Modern Spiritualism - now usually just called ‘Spiritualism’ - is a legally constituted religion in the United Kingdom, one which does not expect faith or belief from those who follow its teaching. These require an unquestioning acceptance of something which can not be demonstrated or for which there is no evidence. Neither are necessary in Spiritualism.
Enquirers find evidence of all it teaches. After a time, this evidence can become personal proof; proof of the survival of humankind beyond death. Sometimes, through mediumship, those who have passed on return to show their continued love and concern for friends and relatives still in this world.
A medium is someone able to hear or see those individuals who have died. Messages for loved ones may be passed on by the medium in either direction. Mediums can only communicate with individuals who choose to come – they can not be summoned.
There is nothing spooky in this because those who have passed on are not spooks. Although these individuals are often called ‘spirits’, more correctly they are people in spirit form. They are as real as you and me, still look human and retain their characters and characteristics which are recognised when they communicate with us.
They are still the people we knew although they are no longer restricted by their old, physical bodies. But they do still have bodies which are as solid and real to them as ours are to us. They live in a world which also is as real and solid to them as our world is to us. They become healthy, appear younger, and pain and suffering no longer occur.
When people die, they do not change into angels or saints - how they were in this world is how they will be immediately after passing. There are no such things as evil spirits, only the spirits of persons seen as evil when alive in this world.
An individual is made up of physical and spiritual forms, the spirit controlling and evolving alongside the physical body. When death occurs, it results in the separation of the physical and spiritual parts. The body decays but the spirit form lives on undamaged. Earth life is often said to be a vital element in our spiritual evolvement yet others say that it has not been experienced by all spirits. More than one physical existence may be chosen but it is not vital - spiritual progress may be made elsewhere.
After we pass on, our first step will be into a world not too dissimilar, in form or appearance, to that of our own. We will not become wholly different persons and if we choose to communicate with those left behind, we will still be able to project the familiar things about ourselves which can be remembered and recognised by loved ones. It is often the simple and trivial details that bring realisation and comfort to the bereaved.
Life in the more spiritually advanced worlds has a pleasure and beauty we can scarcely imagine yet all will move towards, into and beyond these places in time. We can only guess at what more we may learn about this world and the myriad worlds elsewhere. We are definitely not ‘the only ones’.
Many refuse to consider arguments for the existence of spiritual life and intercommunication despite what is experienced and reported. They may say such things are supernatural and avoid aspects which are challenging and inconvenient. They can, however, offer no alternative, credible, scientific explanations.
Eternal progress is open to all, this progress being solely dependent on the power of the will and the desire to move forward. Even the worst are progressing, albeit slowly. This may be particularly hard to accept and understand but is, nonetheless, a fact. It can not be prevented although progress can take a long time.
Spirit people who return to communicate through mediums are attracted to those they love or to like-minded individuals. They may try to help, warn, protect or influence them. But they do not become all knowing on passing and their judgement may be as unreliable as that of anyone else. Any advice or opinion should be carefully considered and evaluated before acting upon it.
Spiritualism substitutes real, practical knowledge for vague and unsatisfying belief; knowledge on a matter of vital importance to all humankind, although those thought of as the wisest and most advanced thinkers have declared that no such level of knowledge was attainable.
Spiritualism demonstrates that the so-called dead are still alive; that mind, intelligence and emotion continue after the death of our physical bodies. It provides the proof of a future life, craved by so many and for want of which they may live and die in anxious doubt or positive disbelief...
Spiritualism substitutes real, practical knowledge for vague and unsatisfying belief; knowledge on a matter of vital importance to all humankind, although those thought of as the wisest and most advanced thinkers have declared that no such level of knowledge was attainable.
Those wishing to follow an examination of this statement may wish to got to post 62 on the "psychics, mediums and sensitives" thread in the Spirituality section:
Norbu
Hi Mac,
Where is this text from, did you write it or was it copied from somewhere?
