Talk:Ramtha

work in progress
This is currently a work in progress, trying to gather information on Ramtha.

I have been very sceptical, too. Ramtha's story is hard to believe but his school is not about his story, at all. And just judging about what you do not know is actually quite not fair - isn't it?! One things he asks us is to make known the unknown - so just give yourself a chance - he doesn't need one - and get a little more involved in his philosophy. Find out what is behind it b4 saying "new age crap", "money making and brain washing institution" which is definitely not true. well, maybe partly: every institution needs money and RAM sais himself he wants to brainwash us - but only if we do it ourselves. ok?! :P


 * Indeed. This is precisely why the "cleanup" tags were placed on the article. Please stop removing them. You also have a long way to go to prove notability of this subject. I mean no insult, and heartily welcome your contributions. However, this article is not up to wikipedia standards. --Durin 23:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I am extremely skeptical of the existence of Ramtha, but very confident of its notability. In the field of New Age spirituality and channeling, Ramtha is arguably the most famous channeled spirit of the last couple of decades.  As mentioned in the article, Ramtha was discussed in a best-selling book by Shirley MacLaine and presented by the channeler J.Z. Knight in the hit documentary What the Bleep Do We Know?.  A Google search for "ramtha knight" comes up with 14,300 hits.  This article needs improvement but the subject is undoubtedly notable. --Metropolitan90 09:25, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * (Correction) What the Bleep Do We Know? was not actually a documentary although it incorporated nonfiction interviews. Make that "hit independent film." --Metropolitan90 17:59, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I started this article after I rented What the Bleep Do We Know at blockbuster. The whole thing smelled so fishy, I dug into who made the movie and found that it was linked to a cult called Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.  Subsquent investigation just made the whole thing more interesting to me.  Although at this point I think the article may do better under the link Ramtha's School of Enlightenment.  As for it's notability, I have seen Ramtha mentioned as one of the most successful New Age transchannelers.  In addition, they claim to have about 3000 members, with 1/3 of those members living in and around Yelm, WA.  I think this clear shows this article to be notable.  One problem I've had while doing research is finding what I would consider reliable information.  Part of the problem with cults, I guess, is that they probably don't want alot of solid information about their practices and organization floating about.  What the Bleep Do We Know is clearly pretty dubious scientifically. --BobAlmighty 20:48, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think there was some vandalism on this page with repeated mentions of bunny rabbits, most of which I deleted (except in Intro) Saro32 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Split organizational aspects
I've split the organizational aspects from this article, as you suggested, so as to leave this one for the "entity" itself. -Tydaj 5 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)


 * Important separation
 * I would like to add that simply because a group or organization attempts to make money off of a spiritual and/or religious theory, it does not necessarily debunk that entire way of thinking.
 * (I.E. I am a Christian, but I scorn Christian television evangelists who claim to heal through touch and ask for donations, as do many other Christians.)-Jwilder 6 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)


 * This article is important


 * It is quite obvious why this article is important. This cult is beginning to become mainstream, and with the sleeper hit "What The Bleep Do We Know," many people are bound to be curious about it. I vote to keep this article and remove the "Dubious Importance" label.

Keep it
Ramtha (or at least JK Knight channeling it) via the movie What the Bleep has been seen by more than a thousand people, therefore, is probably valid material for Wikipedia. Keep the article. I put links to two places where James Randi comments on Ramtha. Jrincayc 15:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

--Dthogan 14:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)I have no idea if JZ Knight is actually chanelling Ramtha or not, and that seems to be a highlight of controversy. Quite frankly I do not care as the actual "teachings" of Ramtha are not new except for some basic explanations of the quantum world. I found the same "teachings" in numerous other authors, transcripts, etc. The fact I choose to believe parts of the teachings neither makes me a skeptic or believer in "Ramtha" and the text in Ramtha books continually tell you that "truths" are only what you know and have actualy experience and Ramtha states therefore his teaching are philosophies.

