Minutus

I wish, easier to dismiss....rabbis, reborn christians, preachers, etc,.....

If spiritual and religious people of any and all affirmations were really even just open to homeopathy, we would have a majority of supporters, just going by the numbers; clearly not the case, which I put to the facts that many are followers and not free thinkers.........even within conventional medicine, when I was working for the NHS in Israel, I had religious people contemplating my very conventional prescription or therapeutic plan and telling me "I will ask the rabbi"........and if he disagreed for whatever reason, there was no way to change their mind.
Alternatively, some came with "suggestions" (rather orders, "ask your doctor to give you this") and if I did not comply, I was in for arguments, swearing, curses and official complaints to the management...........
And yet my teacher/tutor at the Jerusalem homeopathic college was deeply religious and observant, as well as being French speaker, so we had lots of Homeric arguments and tremendous amounts of fun!

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

My thought is the same -- BUT offering of an experimental private chat might not to go waste, and then *if* he shows any receptivity and interest in exploring further on the list…? It seems to me that people are less apt to go into "posturing" when they are talking more privately. (Some people *are* willing to explore, if given an interested and respectful chance; others are not. Which will he be?)

Shannon

John—beware your own prejudices. Atheism has nothing to do with skepticism or not. I am atheist and have no problem in understanding
or feeling comfortable with non-material realities. Actually I think my understandings have opened me up to ethereal essences.

Your statement is like Tim Bolen’s attacking skeptics as gay people because James Randi is gay and there was some scandal around his younger lover.
Ruined his good reputation in my book. Please don’t make the same mistake.

The skeptics get off on feeling the power of their bullying. We also do not know how many of them get paid by big pharms directly or
indirectly. And many think if they identify with ‘science’ it makes them brighter despite the fact their science is bogus.

t

And you, Joe, I suspect are the smartest homeopath I know of. Not only are you credited with the development of a new posology, you're the only I homeopath . . the only scientist I know of who identifies the biological effects of the homeopathic remedy as being derived from the piezo electric effect (correct me if I'm wrong) . . a theory which IMHO I totally agree with, which gives you at least three incredible distinctlons. You sir are a credit to Atheism. But just because you are an Atheist should not disqualify you from homeopathy. In fact, I think it may be yet another qualification of genius.
But what I said has been 100% true. Every man and woman I have corresponded with who has taken a vituperative position against homeopathy has been an Atheist, bar none, and all have been poseurs of science.
As may have been inferred by my post, like cures like in the realm of debate. With the kind of knowledge you possess about homeopathy, and being an Atheist, you would have no trouble at all hammering the anti-homeopathy crowd into flapjacks. After you got through with them they might even confess Christ, or Hahnemann . . one doesn't have to believe in God to follow either, although it might help.
All Hail Joe!
your humble student,
John
In a message dated 11/12/2014 1:21:11 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

John wrote :
You see, this is where we take a wrong turn. We are criticised by a prejudiced person who believes they hold the truth- and then we respond with prejudice and a belief that we know the facts. Without any knowledge we have branded them lyc.
So I apologise to any lyc's out there who believe in homeopathy and are not sceptics.

This is the danger of personality types. Some basic traits might be correct but then our "superior intelligence" kicks in and we paint a whole portrait of their flaws. Usually born out of our prejudice and our pathology, and John, not only sulphur can do this, so can lyc. and numerous other remedies.

Regards,
Paul
Sent from Samsung Mobile

I don't call expressing your opinion and presenting facts as confronting a bully. These skeptopathic bullies are NOT unique to homeopathy confrontations, and I have had plenty of experience with them expressing my opinions, ideas and facts with alternative healing in general, with cold fusion, and with other subjects, given that I seem drawn to edgy and fringe studies. It is good to present the truth. But if you think that getting into an argument with them is going to accomplish anything of value, you are mistaken. The only thing that it will accomplish is that you may become upset and have trouble sleeping, going over and over in your mind what you wish that you had said, being resentful, angry, etc.

But our day is coming, very soon. Very, very soon, we will have undeniable PROOF, clear and distinct, that they have been seriously wrong about an incredibly important fringe topic, and this will make them think twice, hopefully. And it will give us ammunition against these skeptopathic jerks, "Hey, you were wrong about cold fusion, so why should we listen to you about homeopathy?"

