Comments on: Prosperity Book Review: The Science of Getting Rich, by Wallace D. Wattles http://www.geniyyah.com/2007/02/10/prosperity-book-review-the-science-of-getting-rich-by-wallace-d-wattles/ Divination, Energy Exercises, Manifesting, Visions Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:55:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Nathan http://www.geniyyah.com/2007/02/10/prosperity-book-review-the-science-of-getting-rich-by-wallace-d-wattles/comment-page-1/#comment-97 Nathan Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:05:32 +0000 http://www.geniyyah.com/2007/02/10/prosperity-book-review-the-science-of-getting-rich-by-wallace-d-wattles/#comment-97 I think this is a very straight forward book that far surpasses many of the gobbledigook that is out there today, like The Secret. I appreciate that Waddle accomplished three very important things that are needed when trying to sucessfully acheive any endeavor. One, repetition. Repetition is the key to success. No matter what may seemingly hamper or deny you your particular quest, you must try again and again, until you achieve it. It will not "magically" appear just because you think you want it as suggested in The Secret. Another impressive quality I found was his repetitive impression to the idea of focus. Nothing should deter your focus, no matter how bad a situation may seem. That it is your responsibility to remain focused to the end result. How many people do you know today that have that ability? And finally, for a book that was written in the early 1900, to suggest God to be a loving ever expanding entity was remarkable. That He/She/It is willing to offer this ever expanding energy to anyone who wishes to grow, and that to do otherwise is against the nature of God and the natural order of creation was pretty profound for the times considering most people were preaching hellfire and damnation. I think this is a very straight forward book that far surpasses many of the gobbledigook that is out there today, like The Secret. I appreciate that Waddle accomplished three very important things that are needed when trying to sucessfully acheive any endeavor. One, repetition. Repetition is the key to success. No matter what may seemingly hamper or deny you your particular quest, you must try again and again, until you achieve it. It will not “magically” appear just because you think you want it as suggested in The Secret. Another impressive quality I found was his repetitive impression to the idea of focus. Nothing should deter your focus, no matter how bad a situation may seem. That it is your responsibility to remain focused to the end result. How many people do you know today that have that ability? And finally, for a book that was written in the early 1900, to suggest God to be a loving ever expanding entity was remarkable. That He/She/It is willing to offer this ever expanding energy to anyone who wishes to grow, and that to do otherwise is against the nature of God and the natural order of creation was pretty profound for the times considering most people were preaching hellfire and damnation.

]]> By: Geniyyah http://www.geniyyah.com/2007/02/10/prosperity-book-review-the-science-of-getting-rich-by-wallace-d-wattles/comment-page-1/#comment-91 Geniyyah Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:36:58 +0000 http://www.geniyyah.com/2007/02/10/prosperity-book-review-the-science-of-getting-rich-by-wallace-d-wattles/#comment-91 What gets into print has become a lot more competitive than during Wattles' time, and the rules for good writing are more strict. But this is a period piece, not expected to live up to the standards of our time. I think for this reason many readers have forgiven some of its literary shortcomings. I also do not recall it being too heavily invested in Christian or Biblical references. I am not a Christian and would have found that to be oppressive. What gets into print has become a lot more competitive than during Wattles’ time, and the rules for good writing are more strict. But this is a period piece, not expected to live up to the standards of our time. I think for this reason many readers have forgiven some of its literary shortcomings. I also do not recall it being too heavily invested in Christian or Biblical references. I am not a Christian and would have found that to be oppressive.

]]> By: Steve http://www.geniyyah.com/2007/02/10/prosperity-book-review-the-science-of-getting-rich-by-wallace-d-wattles/comment-page-1/#comment-90 Steve Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:48:26 +0000 http://www.geniyyah.com/2007/02/10/prosperity-book-review-the-science-of-getting-rich-by-wallace-d-wattles/#comment-90 Unfortunately, this book is nothing else but a panreligious book with a massive selection of circular arguments in business jargon. Since I don't use profanities, let me just say that I buried it in my garden next to my potatoes in the hope that they will grow better. A generalized example of these circular arguments: if you want a red car you should never get a green car, because a green car can never be a red car. Only if the car you select is red, will it be a red car, because then you will not have selected a green car. Some people may believe that a green car can be a red car, but you cannot have a red car if it is green. The green in the car will always be green and not red. Evolution has shown that a fox is red, not green, proving beyond all doubt that what you must select is the red car... and so on, ad infinitum. Science NEVER relies on belief alone, yet that is what this book asks you to do, with lots of references to "the original stuff, the thinking formless substance"=god, and a lot of bible quotes. Sorry, but I can't recommend this book to anyone, except as an example of how to write selfevident gobbledigook. I will shorten the whole contents of the book into one short line: do what you can do, as well as you can do it, with the resources you have. Unfortunately, this book is nothing else but a panreligious book with a massive selection of circular arguments in business jargon. Since I don’t use profanities, let me just say that I buried it in my garden next to my potatoes in the hope that they will grow better.
A generalized example of these circular arguments: if you want a red car you should never get a green car, because a green car can never be a red car. Only if the car you select is red, will it be a red car, because then you will not have selected a green car. Some people may believe that a green car can be a red car, but you cannot have a red car if it is green. The green in the car will always be green and not red. Evolution has shown that a fox is red, not green, proving beyond all doubt that what you must select is the red car… and so on, ad infinitum.

Science NEVER relies on belief alone, yet that is what this book asks you to do, with lots of references to “the original stuff, the thinking formless substance”=god, and a lot of bible quotes.
Sorry, but I can’t recommend this book to anyone, except as an example of how to write selfevident gobbledigook.

I will shorten the whole contents of the book into one short line: do what you can do, as well as you can do it, with the resources you have.

]]>