My "indebtness" if you will, to Ramtha was the purchase price of 2 books that I enjoyed reading. I have no need to go take one of the "courses" but those that do I say "More power to them". People part with money in all kinds of ways to make them feel better. There are quite a few that part with it in religion.

If JZ Knight puts on a seminar at a hotel she has to pay for the hotel, or for whatever it takes to put it on. So do countless others that say what they believe in sessions that require money to attend. If you want to have a serious attack on Ramtha to back up your disbelief I would search out a library for FREE use of one of the books.--Dthogan 14:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Not a fraud?!
"There is no clear proof that J.Z. Knight is a Fraud. That is, proof that his/her followers will belive. There are lawsuits that stated that J.Z. Knight is the only one who can channel Ramtha, which is odd. Also, she copywrited Ramtha. 20/20 did a segment that showed proofs of how Ramtha's school is just taking peoples money." Is there any evidence hinting that JZ Knight isn't a fraud? I'd imagine that any logical person would realize that somebody selling "magic/curative" water is a fraud.
 * Well, if Knight thinks it's true, it isn't technically a fraud. --Chronodm 23:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Helpful !!
I saw the movie and despite being open minded do like to check my sources. This article has been valuable in that regard. With the number of poeple watching this movie worldwide and the apparent lack of intelligent disection available I think this article is right on the money.

Background

 * I am interested in the questions surrounding the factual accuracy of this article - what are the disputes? I have added some information which was presented to me by a friend who is a member of the organization, and have attempted to illustrate some of the items of interest he has told me about the organization.  However, including definitive facts about the organization known as Ramtha is very difficult as the group represents something of a "closed society".  Emails and questions to their website pertaining to their beliefs and practises go largely unanswered.  Judith Knight may or may not be a charlatan, I do not have and cannot get enough information to positively determine this.  James Randi, the noted magician and fraudulent psychic exposer, has made his position very clear with regard to Ms. Knight.  Certainly her practises (as related to me by a member of the organization) are closely aligned with those of the proverbial 19th century snake oil salesman.  What we have attempted to do on this page (and I did not start the page) is simply to provide genuine anecdotes to illustrate the behaviour of the organization.  Those who want the "ramtha brochure" can visit the website (link attached to mainpage) and make their own judgements.  Posthocergopropterhoc 5 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)


 * I see parallels here with Lazaris. -Tydaj 5 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

No proof she is a fraud?
You'll read above that some people believe there is no proof she is a fraud. A great hint would be the fact that she claims Ramtha is from Atlantis. Come on now. Atlantis was written about by Plato allegorically, not to be taken literally! Atlantis doesn't exist and it never did. It is the equivelent of especially desperate people 2,000 years from now believing there is a Lilliput, or Houyhnhnmland, or maybe it would be the lost island of Laputa.It is ridiculous. The fact is she claims she is channeling a person from a fictional place, therefore she is channeling a fictional entity. For Christ's sake has the world gone mad? Maprovonsha172 01:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting this last edit. It's clearly POV. Maprovonsha172 23:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the dispute-see talk page notice at the end of the first page of the article. There doesn't seem to be much dispute here. Maprovonsha172 22:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

