Is spiritualism all that it is made out to be?

Originally Posted by Left Behind

Spirit must be doing me good, Mac: that's the first time in a long while that I've been accused of optimism!

Jim

On a serious note, Jim, I have seen a change in what you say online. If not exactly optimistic, perhaps a little less pessimistic.... And you've gained a broader perspective on a number of issues from what I glean from what you say.

I think that's a good outcome - I hope so.

Originally Posted by Left Behind

You're like the Laurel and Hardy movie, Mac: the guy joined the Foreign Legion to forget: and he forgot what it was he came there to forget!

Which means that he succeeded, in my opinion.

Jim

Yes a little levity comes into my act from time to time....

Originally Posted by glenos

Not negative J. Absolutely positive.


G

What?
Do tell me please,G.
Give me a hint at least.

J'nie, it's not any one thing. lol

After digging about, asking the right people, I'm getting to hear of physical mediumship (as we would call it) that is 'immense'. People are knocking on the door, starting to tap into power that is being built, not in the higher realms, but more 'earthly' so to speak, more accessable I should say. As all things are from spirit, it all seems to line up, a perfect natural progression, as easy as breathing, linked together, flowing, making perfect sense. Spirit didn't finish their work when SB, WE, Z, and the gang stopped communicating. The work goes on. People want instant gratification, instant information, proof(!) bang, bang, bang. They will get it and in a way that satisfies. Spirit is all. They will not let us down. Impossible.

You can bet the farm on it but we must have patience.


G

Originally Posted by glenos

J'nie, it's not any one thing. lol

After digging about, asking the right people, I'm getting to hear of physical mediumship (as we would call it) that is 'immense'. People are knocking on the door, starting to tap into power that is being built, not in the higher realms, but more 'earthly' so to speak, more accessable I should say. As all things are from spirit, it all seems to line up, a perfect natural progression, as easy as breathing, linked together, flowing, making perfect sense. Spirit didn't finish their work when SB, WE, Z, and the gang stopped communicating. The work goes on. People want instant gratification, instant information, proof(!) bang, bang, bang. They will get it and in a way that satisfies. Spirit is all. They will not let us down. Impossible.

You can bet the farm on it but we must have patience.


G

I like that,G.
Now you have brought the subject up,a while back I was 'receiving' more than I ever have had.
The message I received was 'I will be back' still waiting but have faith in those words.
I get the feeling you are talking about 'under cover' here.
The feeling is mutual.

Originally Posted by mac

The truth as you believe it to be, your 'personal truth'.... It's not a universal one, the only real test of truth.

You have avoided using the term 'Spiritualism' (capital S to denote the religion and philosophy of Modern Spiritualism) for your personal prejudices but in a forum set up for its discussion, and in a thread entitled "Is Spiritualism all it's made out to be" that's somewhat incongruous....

You say spirituality, the experience, is what's important etc. but what you're really saying is that it's what's important to you personally. Again it's not a universal truth, the only truth, it's simply your values you're espousing and they're not Spiritualism.

Despite your belief, Spiritualism (not flexibly defined spirituality) does haves a firm structure although I wouldn't call it a "universal framework". It's a very simple structure fundamentally although it can readily be expanded, should one wish, to gain a deeper, broader understanding of what life - and death - is about.

And in doing that it's not down to having any 'personal truth' because it applies to all and anyone - the acid test, the universality, of 'truth'.

:sigh: I really don't want to derail this thread. I am not a Spiritualist, though I do think that the philosophy has some important ideas in it. I merely saw something in the OP that I resonated with; that serious seekers are outnumbered by the "shiny bauble" crowd by a depressingly large margin. I think this is the case in all things, actually. 80% of people are asleep, 18% of people are self-righteous in their points of view, and only about 2% are really willing to play with life. So I don't think it's necessary for me to agree with your beliefs to note this, nor is this necessary for me to post here. Last time I checked, it was a free country.

That being said, I will reply briefly to your comments. Personally, I think there is only one universal truth; All Is One, appearing separate. The appearances are not false, BTW, they are merely a point of view, and a fabulously important one. It is these points of view that create all the other truths that people cling to, which are all as important and "universal" as we choose for them to be.