There seems to be some slight contradictions from how I read it, and it also seems to confuse those leading a spiritual life with spiritualism. Not all those leading spiritual lives are into spiritualism.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
Hi Mac,
Where is this text from, did you write it or was it copied from somewhere?
There seems to be some slight contradictions from how I read it, and it also seems to confuse those leading a spiritual life with spiritualism. Not all those leading spiritual lives are into spiritualism.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
"Not all those leading spiritual lives are into spiritualism." Did anyone suggest otherwise?
I'm happy to try to address any contradictions you may feel to be present in this piece about Spiritualism.
This is the Spiritualism forum, of course.....;)
Those wishing to follow an examination of this statement may wish to got to post 62 on the "psychics, mediums and sensitives" thread in the Spirituality section:
Norbu
Following this link will not find an examination of the statement mentioned - the link is to the psychic, sensitives and mediums forum - that's not about Spiritualism.
The section above is posted in the 'Spiritualism' forum because it is about Spiritualism.
Following this link will not find an examination of the statement mentioned - the link is to the psychic, sensitives and mediums forum - that's not about Spiritualism.
The section above is posted in the 'Spiritualism' forum because it is about Spiritualism.
Dear Mac,
This is from your introductory post in the "psychics, sensitives and mediums" thread in the Spirituality section:
comments welcomed...
Other mediums, such as are found in Modern Spiritualism, act as ‘go-betweens’. They act both for their ‘sitters’ and those in the unseen world wishing to connect with them. Such an evidential medium may pass on messages from one to the other. She/he will often use methods such as clairvoyance (seeing, describing) and clairaudience (hearing) to acquire evidence of identification and to learn personal details which authenticate the source of a message.
You're jumping between forums here - this is the 'psychics, sensitives and mediums' thread. You've mixed aspects of Spiritualism into this discussion....
Please do tell me what aspect of Spiritualism is not relevant in the discussion in the "psychics, mediums and sensitives" thread?
Do you mean, then, that I don't get a say in the matter, that I'm not allowed to use my judgement?
Of course you can use your judgment. I think you are probably very wise to avoid answering my questions because I suspect you would not be able to present a cogent argument at all. You appear to be avoiding exposing your beliefs to critical and rational examination because you know they would not stand up in the face of it.
Do please prove me wrong!
Norbu
"Not all those leading spiritual lives are into spiritualism." Did anyone suggest otherwise?
Not directly, but the text is about spiritualism and then says:
Many refuse to consider arguments for the existence of spiritual life and intercommunication despite what is experienced and reported
... which implies that spiritualism is about leading a spritual life. Hence the point I was making.
I'm happy to try to address any contradictions you may feel to be present in this piece about Spiritualism.
This is the Spiritualism forum, of course.....;)
I know it's a spiritualism forum, that doesn't mean that the text should have apparent contradictions. I haven't time at the moment to detail what I considered when reading the text, and it may just be my own interpretation because of how I read it. If I find time later I'll return and respond to that point.
Also, just to clarify (as I already asked) is that text an "official" definition from somewhere else or is it your own take on things?
All Love and Reiki Hugs
"Not directly, but the text is about spiritualism and then says.." Not directly? Indeed not - not indirectly either! That's the reason the piece was posted here under the Spiritualism title and not 'Spirituality' or whatever....
Did the text say "..a spiritual life"? No it said "spiritual life", that is to say, 'life in spirit' ie discarnate. Actually the piece says: "Many refuse to consider arguments for the existence of spiritual life and intercommunication." If you add your own text to 'spiritual life' - the indefinite article in this case - and then ignore its association with 'intercommunication' one word later, the original meaning loses definition. I feel sure you didn't intend to cause that...
"I know it's a spiritualism forum, that doesn't mean that the text should have apparent contradictions. I haven't time at the moment to detail what I considered when reading the text, and it may just be my own interpretation because of how I read it. If I find time later I'll return and respond to that point." You're bang on right that there is no excuse for contradictions and I will be grateful if you could make time to point them out for me. I'll then be able to make corrections...