--Dthogan 14:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)LOL, are you chanelling Plato, since you know his intent?--Dthogan 14:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Maprovonsha172, whether you like it or not, hundreds of thousands of people (if not more) believe in Atlantis in one form or another. It's not just spiritual seekers either, some archeologists have spent their lives pursuing their own pet theories about where the REAL Atlantis is.  Articles on Wikipedia are not supposed to make value judgements about the beliefs of others, rather they are supposed to simply describe them using reliable sources for those descriptions.  As for fraud, If Knight herslef knew and believed there was no Ramtha, then yes, she would be perpetrating a fraud.  However, if she genuinely believes she is channelling a entity known as Ramtha, she is merely testifying to her belief and faith.  Ramtha and the Ramtha School of Enlightenment are best described as new religious movements.  How would you like it wikipedians started saying your religion is fraudulent and that its fraud should be self-evident to everyone? No matter how out of the ordinary, these are people's genuine beliefs.  Articles on such movements often contain a section of criticisms of the group which is as it should be.  let's just avoid making POV statements.LiPollis 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, LiPollis, your arguments do not hold water. The number of people who believe or do not belive in Atlantis is irrelevant.  There is no credible evidence of its existence.  If articles on Wikipedia are supposed to "us[e] reliable sources," where are the reliable sources of information on Atlantis?  Your statements concerning fraud, belief and faith are questionable at best.  Knight's fraudulence does not need to be proved; her credibility needs to be proved.  As an "actual scientist" you should know this.  "These are people's genuine beliefs."  That, my dear, is a mighty POV statement!!! --Joysword 04:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First of, it's rather rude to an innappropriate to call any other editor "my dear" since it is an attempt to reduce them to the status of a child. Please refrain from such personal attacks in the future. Sadly this is a common refuge of pseudoskeptics. If they cannot argue a point backed up with reliable sources, they seek to infantalize the person with whom they disagree. I did not say the phenomena they believed in was genuine or real, rather that the genuinely believed these things to be true. That's a subtle difference, I realize, but an important one. Prove that they don't really believe these things and you can safely get away with calling them frauds.  NPOV requires that we not hold one religion or belief system to one standard and others to a higher standard of proof.  People wouldn't dream of attacking an article on Jewish or Christian beliefs in the same manner. (well some would, but they are in the minority) My approach to new religious movements is from my expertise as an anthropologist. I choose not to make value judgements of established systems of belief or new systems of belief that are evolving.   I find that judging a subject from a personal point of view is counter-productive to the effort to gather encyclopedic information.  If you wish to dispassionately discuss the content of the article, then do it disapassionately.  If you wish to allege fraud, then back up your claim with proof from reliable sources. ALL alleged fraud must proven if it is to be cited as fraudulent here as any "actual" editor should know.  Your statement that you or anyone else should be permitted to allege fraud on the part of Knight without proof  flies in the face of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons.  Please refamiliarize yourself with those policies.  I encourage you to seek reliable sources to back up your claims.  That is is the only appropriate method for inclusion in an article.  I personally do not think Ramtha s very credible but that is far short of throwing out all wikipedia guidelines and simply unilaterally declaring the phenomenon fraudulent.  Wikipedia cannot be party to libel.  Please keep that in mind.  Citing reliable sources insulates wikipedia and sets a good example for other editors.LiPollis 05:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who believes anything this woman says, needs to get their head examined. This is all such obvious nonsense! Cult Watch 07:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What's even worse is that Ramtha is purported to come from the hyopthetical continent of Lemuria, which was abandoned when scientists becan to understand plate techtonics. Laughinginterror (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
Saying that the nonexistence of Atlantis is well established is besides the point. Most well educated people could make a similar argument about any story of the Bible, but i doubt that you would say that the nonexistence of Noah's Ark is well established, as it was an allegory, and therefore Noah didn't exist, in the Bible article.


 * The nonexistence of Noah's Ark is well established. WiccaWeb 02:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

First off, whoever you are, if you're going to dispute things here you ought to be a member (it's free, signing up is even simpler than signing up for free e-mail) and put ~ ~ ~ ~ after what you've writeen (without the spaces). That said, the difference between Altlantis and Noah's Ark is that Atlantis was 100% guarenteed written as an allegory, but many people believe that Noah's Ark wasn't. Even though I'm not one of them, many people take the Bible literally. But no credible scholar believes Atlantis exists, or ever existed. That's the differnece. Maprovonsha172 22:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Plenty of non-credible people do believe in it, though (and have various non-credible references to back their claims that there's more to Atlantis than Plato's allegory). It's not really "fictional" in the sense that, say, Middle-Earth is fictional. A link to Atlantis is sufficient; highlighting the dubious nature of Knight's claims (as much as I may agree with you as to how dubious they are) doesn't seem NPOV. Wikipedia is not Snopes. --Chronodm 23:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * (And just to be clear, no, that anonymous commenter wasn't me.) --Chronodm 23:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

From the Standpoint of a Believer
I suppose that might be slightly misleading, as I myself am somewhat skeptical of Ramtha. My aunt, however, dose believe that Ramtha is real, and had in fact gone to many of Ms. Knight's "seminars", if you will. I appologise if I'm not entirelly clear on some points... As I said, I am only repeating what my aunt has told me.