Take Spiritualism for an example. Spiritualism depends greatly upon channeled communications from "higher" spiritual beings, and structures it's morality around the idea of spiritual evolution. These ideas, IMHO, are not wrong, but they do depend upon the points of view created by the appearances of separateness. For evolution to happen, it is necessary to separate the Eternal Now into past, present and future, since one cannot progress without linear Time. For communication from evolved beings to occur, we need both the idea of a distinct soul continuing past physical incarnation and the assumption that these other beings are exactly that; other than us.

So what's the point of all my hair-splitting? Well, you say above...

You say spirituality, the experience, is what's important etc. but what you're really saying is that it's what's important to you personally. Again it's not a universal truth, the only truth, it's simply your values you're espousing and they're not Spiritualism.

...and that's not quite right. What I am saying instead is that -Isms of all kinds begin as the frameworks we create around our experiences. The frameworks we assume are true then become the filters through which we view our experiences, which then reinforce the frameworks, which filter the experiences, and so on until we stop understanding that they are frameworks we have created and start calling them Truth. We then teach them to others as Truth, which cuts out half the filtration work for them, and then we have Dogma. We then have -Isms.

So when you say that Truth is more important than experience, I have to strongly disagree. Experience creates Truth, and Truth is merely a crutch we use when we are (to be cruelly honest) too lazy to look at our bald experiences. And yes, I am as guilty of this laziness as anyone.

CS

PS, this is brief, by my standards. Ask Psychoslice, he knows.

[Left Behind]

Originally Posted by mac

On a serious note, Jim, I have seen a change in what you say online. If not exactly optimistic, perhaps a little less pessimistic.... And you've gained a broader perspective on a number of issues from what I glean from what you say.

I think that's a good outcome - I hope so.

I hope you're right, Mac.

Being laid up for 6+ weeks might have had something to do with it, ironically: I've always been the sort of person who goes through live with a list of things that he has to do because the world somehow depends on me doing them and doing them right. . . only to realize that the world lumbers on in its own way, regardless.

Maybe I'm just less "controlling".

Jim

CuriousSnowflake

sigh: I really don't want to derail this thread. You won't but you did raise issues which needed (as I saw then) dome clarification.... I am not a Spiritualist, though I do think that the philosophy has some important ideas in it. I should hope so! I merely saw something in the OP that I resonated with; that serious seekers are outnumbered by the "shiny bauble" crowd by a depressingly large margin. I think this is the case in all things, actually. 80% of people are asleep, 18% of people are self-righteous in their points of view, and only about 2% are really willing to play with life. So I don't think it's necessary for me to agree with your beliefs to note this, nor is this necessary for me to post here. Last time I checked, it was a free country. Well we see things differently - you're not a Spiritualist - I am. You don't know much about Modern Spiritualism - I do. I don't post in threads where I don't have knowledge....

That being said, I will reply briefly to your comments. Personally, I think there is only one universal truth; All Is One, appearing separate. The appearances are not false, BTW, they are merely a point of view, and a fabulously important one. It is these points of view that create all the other truths that people cling to, which are all as important and "universal" as we choose for them to be. That's meaningless - there is no such thing as a personal truth, or point of view that is as universal as we choose. None of that makes any sense....

Take Spiritualism for an example. Spiritualism depends greatly upon channeled communications from "higher" spiritual beings, and structures it's morality around the idea of spiritual evolution. absolute nonsense - now you're demonstrating what I've just said - you don't know about Spiritualism....These ideas, IMHO, are not wrong, but they do depend upon the points of view created by the appearances of separateness. For evolution to happen, it is necessary to separate the Eternal Now into past, present and future, since one cannot progress without linear Time. For communication from evolved beings to occur, we need both the idea of a distinct soul continuing past physical incarnation and the assumption that these other beings are exactly that; other than us. nonsense again

So what's the point of all my hair-splitting? Well, you say above...You're not splitting hairs - you're speaking about something else about which I have no understanding....

...and that's not quite right. What I am saying instead is that -Isms of all kinds begin as the frameworks we create around our experiences. The frameworks we assume are true then become the filters through which we view our experiences, which then reinforce the frameworks, which filter the experiences, and so on until we stop understanding that they are frameworks we have created and start calling them Truth. We then teach them to others as Truth, which cuts out half the filtration work for them, and then we have Dogma. We then have -Isms.