And to answer your last two questions, 'no' and 'no'.
"Not directly, but the text is about spiritualism and then says.." Not directly? Indeed not - not indirectly either! That's the reason the piece was posted here under the Spiritualism title and not 'Spirituality' or whatever....
Did the text say "..a spiritual life"? No it said "spiritual life", that is to say, 'life in spirit' ie discarnate. Actually the piece says: "Many refuse to consider arguments for the existence of spiritual life and intercommunication."
Well, no offence intended :o, but perhaps if it were worded "... the existence of spirit life ..." rather than "... the existence of spritual life ..." then it would be more clear that it's referring to the realm of spirits themselves rather than a spiritual life, which is generally seen as what many people on the earthly plane seek to lead.
"I know it's a spiritualism forum, that doesn't mean that the text should have apparent contradictions. I haven't time at the moment to detail what I considered when reading the text, and it may just be my own interpretation because of how I read it. If I find time later I'll return and respond to that point." You're bang on right that there is no excuse for contradictions and I will be grateful if you could make time to point them out for me. I'll then be able to make corrections...
Still short on time, but the most obvious thing that stands out when the text is read is, for, example, where it says...
Spiritualism substitutes real, practical knowledge for vague and unsatisfying belief; knowledge on a matter of vital importance to all humankind, although those thought of as the wisest and most advanced thinkers have declared that no such level of knowledge was attainable.
Spiritualism demonstrates that the so-called dead are still alive; that mind, intelligence and emotion continue after the death of our physical bodies. It provides the proof of a future life, craved by so many and for want of which they may live and die in anxious doubt or positive disbelief...
It talks of spiritualism being a vague and unsatisfying and refers to the "so called" dead, yet then goes on to say it is providing a "proof".
As I said, perhaps it's the way it's worded and perhaps it's the way I'm reading it, but maybe that should read something like "It provides a personal level of proof for a future life..."
All Love and Reiki Hugs
Well, no offence intended :o, but perhaps if it were worded "... the existence of spirit life ..." rather than "... the existence of spritual life ..." then it would be more clear that it's referring to the realm of spirits themselves rather than a spiritual life, which is generally seen as what many people on the earthly plane seek to lead.
Still short on time, but the most obvious thing that stands out when the text is read is, for, example, where it says...
It talks of spiritualism being a vague and unsatisfying and refers to the "so called" dead, yet then goes on to say it is providing a "proof".
As I said, perhaps it's the way it's worded and perhaps it's the way I'm reading it, but maybe that should read something like "It provides a personal level of proof for a future life..."
All Love and Reiki Hugs
thank you Your points are noted.
Energylz
my responses in red
quote: "It talks of spiritualism being a vague and unsatisfying ......." Well if you look again, you'll find it doesn't - I've copied and pasted the original text (below) to help you.
"Spiritualism substitutes real, practical knowledge for vague and unsatisfying belief; knowledge on a matter of vital importance to all humankind....." Selectively quoting (misquoting?) sentences, phrases or clauses is not helpful. And taken out of context the overall flow of the text is spoiled.
quote: 'As I said, perhaps it's the way it's worded and perhaps it's the way I'm reading it, but maybe that should read something like "It provides a personal level of proof for a future life..."
I can agree that the above, underlined piece of text could be substituted for the original piece and might be an improvement.
But I do think that in your hurry to respond, you may not have read as carefully as you would normally.
I have made just such a mistake myself when hurrying....
Energylz
my responses in red
quote: "It talks of spiritualism being a vague and unsatisfying ......." Well if you look again, you'll find it doesn't - I've copied and pasted the original text (below) to help you.
"Spiritualism substitutes real, practical knowledge for vague and unsatisfying belief; knowledge on a matter of vital importance to all humankind....." Selectively quoting (misquoting?) sentences, phrases or clauses is not helpful. And taken out of context the overall flow of the text is spoiled.