Anywho, my aunt had started attending these seminars right around when they first began. Right from the beginning, she said that Ramtha (or rather, Ms. Knight chanalling Ramtha) told them all that he would not want people following him; attending every one of his seminars, and such. Apparently, he said that he would only be here for a short amount of time.

According to my aunt, once Ramtha left, it is possible that Knight was somewhat angered by the fact that a portian of her lifetime had been spent on these seminars. Feeling that she deserved some sort of reward for her wasted life, Knight continued to pretend that she was chanaling Ramtha in order to make some money out of it.

I wish I could elaborate more on why my aunt held faith in Ramtha, but my memory of our conversation over the matter has worn thin. Perhaps, if we ever happen to speak over the matter again, I'll add more to this. I suppose I should add that my father has also attentded a few of these seminars. Take my word for it when I say that my father holds no faith in these supposed "psychics" and "channalers". Often he ridicules them. However, whenever I mention Ramtha, my father grows somewhat uncomfortable and speaks little on the matter. Apparently this Ramtha had struck a few chords (as "he" had spoken to my father in person). Whatever Ramtha said, Father has never told me, but I find it unusual that it was cause so much discomfort in him...Howl 8:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Howl, if you happen to see this comment, I would encourage you to gather testimony from people who once believed in Ramtha or attended seminars. Such first person narratives are useful to researchers studying new religious movements and also to Skeptical researchers who want to document what they view as an elaborate con. First person testimony is anthropological gold.  Either tape record them or video tape them if you can.  You could even upload such video to a webpage where people searching on Ramtha could find it.  Unless you publish it or put it togther in a significant way on a website, it really wouldn't be notable enough to include here.  Still, since it fascinates you, I encourage you to do some fieldwork!  EVen as a young teen, I often recorded stories my elders told me, not about new age religion mind you, but about just as strange things such as irish water horses and other mythological creatures they believed in. LiPollis 03:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputes and POV
The neutrality of this article was very poor. I have removed most of what I considered non-neutral statments and unreferenced statments. This left the article much more sparce and in need of expansion. Anyone? BobAlmighty 18:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Since my changes were reverted I will clearify exactly what should be changed and why. "It is notable to mention, however, that the non-existence of Atlantis is well established, and so Knight is claiming to channel a spirit from a fictional place." This does not add anything to the article which is about Ramtha. In fact, if you read the wikipedia page about Atlantis it does not conform to that information. Non-existence is NOT well established. This adds nothing to the article and I removed it.

In the second paragraph,"The organization founded by Knight based on the 'teachings' of Ramtha is Ramtha's School of Enlightenment in Yelm, Washington in which she has made millions of dollars for her seminars." This is redundant information. This page was split to specifically address the entity of Ramtha. There is a seperate page that deals with the school JZ Knight founded. I revised this to indicate that.

As for the rest of the paragraph,"The central theme of the Ramtha teachings appears to involve the internalization of deity (God is in Us, You are God, etc.). Ramtha is described as having brought his knowledge to many ancient civilizations in the world. The website suggests that many historical philosophers were influenced by Ramtha, although this is not easy to prove. It's quite ironic, then, that the myth of Atlantis comes from a misinterpretation of Plato's description of it; so it has been said that in fact it isn't philosophers that have been influenced by Ramtha but Knight's conception of Ramtha that has been influenced by philosophers." I could not find anything on the website to back this up, nor could I in a simple google search. This is unsubstantiated, and although I agree with the theme, it does not have a factual background. I removed it due to this. If you disagree, please cite the sources.

