Talk:Edgar Cayce/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Ra and the Law of One

There should be an article on Wikipedia about Ra and the Law of One. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.215.131.66 (talk) 05:51, 4 April 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)

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)

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.

Crunch McGee 13:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair

After reading this article. And noticing that it was in a possible standing for edit because it was claimed to be leaning towards one point or the other.
I myself practice arts of magick and dabble in divination. If it were to lead in some direction it would be more disclaiming him however
I do not see it that way either. I find it to be very neutral. And as for a camp started by followers after death,
Yes that is still information that goes along with him being the camp was basically started in HIS honor. As for if he would want credit for inspiring
some one to start a camp because of him I don't know, I do know in a way I would but at the same time I feel it kinda should be left out and placed
in a biography of those who started it, keep some mention of it but not alot basically say


"Some people were inspired by him and his works that they started a camp"


I don't know exactly what it should say but if the camp is in his honor (this I do not know either)
then it should have a very very small print in his biography!

--Warriorofisis (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Remote Viewing

Cayce's trace-like abilty to "see" past and future events have a strong similarity to those reported by Targ in connection with remote viewing. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the Cayce article? 192.91.147.35 (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC) William Steigelmann

Controversy and criticism

First off, this section appears twice in the article. These need merging.

Cayce allegedly predicted that the US would find a "death ray" in 1958. The laser is introduced to the public in the 1960s. This doesn't exactly seem like a criticism of his predictions, as, in fact, the laser may very well have been kept secret for several years. Lexor1969 (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling a laser a "death ray" is pushing it a little.--ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

External links

External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience. Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links.

The following kinds of links are inappropriate:

  • Online discussion groups or chat forums
  • Personal webpages and blogs
  • Multiple links to the same website
  • Fundraising events or groups
  • Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)

I realize that some links are helpful to certain users, but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article. There are a lot of links at the end of this article, and it would be appropriate for the regular editors to "audit" them and reduce them to a small list of the most encyclopedic links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism

To whomever is removing my critique of this section, the facts can be reviewed on any good article on Edgar Cayce. My rebuttal stands against the inaccurate statements allowed in this this section.(209.244.43.178 (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

Great. Please provide neutral, 3rd-party reliable sources (i.e., not self-published materials) that list these facts and please try to add content written in a more encyclopedic manner. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 11:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Law of One section

This section, concerning Cayce's mention by some entity called "Ra", is an attempt at self-promotion, and is furthermore not significant to Cayce's main life story or philosophy. It's "extra-canonical." Cayce is probably one of the most famous American clairvoyants, and has high credibility among people who believe in such things. As a result, every dime-a-dozen psychic claiming to channel some Atlantean entity will throw in some references to Cayce to establish their own credibility. There is no reason, however, to help self-promoting hucksters by allowing them to adulterate the Cayce entry with links to their own Wikipedia entries (which should probably be deleted at any rate!). StrangeAttractor (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)