I'm not misquoting or taking out of context as far as I can tell.
The original clearly says that real and practical knowledge is being substituted for vague and unsatisfying belief in order to be Spiritualism.
"Spiritualism substitutes X for Y" where X is "real, practical knowledge" and Y is "vague and unsatisfying belief".
Therefore it is saying that spritualism is vague and unsatisfying. I've read it several times and it doesn't seem to read any other way to me, no matter how hard I try and twist it to mean something more positive toward spiritualism. It just seems to say that spiritualism is not real and not from practical knowledge, which I can't believe to be a true statement.
I'm not actively for or against spiritualism; I'm just stating it as it reads. 😮
Your suggestion that I'm selectively misquoting things after you asked me to point out what I feel are contradictions, seems awfully judemental of you and is, I have to say, completely inaccurate. If you didn't want people to discuss the text you've posted then quite frankly, you shouldn't have posted it. This, after all, is a discussion forum.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
I'm not misquoting or taking out of context as far as I can tell.
The original clearly says that real and practical knowledge is being substituted for vague and unsatisfying belief in order to be Spiritualism.
"Spiritualism substitutes X for Y" where X is "real, practical knowledge" and Y is "vague and unsatisfying belief".
Therefore it is saying that spritualism is vague and unsatisfying. I've read it several times and it doesn't seem to read any other way to me, no matter how hard I try and twist it to mean something more positive toward spiritualism. It just seems to say that spiritualism is not real and not from practical knowledge, which I can't believe to be a true statement.
I'm not actively for or against spiritualism; I'm just stating it as it reads. 😮
Your suggestion that I'm selectively misquoting things after you asked me to point out what I feel are contradictions, seems awfully judemental of you and is, I have to say, completely inaccurate. If you didn't want people to discuss the text you've posted then quite frankly, you shouldn't have posted it. This, after all, is a discussion forum.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
I accept that you are finding your version logical. But maybe you could try this soccer analogy substituting the football terms for the ones you used... ?
The manager (Spiritualism) substitutes the fresh player (letter x - "real and practical knowledge") for the tired centre half (letter y - "vague and unsatisfying belief").
Using your own sentence wording then, but my example's terms, "Therefore it is saying that the manager is the tired centre half...." :confused:
Perhaps you're thinking of a mathematical equation where one term is indeed substituted for another as part of the process of reaching a solution - such a technique has no relevance to words though.
At the continued risk of sounding judgemental, focussing on these few lines out of a piece much longer, and taking the sentences out of context, does rather neglect the thrust of the whole piece. I don't know if you'll find this relevant, but it was published in a national newspaper, printed in brochure form and distributed via email etc. There were no reported negative responses, but plenty of positive ones....
As for misquoting, I did write a question mark after the word, intending for you to check if you had inadvertently done that - had I meant it as a criticism I would have expressed that directly. In posting #9 dated December 20, you did actually use wording different from the original, but that's not a criticism, just an observation.
I hope you will want to continue to discuss these points to help me decide what needs improvement in the piece. 🙂
I accept that you are finding your version logical. But maybe you could try this soccer analogy substituting the football terms for the ones you used... ?
The manager (Spiritualism) substitutes the fresh player (letter x - "real and practical knowledge") for the tired centre half (letter y - "vague and unsatisfying belief").
Using your own sentence wording then, but my example's terms, "Therefore it is saying that the manager is the tired centre half...." :confused:Perhaps you're thinking of a mathematical equation where one term is indeed substituted for another as part of the process of reaching a solution - such a technique has no relevance to words though.
I think I get what you're saying, and yes I do think in logical (mathematical if you like) terms. (plus I don't really do football :023:).
I even had to read your new example a few times as it seemed to say that the football manager was taking a fresh player off the pitch to replace him with a tired one.