The final sentence in the article is blatently POV."In court and in newspapers, former students have accused JZ Knight of brainwashing and taking them for every penny they had." When I went looking for information related to this, I did find court cases. I provided an example and a source. As it stood the previous version had no cited or factual information.

Because the nature of the material it is very important to back your information up and to be as non-pov as possible. If you make additions or changes please cite your reasons! BobAlmighty 20:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Will write some notes on the update, but out of time...129.93.39.66 22:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

129.93.39.66 was actually me BobAlmighty my session musta timed out or something. Move the controversy about Ramtha's existence to the controversy section. Additionally, I made spelling corrections that I missed, and added a bit about the film envolving RSE and Ramtha. BobAlmighty 06:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Atlantis
I'm going to revert the first paragraph. Whoever keeps removing the Atlantis sentence can justify it below (as I've argued for it above without dispute): Maprovonsha172 21:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should halt all edits before we can settle disputes here and reach consensus. BobAlmighty, if you're going to post here you should register as a member. You must also justify your edits here. Yes, this article needs work, but you're only making it worse. Maprovonsha172 21:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you mean by register. If you mean create a page about myself, then yes I suppose I should. But I am a memeber of Wikipedia in that I contribute to articles and login in to an account.

Reguarding the disputes, I did dispute the article and made a detailed post about it before I made any changes. From the 30th of September to the 8th of October I made significant changes and added talk discussion about those changes. All of the changes were reverted without so much as a comment. On the 4th of october you'll note in the previous section "Disputes and POV" I address that sentence specifically. I left the disscussion for 4 days and when nothing was added I went ahead with some changes, which was then reverted again. I'll repeat my dispute and expand my reasoning on why that sentence doens't belong. "It is notable to mention, however, that the non-existence of Atlantis is well established, and so Knight is claiming to channel a spirit from a fictional place." Disreguarding the structure of the sentence, the content is blatantly POV and irrelivant to the article.

Firstly, The question of the existance of Atlantis is not part of this article, this article is about Ramtha. While it is clear you think that Atlantis as described by Plato does not exist, (which I would agree with) reasonable doubt about the existance of Atlantis does exist. Using the argument that Atlantis does not exist to imply that Ramtha does not exist is flawed. Atlantis's non-existence cannot be taken as fact.

Secondly, the sentence implies a specific POV. That Ramtha does not exist. I agree that Ramtha likely does not exist, BUT that is NOT what this article is about. Claiming that you are removing POV by implying Ramtha's non-existence is just silly.

What would be relivant to the article is that debate about Ramtha's authenticity exists, not the existance or non-existance of Ramtha. Hence, I created the Controversy section of the article. This is where such an observation as the one you have made should be placed, although not as you have done. Your edit is an intrusion upon the netruality of the article, it is an editorialization that is coming from the writer and not and simple statement of facts or information. Reguardless of the POV of such a contribution I feel that it is only a detriment to any article. Such retohrical strategies are best left for essays and editorials. Not a Wikipedia article. BobAlmighty 19:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There hasn't been any further discussion for the past 5 days, if nobody has anything else to dispute about this issue, I will remove the sentence. BobAlmighty 19:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Why the category Pseudoscience?
Ramtha does not claim to be scientific so I think the category pseudoscience is wrong. Please explain or I will remove it. By the way, I have the book by J. Gordon Melton at home so if I have time, I will write more. (I do agree with some of the criticisms of Melton's book and I deeply regret that he did not explain more in detail why he sees the controversy about Ramtha as exaggerated, except by making the usual negative generalizations about critical ex-members). Andries 21:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * RSE doesn't claim to be scientific exactly, but they seem to use scientific arguements to try and back up their claims. The most obvious example of this is the movie What the bleep do we know, which is very pseudoscientific. I think that the category may not be a perfect fit, but that it has relivance. BobAlmighty 19:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What scientific arguments do they use? Sorry, but I really do not think that the pseudoscienc category is appropriate here. They do not claim to be scientific. They teach transparent nonsense of course, but that is no pseudoscience. Andries 19:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever seen the movie, Andries? They most certainly do claim their beliefs are scientific. Look at what they talk about. Peptides, atoms, electrons, the brain. They're clearly trying to sound scientific, if only to talk about science and their stupid beliefs at the same time.