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:08:48 -0500
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Tackling a Challenger
Well! Quite on the contrary to what the uninformed are saying, you should never back down from a homeo-bully or someone who is expressing an opinion about homeopathy out of ignorance, fear or malice.
First of all, anyone who attacks homeopathy by shooting off his mouth about it is an Atheist, and I don't mean that in an illusory or metaphorical way. It's an odd fact, which illustrates a real diathesis. The fear of homeopathy comes from a fear of non material forces. You will find, I suspect, if you could get a few of them on the couch, that they are all Lycopodiums. They are followers, not leaders, in the gneral sense. That is they may appear as leaders, but in reality they are following prescribed notions. They find strength in numbers and in credentials, and so you can win an argument by hitting them with the same, information that shows homeopathy is growing worldwide and is supported by medical professionals, political leaders and Nobel laureates. Establish your narrative and stick to it. You can win an argument by simply responding to their assertions with links to scientific studies that contradict them. Not hat they'er oginto admit defat, but I've seen a growing number of them slink off whwen confronted with clinical and in vitro.
The key to arguing homeopathy is understanding the central delusion that its opponents have about it and demolishing it with the in vtiro tests; once its demonstrated that homeopahtic materials have demonstrable action in vitro . . "in the glass", test tubes and the petri dish, its apoptosis to the central theme of anti homeopathy arguments, as the central theme that the case against homeopathy hinges on is that the materials are inert, which they demonstrably are not, as can be seen by biochemical testing.
If you understand what homeopathy really is, and you have some knowledge of the key literature, you cannot lose an argument.
In a message dated 11/11/2014 9:47:26 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

Big plus for that one, Fran

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 09:19:29 +1100
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Tackling a Challenger

Perhaps it could be looked at in reverse.

I have never met a spiritual or Christian psuedo-skeptic - those skeptics who make it their business to attack homeopathy.

Fran.

Dear Dr. Rozencwajg,

I doubt it. You may claim to be an atheist, but until you deny the reality of your own being, you continue to testify to your belief in Infinite Consciousness.

I appreciate your clarity of thought.

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:20:44 +1300
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Tackling a Challenger
I am an Atheist!

What has that to do with homeopathy????????????

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

Hold on a second Tanya et al. I'm just telling you what I've noticed in the 15 years of presenting the case for homeopathy, and I'll say it again, but this time more distinctly. It's not an opinion, it's an observation that I found puzzling . . at first . . that every one of the most ardent skeptics has been a POSITIVE Atheist; that is that a positive Atheist cannot be a true skeptic, but every one of them claims to be. It's really a contradiction in terms. A positive Atheist claims to know there's no God . . I might be able to squeeze into that box, but it would take contortions I don't think I'd care to make anymore, whereas I find the position of a negative Atheist, i.e. an Agnostic, much more relaxed, as like most Arsenicums I fear I have lost my ticket to the altar of Christ by sinning away my Day of Grace, andso I've made my religion homeopathy.
I believe Christianity is a creed almost impossible to follow by the average human, but admirable in trying . . I believe the miracles really happened, except maybe for the virgin birth, although parthenogenesis is not totally unknown to atheist science, just as are other invisible, transformative forces are not unknown to it either.
Perhaps what Atheists really are objecting to is mystagogeury and mummery . . though I think its mostly a projection of their own if they are. They revile what they see as other people's dirt without noticing their own.They localize a global reality and throw the baby out with the bath . . in your face . . there's really nothing theological in Christianity's Doctrine of Amazement . . it's a humanistic script that seems to automatically invoke thaumaturgy when applied, a script I'd think, even if devoid of its paranormal rewards, any humanist, atheist or not, would greatly admire . .
This leaves us with an unparalleled doctrine of cure for atheist or spiritualist alike . . Homeopathy.
John Benneth, Spiritual Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)
In a message dated 11/12/2014 9:29:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

I am having a problem with what you write here John.

First—language. Let’s clear this up. What do you mean by mummery and thaumaturgy?

Second, I have an issue with your painting all atheists with the same brush stroke. I would say that
some of these denialists are atheists, but all atheists are not denialists. It is the same with people like
J. Randi—some a..holes may be gay; that doesn’t make all gay people such.

I can grant you that when you have people living at the extreme, the converse of their beliefs can just
as easily be compared. Such is the balance in all of us.

As for Christianity—it is well known to have lifted many practices of all those it besieged and conquered.
Doing such was one of the strategies and tactics to woo people into the Christian fold more passively.
The other choice was brutal, anything from extreme ostracism to death. Let’s never forget the Inquisition.

I will agree that Homeopathy does have the power to create more healthy balance in people which is what
we try to do.

t