In usual terminology, when one substitutes X for Y, it is X that is being taken away and replaced with Y. e.g. if I subsitute and apple for an orange, it is the apple that goes and the orange that replaces it.
The other way around, one would be "substituting X in place of Y" (and yes it really is down to terminology and word-smithing).
This is why the original text didn't seem to make sense as it was, to me at least, saying that spiritualism was taking something that was real and knowledgable and replacing it with something that was vague and based on beliefs.
So if the original text were to say either...
"Spiritualism substitutes vague and unsatisfying belief for real, practical knowledge"
or
"Spiritualism is substituting real, practical knowledge in place of vague and unsatisfying belief"
then that would have been a lot clearer.
I think you can see now why it was reading as contradiction. On the one hand it was reading as saying that spiritualism had removed something real and replaced it with something vague and then went on to say that it was "proof".
At the continued risk of sounding judgemental, focussing on these few lines out of a piece much longer, and taking the sentences out of context, does rather neglect the thrust of the whole piece.
I don't think focusing on the way individual sentances are worded is neglecting anything. A book author does not refuse to change the way a sentance or a paragraph is worded or the structure of an individual chapter just because it is part of a whole book. And if one of the parts appears to read in such a way as to negate another part whether that is within the same paragraph, chapter or book, then it does need looking at.
I don't know if you'll find this relevant, but it was published in a national newspaper, printed in brochure form and distributed via email etc. There were no reported negative responses, but plenty of positive ones....
People tend only to report negative things if there's something in it for themselves (sad fact of life unfortunately). If someone reads something and thinks it doesn't make sense or that it is contradicting itself and just proves their own belief that the topic is false, they are not necessarily that likely to feedback those views unless, like here, the words are placed in a mechanism that offers easy feedback.
As for misquoting, I did write a question mark after the word, intending for you to check if you had inadvertently done that - had I meant it as a criticism I would have expressed that directly. In posting #9 dated December 20, you did actually use wording different from the original, but that's not a criticism, just an observation.
I do understand the notation you were using, however the red text and defensiveness you were taking did come across as somewhat agressive, even though I'm well aware (after years on this forum) of how words can be misinterpreted without speaking face to face.
I admit I can make some inadvertent mistakes, especially if I'm tired, although I'm usually quite thorough and re-read what I've written as well as checking the points I'm making. I know I used different wording earlier, but that was for illustrative purposes rather than clarity. Obviously, subsequent responses meant that clarity was needed instead.
I hope you will want to continue to discuss these points to help me decide what needs improvement in the piece. 🙂
Always happy to read things and question things. That's what discussion is about.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
All of this make me feel and see, that, The apple is still attempting to explain the
apple-tree, or the painting explaining the artist. Can this be so?? Do we still think, the clay is in the potter? Is Man Cause or effect? If Cause, he created all. If effect, he can't explain anything.
Meta
I think I get what you're saying, and yes I do think in logical (mathematical if you like) terms. (plus I don't really do football :023:).
I even had to read your new example a few times as it seemed to say that the football manager was taking a fresh player off the pitch to replace him with a tired one.
In usual terminology, when one substitutes X for Y, it is X that is being taken away and replaced with Y. e.g. if I subsitute and apple for an orange, it is the apple that goes and the orange that replaces it.
The other way around, one would be "substituting X in place of Y" (and yes it really is down to terminology and word-smithing).
This is why the original text didn't seem to make sense as it was, to me at least, saying that spiritualism was taking something that was real and knowledgable and replacing it with something that was vague and based on beliefs.
So if the original text were to say either...
"Spiritualism substitutes vague and unsatisfying belief for real, practical knowledge"
or
"Spiritualism is substituting real, practical knowledge in place of vague and unsatisfying belief"
then that would have been a lot clearer.
I think you can see now why it was reading as contradiction. On the one hand it was reading as saying that spiritualism had removed something real and replaced it with something vague and then went on to say that it was "proof".
