Spiritualism as a Religion.

Originally Posted by glenos

Dawn. In post 21 you said that you were "seriously ignorant". You haven't said anything to change my view of that.

And I haven't changed my mind about it either.

Let's assume that there is something in spiritualism and the 'other side' communication.

Why are we satisfied with the small fry who comes through and communicates? Why not talk to some big guns, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Socrates, Plato, Karl Marx, Tolstoy, Maslow, Jung, etc. people who were, or were considered by many, to be experts in their fields?

Why channel an angel or archangel when there is any number of past human spiritual people, saints, popes, lamas, zen masters, etc. which should be able to give us some good insights, considering that they were here and now are there?

[Left Behind]

Because Spiritualistic mediumship doesn't work that way.

The medium doesn't "call up" spirits, who are thereby obliged to communicate.

The medium can only act as just that - a "medium", as in "media": a point of contact and message transit for those spirits who want to reach the medium, with a message for the medium, or for someone else.

Jim

I'm afraid with spirit,it's who they can bring through,not who we would like.
Pity really.

Dawn, as I read your post or rather just as I was reading it I saw this.. You were walking on what looked like a desert but more grainier and with what looked like little red sparkly bits with a few blacky-browny granuals mixed in. Very grainy and kinda dusty but large dusties if you will. You were quite a way into the distance. It didn't feel arrid.

G

"Let's assume that there is something in spiritualism and the 'other side' communication."


Somewhere it was mentioned that Spiritualism is about talking to the dead. As a Spiritualist who spends way too much of his time trying to explain 'stuff' I'm realising how inadequate the message of Spiritualism is at face value, but also how it reaches those who need it rather than those who have no need and little real interest.

Spiritualism isn't about speaking to the dead but that's the impression many people have. I have no data to substantiate what I'm now going to say, it's not a scientific evaluation and it's not what I usually do. I'm going to stick my neck out and say that most of those who approach Spiritualism in a serious way have been bereaved.

They come, often in distress, seeking reassurance that relatives or friends are not gone forever. It's they who have the best chance of understanding. The rest, for whom Spiritualism is just something to mock, or about which they feign interest, are much less likely to get anywhere.

Let me tell you what cynics/skeptics often say. "Oh they just want to believe - they're vulnerable and will grasp at any straw." But someone with experience and understanding can say. "Bereavement is often the only time when folk are reflective enough, open enough, for the message of survival to be deeply, seriously considered."

Take your choice - which camp are you in?

'channeling' is term found more in the usa than in the uk
spiritualists do not 'channel' although a few a 'trance mediums' which is a seriously difficult aspect of mediumship to enter into and 'be good at'

re why spiirtualists do not speak to jesus, et al
demonstrations of mediumship are evidential in nature - with specific information not known to the medium about the spirit communicator which can be verified by the recipient . demonstrations of mediumship are uplifting and provide evidence that the spirit is 'alive' and still with the recipeint
what evidence supposedly 'channelled' through by jesus can be verified?

Originally Posted by pre-dawn

Let's assume that there is something in spiritualism and the 'other side' communication.

Why are we satisfied with the small fry who comes through and communicates? Why not talk to some big guns, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Socrates, Plato, Karl Marx, Tolstoy, Maslow, Jung, etc. people who were, or were considered by many, to be experts in their fields?

Why channel an angel or archangel when there is any number of past human spiritual people, saints, popes, lamas, zen masters, etc. which should be able to give us some good insights, considering that they were here and now are there?

Might be small fry to you but it might be my parents or my grandson who passed at the 35 years......they're not small fry to me.

"'channeling' is term found more in the usa than in the uk..."

This is the Spiritualism forum. Channelling isn't found in Modern Spiritualism but may be in the Spiritualism of the USA.

Channelling is often more the field of the so-called New Age movement where it may be attributed a high importance. Channelling sometimes appears to be personal communication between incarnate and ill-defined discarnate(s), a 'mentoring' of the incarnate. That's uncommon in Spiritualism.

Sometimes so-called channelling can have similarities to mediumship but mostly it doesn't appear similar to evidential mediumship.

Never knew that,Mac. Always thought a channeller meant the same as a medium.