This has to change:
 * The movie What the bleep do we know is also a major source of controversy involving Ramtha. Critics of the film describe it as a pseudoscientific fiction and not the documentary and scientifically based film it projects. However, JZ Knight appears in the film solely to reinforce the apparent connections between ancient spiritual beliefs and new discoveries in quantum physics.

This is biased in Knight's favor. However,... sounds authoritarian, and it's a defense of Knight. And, if Knight is to be believed, she never appears in the film. It's Ramtha, right? Instead, perhaps we should say, However, filmmakers claim... Maprovonsha172 23:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

'Ramtha' is an anagram of 'Martha', incidently. Martha means 'Mistress of the house' in Aramaic -more or less, and in the Bible she was the sister to the resurrected Lazarus. Ms. Knight has some interesting etymological constructs to go along with her legends. LEMURIA, her borrowed island and the subsequent stopway from Atlantis straight to JZ KNIGHT's being, is found in Latin-Rome, LEMURIA also known as: 'Feast of the Lemures' was a pagan exorcism holiday celebrated to get rid of the malevolent spirits that hung around your house, town, etc. Her use of Lemuria seems antithetical to her trying to get the spirits hanging around you, your personal god/s, to jump back into you and influence your decisions etc. -Jsulliv 16 Nov 2005

Some info to consider, from an RSE Student?
I would just like to add some info that seem obvious to me, that doesn't appear in this discussion, I am not into writing so I have no interest in editing the encyclopedia entry. The first point I'd like to make is that all new concepts are refferred to as cults in their conceptipon, as was christianity. The second is that science is at it's heart the search for the unknown as ramtha encourages. Science is a process of conceptualizing an idea and proving or disproving it, making modifications and trying again. As the wiki writers would say, Ramtha "Claims" to be a 35,000 year acended master, from that "claimed" perspective he can make claims about the nature of reality that are far ahead of the scientific community, that doesn't make him wrong. In fact over the last 18 years many of his concepts are just being discovered by the scientific community. Finally, It's not suprising that Ramtha's legacy has spread and grown beyond the 3000 students as the entry suggests and is now a worldwide phenomenon, it is because it works, if you want to see the latest scientifically published work that revolves around ground breaking phenomenon At Ramtha's school you have to look at this paper published by the American Institute of Physics, which has a rigorous system of peer review to verify scientific authenticity, and if AIP can see the scientific value of the information then I think over a short time, the world will too.

http://proceedings.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000813000001001256000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes

Personal Note: No where else in the world can I learn to do the things I have done at RSE, including learning about our ability to measurably augment our environment with our minds as discussed in the paper. From this students perspective, my scientific process is taking the information given and applying them, when it works for me it's all the proof I need, I just want more. I'll leave it to the slower process of scientific community to catch up and study the phenomenon in greater detail.

Common Sense: As with all the internet, you will always find unhappy people or agendas that flood the internet on any topic, especially hot ones. I hope eventually more emphisis will be on the Message of RSE as opposed to the banterings of peoples opinions for and against.

PS: if this is the wrong place to post an entry like this, don't bite my head off, this is my first time.

Isleprince 02:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Science is not the search for the unknown. It a the search to create models of explanations of the universe. As time goes on our aggregated knwoledge grows and can more eloquently describe what is. You post shows you are not part of this community and that you lack the logical tools to properly evaluate ideas. A simple test would be enough to disprove your "shaping reality" claims. Take a good random number generator and try to force it to be a specific number. Measure how many times your desire number comes up. IF it's not significantly more then chance would allow then your assertion is disproved. Take some statistics courses on identifyign how large a sampel size you need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.114.156 (talk • contribs)

The Catholic Church is a Cult
As I reserched this Ramtha movement, including reading the material and ordering the DVDs and CDs, I'm impressed by the lack of "cultish" information. Is there a 35,000 year old spirit inhabiting JZ Knight? I don't know, and I don't care. I did read that she has been tested by notable scientists (not members of the Ramtha School) and proved legitimate.

the definition of a cult is, "A system of religious worship". This defines many religious groups throughout the world. Ramtha doesn't insist on being worshipped. In fact, the teachings inspire the individual to worship the god within. How wrong is that? To experience more of the teachings, they developed a system for those interested in these belief systems. Does not the richest and most powerful church in the world deman more than that? They demand 12 years of school costing families thousands upon thousands of dollars. They demand money for just about every decision a person makes to insure they will not be damned for all time. And yet, you question a small school that teaches its students that God loves you beyond your wildest dreams. That God loves you even if you don't contribute 10% of your income to the church that you attend. I see no evidence of a cult in the Ramtha teachings. —This unsigned comment was added by 216.49.214.3 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 6 April 2006.


 * Althought it is true, in the most general sense, the word cult can be used to mean "A system of religious worship," - that is mostly not how the word is used, but is more often used to mean "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious" - which more accurately describes how the ramtha movement is regarded. The fact that you openly acknowledge that you don't care whether you a paying money to a fraud makes you one of the people that JZ Knight enjoys having on this planet very much - an easy target. Your main argument is Argumentum ad Hominem, or 'two wrongs make a right' in that you seem to think that what the Catholic Church does right or wrong somehow affects the legitimacy of the ramtha movement. Wrong. MaxMangel 00:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Tested by notable scientists not biased by a connection with her organization and proved legitimate? There's a shiny nickel in it for you if you can actually point to an actual scientist, much less a notable one, who thinks that this woman is channeling an ancient Lemurian or Atlantean spirit or whatnot. I'm seriously considering an offer to eat my hat if you can show me such a statement. grendel|khan 11:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

A Message from the Descriptor Adder
Hello, everyone; Olivebranch here. I would just like to say a word about the content of this article: hogwash. The first descriptor is there because there is an entire section devoted to 'controversy', which to me is another example of cardstacking propaganda. The unencyclopedic descriptor is there because I think that we need to explore Ramtha here. This is not an article about J.Z. Knight. If it was, her name would be on the top of the page. So, if we could get an expert on this subject it would be greatly appreciated. Also, if we could explore Ramtha's life a little more in-depth (ex: his early life, great accomplishments, how long and where he lived, etc.), since I am thirsty for the knowledge of how he LIVED, not just his afterlife (even though that's cool too :-)].


 * You have described the article as hogwash, yet you have failed to provide a specific example of factual inaccuracy within the article. The fact that YOU are a fan of Ramtha and simply don't like to read about controversies associated with him, I would argue, is a source of great personal bias for your opinion. You have slandered the article with the title 'cardstacking propaganda,' well, pray enlighten us as to exactly where the inaccuracies are, rather than just throwing around emotive phrases. Anyone can simply declare something to be bad, but not everyone is capable of backing up those statements, and this is what I'm challenging you to do.
 * If you fail to back up your opinion with hard facts then I'm sure your labels will be removed in short order.
 * As for your problems with J.Z Knight being so heavily mentioned, this is unlikely to change, seeing as all information about Ramtha, as I understand it, is sourced through her.
 * As for your desire to learn about how Ramtha lived, well, feel free to add such information to the article if you happen to find primary sources of his existence 35,000 years ago...MaxMangel 07:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no surprise that you failed to back up your claims. Removed the unbalanced tag. MaxMangel 09:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was a 1 year study done on Ramtha and they had a conference about Ramtha in the scientific community. I think its called The Ramtha Phenomenon, and the end result was that they didnt who or what Ramtha was, but they knew that a "decidedly non-local phenomenon" was happening here. Skeptics on Ramtha should read this first, because Ramtha was already studied, and the answer is there. Also, I read a comment here about Random Event Generators and how if Ramtha's teachings were true, the numbers would come out the way you wanted them..... TOO LATE! A scientist named Dean Radin already did that experiment and he found out that intention DID cause the numbers to go different than what was expected... 50,000 to 1 difference. I dont know about you, but Ramtha said all this, and now we are coming to find out that maybe he knows what he is talking about Just a boy.


 * Mediumship has been known about for millenia, is widely taught today, and is very simple to learn, despite commercial efforts to brand it and make it a big business. There is also a long history of information from those who have experience with it asserting that even though useful information can be gained, 100% accuracy is unrealistic, and that there are risks (physical, psychological and spiritual) associated with the practice if one is not careful. Even Edgar Cayce knew and acknowledged he did not approach anywhere near 100% accuracy and reportedly he died after ignoring channeled warnings he was overdoing it. Just because there is some truth in something or some phenomena can be demonstrated does not justify inferences of accuracy in other areas. Respected modern authorities such as Paul Brunton taught that there is a state of mind that one can reach through concentration, meditation, self-conquest, and study, but that the danger is that once there, then their egoism becomes stimulated by the subtle forces they have evoked, their emotional nature becomes more sensitive and more fluid, their imaginative power becomes more active and is less restrained, and if they then fall victim to spiritual error regarding their state, the result is swollen vanity, superstitious credulity, emotions run riot, and wild imagination. Brunton considered this a major factor in explaining the human wreckage found on the spiritual path. Likewise, the noted Integralist Sri Aurobindo taught that there is a level of consciousness where experiences of force, inspiration, illumination, light, joy, expansion, power, and freedom from normal limits are possible, but which can become associated with personal aspirations, ambitions, notions of spiritual fulfilment, etc. He asserted that one can avoid harm by seeing through the half-lights and tempting but imperfect and often mixed and misleading experiences, but that those who go astray by following false voices and mendacious guidance, may end in a spiritual disaster, or may remain stuck there and adopt some half-truth as the whole truth or become an instrument of lesser powers of these transitional planes, which he stated happens to many who enter that mental state. The current trend to blend new age thinking with misinterpreted science such as in this case makes it justifiable to consider this psuedoscience--Dseer 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Zero Point Energy
In what the bleep do we know, J.Z. Knights makes some glaringly ignorant assertions on Zero point energy. perhaps mentioning it and how obviously wrong her assertions are might add to the artcile. intuitors critic might be a good source to start with http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/bleep.html. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.75.33.118 (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

If Ramtha was a living person...
...how can one person hold copyright over them? Nobody has legal ownership of King Arthur. I would think that he would have that of himself. But now he's dead if he existed, so who cares? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.228.54.78 (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Replaced tags
Hi.

as discussion is ongoing and improvements made, I replaced the multiple tags with one single one, fixed a link and add category/infoboxes to connect it to other topics in this area.

Whether the beliefs are bunk or not, I really don't care, but they look inline with the medium's claims. Would an informed individual make the time to add some specific references and quotes, preferably from academic sources?

Thanks and good luck ... the spirit of Queen Guinevere (Rightful Heir to the Crown of England) aka --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I have proposed that this page be merged with JZ Knight, as they seem to be covering the same subject; this article claims to be about Ramtha, but is really about JZ Knight (e.g. the Controversy section) and thus should be merged there. As far as I'm concerned, Ramtha is JZ Knight, and does not deserve a separate article: but even if you disagree, it's unarguable that Ramtha has been made famous by JZ Knight, and is only notable because of her. Having too separate pages seems unnecessary to me, and furthermore suggests that Ramtha is entirely separate from JZ Knight, which is quite clearly not the case. If you agree or disagree, please comment below. Terraxos (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. No reliable sources treat Ramtha as an independent entity. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 07:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)