I don't think focusing on the way individual sentances are worded is neglecting anything. A book author does not refuse to change the way a sentance or a paragraph is worded or the structure of an individual chapter just because it is part of a whole book. And if one of the parts appears to read in such a way as to negate another part whether that is within the same paragraph, chapter or book, then it does need looking at.
People tend only to report negative things if there's something in it for themselves (sad fact of life unfortunately). If someone reads something and thinks it doesn't make sense or that it is contradicting itself and just proves their own belief that the topic is false, they are not necessarily that likely to feedback those views unless, like here, the words are placed in a mechanism that offers easy feedback.
I do understand the notation you were using, however the red text and defensiveness you were taking did come across as somewhat agressive, even though I'm well aware (after years on this forum) of how words can be misinterpreted without speaking face to face.
I admit I can make some inadvertent mistakes, especially if I'm tired, although I'm usually quite thorough and re-read what I've written as well as checking the points I'm making. I know I used different wording earlier, but that was for illustrative purposes rather than clarity. Obviously, subsequent responses meant that clarity was needed instead.Always happy to read things and question things. That's what discussion is about.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
I think we're both seeing how we're both misunderstanding the other..... I shall see how best to reword the piece we had problems over.
Sorry about the red text - that was nothing more than my attempt to show my words differently from yours and from quotations. I often spend a large effort on formatting to differentiate one from another and I am still unable to make the multi-quote button pick up all the quotations - does it work for you? I have used such a facility elsewhere without problems...:confused:
thanks for your help 🙂
Yes, multi quote works ok for me. I click on the multi quote button for each post I want to quote and then hit the "post reply" button and it quotes each of them. Of course if it's just one post that is being quoted it's quicker to use the Quote button against that post. 😉
I think I get what you're saying, and yes I do think in logical (mathematical if you like) terms. (plus I don't really do football :023:).
I even had to read your new example a few times as it seemed to say that the football manager was taking a fresh player off the pitch to replace him with a tired one.
In usual terminology, when one substitutes X for Y, it is X that is being taken away and replaced with Y. e.g. if I subsitute and apple for an orange, it is the apple that goes and the orange that replaces it.
The other way around, one would be "substituting X in place of Y" (and yes it really is down to terminology and word-smithing).
This is why the original text didn't seem to make sense as it was, to me at least, saying that spiritualism was taking something that was real and knowledgable and replacing it with something that was vague and based on beliefs.
So if the original text were to say either...
"Spiritualism substitutes vague and unsatisfying belief for real, practical knowledge"
or
"Spiritualism is substituting real, practical knowledge in place of vague and unsatisfying belief"
then that would have been a lot clearer.
I think you can see now why it was reading as contradiction. On the one hand it was reading as saying that spiritualism had removed something real and replaced it with something vague and then went on to say that it was "proof".
I don't think focusing on the way individual sentances are worded is neglecting anything. A book author does not refuse to change the way a sentance or a paragraph is worded or the structure of an individual chapter just because it is part of a whole book. And if one of the parts appears to read in such a way as to negate another part whether that is within the same paragraph, chapter or book, then it does need looking at.
People tend only to report negative things if there's something in it for themselves (sad fact of life unfortunately). If someone reads something and thinks it doesn't make sense or that it is contradicting itself and just proves their own belief that the topic is false, they are not necessarily that likely to feedback those views unless, like here, the words are placed in a mechanism that offers easy feedback.
I do understand the notation you were using, however the red text and defensiveness you were taking did come across as somewhat agressive, even though I'm well aware (after years on this forum) of how words can be misinterpreted without speaking face to face.
