POV. Good Job!
ARE Summer Camp?
Removed the section. A summer camp created by admirers fifteen years after his death really has no place in the guy's biography.
Everclear Reference
Edgar Cayce is referenced in the song "Why I Don't Believe in God" by Everclear (or "Culver Palms" by Colorfinger):
I heard the truth about you yeah you And it doesn't really read at all
Scared woman in a private hell Hushed voice like electric bells Strange talk about Edgar Casey in the long lame walk of the dark 70's Strange talk about Edgar Casey in the long lame walk of the dark 70's
This is interesting, and I've always wondered of the significance of this.
Biography incomplete
From 1912-1920 Cayce lived in Selma, Alabama. He worked as a photographer for the first year, after which he purchased the studio in which he worked. There is much more info at EdgarCayce.org, if anyone wants to update this article.
Conservative Christians
Well it seems quite clear that conservative christians would have objections against Cayce. I wouldn't give it too many words because then you could add a similar section to every new age guru. And what about other religions' objections against... etc.? To me the informative content of such a statement approaches zero, unless there really are some remarkable facts. Lawsuits or some such.--130.89.166.237 16:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Edgard Cayce article
ccpearson wrote on my talk page:
Regarding my edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Cayce:
"Skeptics challenge that Cayce demonstrated psychic abilities and >>conservative Christians<< also question his unorthodox answers on religious matters ..."
The reason I removed the mention of "conservative Christians" is because it implies that they are the only ones that question Cayce's statements on religion. I don't believe that's true, do you? Unfortunately, I'm pretty certain that most Christians, conservative or not, question Cayce's religious revelations.
Also, since in this context "conservative Christians" are also "skeptics", it isn't really necessary to mention them.
I'd like to revert that edit, if it's OK with you?
-- ccpearson
- My reply
- The term skeptic has come to be associated with those who are skeptical of all supernatural religion. To call Christians who mistrust Cayce’s claims skeptics is to mislead the reader since they are believers in one form of the supernatural. The two groups who criticise Cayce the most are the skeptics and the conventionally religious. I think both need to be mentioned. Lumos3 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Did Cayce invent the card game called Pit?
A claim is made on boardgamegeek.com that Edgar Cayce invented the card game Pit (game) around 1904. It is repeated in the Wikipedia article using this as a source. Does anyone know if this is true? Lumos3 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
--yes he did. As the story goes, cayce got very bored playing card games as he would always use his "psychic" abilities to see the other people's cards. He invented a fast game in which he could not keep up with other players' hands. Also, apparently, he pitched it to a card company. If what I have heard is true, they took the idea and sent a relatively small check to Cayce. He apparently was not happy with this, thinking they took advantage of him. Sources... NO. Sorry. But I know it to be true from books and an interview at the A.R.E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightt (talk • contribs) 05:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Implications of opening sentences
The opening sentences of this article imply that Edgar Cayce claimed a lot of things. In my readings on the man, it is apparent that he had an attitude of humbleness in relation to his supposed gift - information came through him in a trance state - he was not aware of this information in a conscious state and made no claims regarding its accuracy. It was only after the information was shown to have helped others that he began to trust its accuracy - in matters of material or personal gain it was quite frankly invariably incorrect. Currently I am concerned that parts of this article misrepresent this man in an attempt to portray a balanced point of view.
- B-Class paranormal articles
- Unknown-importance paranormal articles
- WikiProject Paranormal articles
- B-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Unassessed United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Kentucky articles
- Unknown-importance Kentucky articles
- WikiProject Kentucky articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles