New Age publications routinely print articles written by or about allegedly channeled entities. That in itself is OK. What I find disturbing is that these phenemena are reported as fact. "Jach Pursel channels a non-physical entity named Lazaris" is not a fact - it is a claim. The mainstream press - as irresponsible as they can be at times - would never print a line like that other than on the editorial page. The fact is, "Jach Pursel claims to channel...". While it's possible that his claim is correct, it is not factual. A fact is something that has been proven.

Of course this doesn't negate the role of the reader's responsibility to discern. This lack of discernment permeates the New Age community. It seriously discredits the truthful tenets within "New Age". (One may say that none of the truthful tenets is "new", but many are nonetheless associated with the New Age movement) The publisher of one of the larger New Age publications told us that he suspected that Jach may be faking it. Yet his magazine has published "Lazaris'" words on a number of occasions with no disclaimer.

One irony is that "Lazaris" stress responsibility. This blind acceptance of unsubstantiated "facts" is extremely irresponsible. Many New Agers accept, with little or no evidence, concepts such as extra-terrestrial communication and experimentation, various nonsensical alternative healing techniques, etc. Some of this can be very dangerous.

Another irony is that the Orlando Gang consistantly decries the alleged irresponsibility of the mainstream "liberal" press, but have nothing to say about the New Age media's blind acceptance of Lazaris. Even if I still believed in Lazaris, I would consider it irresponsible to report these phenomena as factual - as I've always been uncomfortable with their acceptance of Ramtha, whom I have believed for a long time to be fraudulant.

Granted, it's not the job of the New Age media to try to debunk charlatans. Then again, maybe it is. The mainstream media have their investigative reporters - why not the New Age media? But even if they don't want to take on the task of debunking, they can still report facts as facts and claims as claims. Problem is, if they were to report New Age issues with the proper disclaimers, almost everything they reported would have a disclaimer attached. And people may become suspect. We can't have that - it doesn't "feel good". Nor is it as profitable.

Actually, the meditations were defined by Chris as hypnosis. And your right, none of the detractors refuted Chris on this point. The links that Katie posted also define hypnosis the same way.

Now I realize that Lazaris sometimes makes up their own meanings for words, such as "ego". But using one's own definition doesn't make one truthful. Bill Clinton wasn't being truthful when he claimed to not have had sex with Monica Lewinski, even though his definition of sex is different than most people's.

The majority of the Lazaris Material cannot be judged as fact or fiction. Who could prove one way or the other whether we are the result of Orion experimentation or that Atlantis or Lemuria existed as Lazaris claims? Who can prove even whether the tools and raw materials of reality creation are what Lazaris says they are?

The statements that Lazaris makes about where they are from, their purpose for being here, etc., are highly questionable. Provable? No. They claim to be consistant, but their health advice has changed over the years. They claim to not intervene - a convenient excuse for them allowing the crap that goes on in the Forum - but then they also claim to have sent Michaell to stay with Jach and Peny. (I don't remember the details, but someone posted about this here recently and I've seen it written in C:S literature)

The MLM situation has been well-documented on this site - and not just from katie and me. On the contrary, when Katie and I were told about this at the Millennium Celebration, we so much as accused the messenger of lying. We have heard about it from many different sources. Again, a search of this site will yield much data about this.

You say Lazaris doesn't watch over us and set themselves up as judge. Yet they judged Marilyn and tried to influence her daughter to distance herself.

As for Lazaris promoting the material and attempting to keep people hooked, that has been discussed in depth on this site. Everything that you claim we don't discuss has been discussed here.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Why does a flawed source
invalidate the material?

---

This has been discussed ad nauseum here and recently. So once more, no one is saying that everything that Lazaris says is wrong, simply because they say it. We are saying it is suspect. "The most dangerous lie is that which is closest to the truth". I have better things to do than to spend my life examining each of Lazaris' statements and trying to figure out, "is this a gem or another manipulation?" It's much more elegant to use an honest source. I'm sure Lazaris would agree.