I admit I can make some inadvertent mistakes, especially if I'm tired, although I'm usually quite thorough and re-read what I've written as well as checking the points I'm making. I know I used different wording earlier, but that was for illustrative purposes rather than clarity. Obviously, subsequent responses meant that clarity was needed instead.Always happy to read things and question things. That's what discussion is about.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
Yes, multi quote works ok for me. I click on the multi quote button for each post I want to quote and then hit the "post reply" button and it quotes each of them. Of course if it's just one post that is being quoted it's quicker to use the Quote button against that post. 😉
I'm now even more confused :confused: I pushed the 'Quote' button to reply to your last, short message but you can see what appeared - not only is your last message there (about Multi Quote) but also the text of our earlier correspondence...
I'm now even more confused :confused: I pushed the 'Quote' button to reply to your last, short message but you can see what appeared - not only is your last message there (about Multi Quote) but also the text of our earlier correspondence...
And this is the result when I pressed the Multi Quote button before the Quote button at the bottom of my last reply..... What am I doing wrong?
I'm now even more confused :confused: I pushed the 'Quote' button to reply to your last, short message but you can see what appeared - not only is your last message there (about Multi Quote) but also the text of our earlier correspondence...
#18 'Multi Quote' followed by 'Quote'
I can't make the 'Multi Quote' function work no matter what I try - anyone have any suggestions please?
Mac, if you want to Multi Quote, DON'T use the 'ordinary' Quote button, not at all. This one: [url]
[/url]. Don't use it.
Click on this icon to the right of it on the first post you want to quote, this one:
[url]
[/url]
[which I've simply copied from your last post so it's 'live' for that one]
It should turn red. Then go to the next post you want to quote and do the same thing there. Then, when you've done this however many times you want, then hit Reply and they should all appear in your reply window in the order in which you selected them.
Good luck!
Holistic
Mac, if you want to Multi Quote, DON'T use the 'ordinary' Quote button, not at all. This one: [url]
Click on this icon to the right of it on the first post you want to quote, this one:
[url]
[which I've simply copied from your last post so it's 'live' for that one]
It should turn red. Then go to the next post you want to quote and do the same thing there. Then, when you've done this however many times you want, then hit Reply and they should all appear in your reply window in the order in which you selected them.
Good luck!
Holistic
Ahhh! Now that sounds different to what I've been doing - I'll try a few times to practise somewhere out of the way where I won't be annoying other readers.....:o
thanks! 🙂
You're most welcome, mac, and hopefully it will work for you now. 🙂
I've had a bit of a tidy up and deleted some of the posts on the sub-topic of Multi Quotes, plus made an edit to one of yours in line with that, so we can get back to the main topic, as at post #16. I'll leave my 'tutorial', for now at least, in case it's of help to others.
Kind regards and Season's Greetings,
Holistic
You're most welcome, mac, and hopefully it will work for you now. 🙂
I've had a bit of a tidy up and deleted some of the posts on the sub-topic of Multi Quotes, plus made an edit to one of yours in line with that, so we can get back to the main topic, as at post #16. I'll leave my 'tutorial', for now at least, in case it's of help to others.
Kind regards and Season's Greetings,
Holistic
Thanks - I'm glad you left the tutorial as I haven't yet had chance to try it...
Season's Greeting to you too 🙂
I may be wrong but I feel that there is a bit of hair splitting here.
To my knowledge spiritualism is just the belief that we have a soul/spirit which survives death and continues on in another "plane". You may or may not have had proof from a medium as to this.
Being spiritualistic is the earthly practice of leading a life governed by higher thoughts, and ideals.
Believers of spiritualism would be expected to conduct there lives in a spiritualistic manner as they believe that their soul/spirit lives on, and are accountable.
Logically one would expect them to ascertain that there is a higher order involved and therefore our souls/spirits have responsibilities and a duty to perform, including, some believe - re incarnation.
Spiritual messages received during a medium session are usually supportive of our purpose on the planet and encourage love and harmony.
I believe however that there are many practitioners of spiritualism who would walk past a starving animal to get to the next "skill" workshop, and regard spiritualism as a "brownie points" exercise in self achievement.