So when you say that Truth is more important than experience, I have to strongly disagree. Experience creates Truth, and Truth is merely a crutch we use when we are (to be cruelly honest) too lazy to look at our bald experiences. what...????? And yes, I am as guilty of this laziness as anyone.

CS

PS, this is brief, by my standards. I'm not concerned about how brief you've been - you can be as detailed as you like and I'll answer seriatim...Ask Psychoslice, he knows. Me and my buddy psycho know one another. No need for me to ask anything....

Him and me both know he knows little about Spiritualism....And I'm talking about Spiritualism, religion and philosophy, not spirituality to do with issue of being spiritual.....

You - and all others - can, and will, post whatever you wish in whatever forums you wish. It's your entitlement which I totally respect. But this forum is about Spiritualism and those who know about Spiritualism will see why you don't know. The rest may not see but perhaps won't care.

Mac-

1) I'd appreciate it if you dropped the condescending attitude. All of my replies to you have been perfectly cordial, and should hope you'd show me the same courtesy. Calling something "nonsense" not only discourages discussion (the point of a forum, after all) but indicates a closed mind. Never a good thing.

2) After your previous reply, I Wiki-ed "modern Spiritualism" to see if I was missing something. My replies were in the context of the info I found there. If my replies were incorrect compared to your beliefs, I apologize, but you can hardly hold it against me if you use words outside of their given definition, based upon the world's most complete encyclopedia. So please, (and I am being completely sincere here) tell me how you define "modern Spiritualism", and how that differs from the way Wiki does.

3) Since you seem to think they exist, give me an example of what you believe to be a universal truth. Other than All Is One, I cannot think of a single one. Everything else is trends, dogmas, and assumptions based upon limited data.

I await your replies with interest.

CS

CuriousSnowflake


1) I'd appreciate it if you dropped the condescending attitude. All of my replies to you have been perfectly cordial, and should hope you'd show me the same courtesy. Calling something "nonsense" not only discourages discussion (the point of a forum, after all) but indicates a closed mind. Never a good thing. I'm sorry that you're upset but what I wrote I meant. I was speaking purely in the context of what had you'd contributed. How does it discourage discussion - had someone said I'd written nonsense I'd ask why and on what basis. As for a closed mind I'll do that very thing - why does it indicate a closed mind? On other issues I wrote in more detail referencing each of my contributions to the text concerned..... It's not condescending to disagree but I would expect others to explain why they feel I'm wrong.

2) After your previous reply, I Wiki-ed "modern Spiritualism" to see if I was missing something. My replies were in the context of the info I found there. If my replies were incorrect compared to your beliefs, I apologize, but you can hardly hold it against me if you use words outside of their given definition, based upon the world's most complete encyclopedia. So please, (and I am being completely sincere here) tell me how you define "modern Spiritualism", and how that differs from the way Wiki does.If you're quoting other sources you should say so. I hold nothing against you and if what you write isn't in line with what's taught in Spiritualism I'll say so. I don't hold beliefs and nothing will upset me except for personal character attacks. Anyone can challenge anything I say and it's what I expect.... Your view of Wikipedia, incidentally, isn't shared by all - Wiki reflects the views of individuals and isn't moderated in the way other encyclopedias are. I know about Spiritualism and don't have to Wiki or Google for information - sorry if that sound elitist but I only write about what I know and understand unless I'm asking questions...I don't write about other subjects where my understanding isn't relevant, hence you won't find me often in many other 'spiritually-based' forums.

3) Since you seem to think they exist, give me an example of what you believe to be a universal truth. Other than All Is One, I cannot think of a single one. Everything else is trends, dogmas, and assumptions based upon limited data. One universal truth? How about cause-and-effect? No effect without there being its cause.....

Truth has to be universal, has to apply in all situations, for anyone. You can have personal belief, you can have individual understanding of all or any matters but there's no such thing as personal truth. The truth is the truth is the truth - it's immutable. One may have one's own grasp of it, an incomplete grasp of it (in just about all cases I'd guess) and both of them will be part of 'the truth'. Or one can have an altogether distorted, inaccurate, personal grasp which one believes to be the truth....

If that's what folk mean as 'their truth' then so be it on that definition. I'll say only that it doesn''t work for me.....

I await your replies with interest. I hope I've answered your points?