Currently, I’m going through a fairly highly skeptical period, a time of “crisis of faith,” as those who have been religious have called it. My skepticism has spiked in large part because I’m very uncomfortable with what I view as a continuous pressure to accept any and all things that come out of the “New Age” community. I’m having enough difficulties in attempting to validate one series of teachings without taking on all of the rest of it, especially since I consider most of it a form of speculative fiction designed to create a sense of religion and to definitely earn some fairly substantial incomes for those in the catbird seats.
So, it was with amusement that I read the following from EdH: “We have also had over the years various iterations of, one one side, Troy and Geraldine, and sometimes others, who are coming from a place of great uncomfortableness with spiritual practices, meditation, healing techniques, and anything new age in general because they are seeing these as ‘religion’, or a slippery slope to religion, with religion meaning everything bad that’s ever been done by organized religions or by fools and zealots in its name–vs. on the other side, people like Kath [Neall] and Terri Benning and me and others who are seeing all the positive spiritualist possibilities.” And, yes, it does sum me up, as far as it goes. And, I would disagree with his “we-they” assessment of negative versus positive. I consider it more an issue of unvalidated wishful thinking or belief systems that are simply swallowed wholesale with a lot of bobble-headed nodding. He neglected to mention his previous years in Scientology nor his enthusiastic support of the two Davids — David Ickes and David Wilcock — and all of their theories about 2012 and how Reptilian aliens have taken over governments. Positive?
There is an old trick in marketing, that I would call “mirroring.” An older French wine salesman taught it to me, but it works in many circumstances. During a winetasting, the salemen carefully monitors the other person’s process of sniffing and then tasting and offers very positive enthusiastic feedback, such as “incredible bouquet, yes?” or “tastes delicious, doesn’t it?” which causes the potential customer to nod and respond accordingly. Few are willing to be the “butthead” and unless something is truly offensive, most will play along. This includes those involved in New Age practices, such as feeling energies, whether it be chakras or lovely sparkly crystals. Unfortunately, most do not understand that this is not validating.
This is not to say that many do not feel “something,” but are they interpreting what they sense or feel particularly accurately, or is it based on something someone else has told them that it means? Is it part of an unquestioned belief system?
Recently, I’ve been spending time reading through the online archives of “Skeptical Inquirer.” It’s a fruitful endeavor for those who would believe without question people such as Sylvia Browne, Jonathan Edwards, or even good ole “Chariots of the Gods” favorite, von Daniken. Those links are only to a single article about each, not all of the articles that have been published on CSI.
I’m caught in my own firestorm of skepticism about Michael. First and foremost, can I validate that ANY of the channels has brought through information that I can validate in “some” part? Secondly, and nearly as importantly, can I validate that ANY of the channels are actually entering into a trance state that presupposes them being total hoaxes? Do I consider all types of channeling to be equal, i.e., deep trance vs semi-conscious, automatic writing, Ouija Board, or even the pendulum of yes/no answers? If I can accept Michael, at least in part, why can’t I accept things that are supposedly of equal value, i.e., other entities, non-Michael channels, or various practices such as Astrology, Numerology, and/or Tarot, let alone religions with all sorts of supernatural divine interventions?
My answer is quite simple, I’ve only worked hard to validate answers from Michael, through a combination of internal and external sources. I can validate SOME information from Michael that I knew absolutely nothing about prior to reading Michael. I can validate even more than I’d already figured out on my own, but had not studied up or researched. I do believe that Troy enters a full and deep enough trance to be totally disengaged from the world around him or his conscious mind, partially because others whom I trust have attested to it, and partially due to videos that have been posted. I cannot say the same for any of the others; so, I’d have to say that I cannot validate them or their work all that well.
As for the plethora of New Age channels available via books and online, unless I spent an equal amount of time studying them, at this point I simply cannot validate them. I certainly cannot validate some of their fear-based 2012 material. I could be wrong, guess we’ll find out. It’s not to say that some of their work doesn’t have value, but I don’t have the time or energy to explore further afield at this time. I certainly know that I don’t accept them as external sources of validation for things Michael has said. So, quoting some other source to “prove” Michael doesn’t work for me, unless I’m willing to deep read and study that source and then come up with a level of validation for ALL of their teachings.
Similarly, as I do not sense energies or have unusual supernatural type experiences, I cannot validate any of the standard occult or New Age practices, such as Astrology, Tarot, or Numerology, beyond some basic levels. I’m willing to consider that something more is at play; however, I do not have the time or energy to deep study them. I definitely do not go along with those who have added all of the “sparkles” or “glittery” backgrounds and “Love, Love, Love,” sentiments. Anyone can write bad prose and design ugly websites.
The only reason that I was attracted to Michael is because they lack all of the “woowoo” sentiments. Even their Truth, Love, Energy Logos information is quite matter-of-fact and falls completely within the realm of this being the ultimate goal, the universal truths that we will eventually achieve. Being an avid student of history, I see no evidence for the Anne Frank viewpoint that “people are basically good.” I don’t see people as basically bad, either, simply caught up in ego, false personality, and Maya and capable of believing the damnedest things and committing totally insane acts.
So, I’m back to square 32 — I can validate “some” Michael. But, just because someone else claims that they’re channeling the Infinite Soul or are working to become the next host for the Infinite Soul, hardly makes me think that they’ve got a clue as to what Michael is all about. I’ll keep applying skepticism.