“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Now: for all of its seeming sophistication, the self as generally seen by science is only science’s interpretation of the Sinful Self in mechanistic terms.

(Long pause.) Both religion and science see the self as primarily heir to flaws, decay. Only science’s Sinful Self operates in a framework in which there is no sacramental redemption. Science sees the world as rushing toward its own dissolution, and the self as the mechanistic system running down from the moment of its conception.

The barriers become unnecessary when you realize that the self is not sinful. I use the word “sinful” in Ruburt’s case because of the early church connections in particular. Science’s flawed self still carries the same import, however, the idea being that while science does not deal with values, so its says, it misleads itself considerably in making such statements, for it projects the worst kind of values both upon mankind and the rest of nature—so even if you are not tainted from religion’s old beliefs, it is difficult to escape such ideas.

The natural person can be evoked, and its responses elicited, particularly through touching and through statements of love and affection. The Sinful Self feels it does not deserve such attention. Love is therefore surrounded very carefully by all kinds of barriers by both science and religion, and in your own lives you could now be much more demonstrative in those regards. For they offer a natural therapy.