"I may be wrong but I feel that there is a bit of hair splitting here." Perhaps it's you who is splitting the hairs?
"Being spiritualistic is the earthly practice of leading a life governed by higher thoughts, and ideals." I think that it's being spiritual that you're describing. Spiritualistic is an adjective for 'associated with Spiritualism'. As a Spiritualist nothing of the nature described above is expected. Being 'spiritual' is definitely not a pre-requisite.
Quote: "Believers of spiritualism would be expected to conduct there lives in a spiritualistic manner as they believe that their soul/spirit lives on, and are accountable." This is simply a statement of your belief.
Are you a Spiritualist? If so, I'd be interested to hear why you hold the views expressed...
Incidentally, I use capital 'S' for Spiritualism as one would use capital letters as in Roman Catholic, Christian or Buddhist. It serves to distinguish spiritual (adjective) from Spiritualism...
I hope this helps.
"I may be wrong but I feel that there is a bit of hair splitting here."Perhaps it's you who is splitting the hairs?
"Being spiritualistic is the earthly practice of leading a life governed by higher thoughts, and ideals." I think that it's being spiritual that you're describing. Spiritualistic is an adjective for 'associated with Spiritualism'. As a Spiritualist nothing of the nature described above is expected. Being 'spiritual' is definitely not a pre-requisite.
Quote: "Believers of spiritualism would be expected to conduct there lives in a spiritualistic manner as they believe that their soul/spirit lives on, and are accountable." This is simply a statement of your belief.
Are you a Spiritualist? If so, I'd be interested to hear why you hold the views expressed...
Incidentally, I use capital 'S' for Spiritualism as one would use capital letters as in Roman Catholic, Christian or Buddhist. It serves to distinguish spiritual (adjective) from Spiritualism...
I hope this helps.
Mac you are right the word should have been spiritual, I rushed the post.
It is correct to say that being spiritual is not a pre requisite for being a Spiritualist.
However, I do not think that it is just my belief that Spiritualists should be spiritual.
The purpose of Spiritualism is to show that life in the form of our soul/spirit is indestructible and carry's on after our demise. During the spiritual encounters much is received concerning our role in the Universe. We are frequently asked by Spirit to love and care for each other, and the Planet.
It is totally illogical for a person to accept the belief that we are part of a higher order, with love as an indispensable ingredient, yet maintain a non spiritual attitude. (Interpreting "spiritual" as a loving attitude to others and not necessarily a belief in the spiritual scene)
I came in contact with Spiritualism over ten years ago. I received information that proved to be true and was later validated in the press.
This confirmed my belief in the subject. However I have no interest other than trying to understand the sciences involved.
scommstech
Thank you for your clarification.
I note you do not call yourself a Spiritualist - by contrast, I do.
I think you're right that it's not just you who believes Spiritualists should be spiritual but such an outlook is prescriptive and not what Spiritualism is about.
However illogical you may find the stance of others (Spiritualists), for them it is as right as yours is for you. And that position was constantly taught by those who returned to offer guidance. ("spirit" as you would say it)
It's good, though, to learn that your experience of Spiritualism was positive in outcome, as indeed was mine. For me so it remains although I've moved far beyond its simple tenets. They are as relevant now, though, as they were at the outset.
Like you I'm deeply interested in understanding the science but unlike you that is not my only interest.
a few last thoughts
In case this thread receives viewings in the future, the original piece was exactly what the title said - a guide for beginners. It was never intended to be exhaustive.
I compiled and wrote it some years ago in the format of a folded brochure, ideal (I hoped) as a hand-out at meetings. Over the years small changes have been made and maybe it ought to have a few more.... Essentially, though, it still carries the message I hoped it would carry, a message which has been a bedrock for me for over 25 years.
It's with sadness that I openly acknowledge that Spiritualism is not what it used to be. In years to come its message may be carried by some other body and that is fine if it continues, or better still improves on, the fundamentals.