Paranormal success is a psychic's only power

Now this piece is very anti our movement, however, in reality we should look at it in a much deeper way. What it does is highlight the problems we face in being taken seriously when there is so much which is done in the psychic world which does bring all of us into disrepute.

The fact Spiritualism is not psychic is very hard to explain, especially as many of the modern centres incorporate everything they can find.
Oh well all we can do is remember to try to teach what we stand for and help seekers become more discerning about what they come to accept.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3615726.html
http://damon-young.blogspot.com/2011/11/paranormal-success-is-psychics-only.html

What do you mean spiritualism is not psychic?

Isn't it true that all mediums are psychics, but not all psychics are mediums?

Jim

Yes Jim quite true but that does not mean that Spiritualism is Psychic.

Spiritualism is a way of life, a philosophy, a belief and through mediumship a truth. However, mediumship is proof of survival it is about bringing information through that proves who the communicator is, with detailed evidence and then the message they wish to communicate. Yes this uses the psychic abilities latent in man but in a way that contacts discarnate Spirit.

The post about William Crookes which was placed upon the forum yesterday shows that the other ability a psychic ability is a natural ability which utilises the energy field around us. A psychic can (and I say can because we are dealing with the minds of people and some think they can but let their sub conscious provide teh information not the energy field) link with your energy field and gain phenomenal amounts of information. This is, of course, from your mind and you already know the information but may be seeking some outside verification of your planned actions.

This is one example of the psychic force, as Crookes and Cox defined it. The other is in telekinesis, bending sppons, table tipping, levitation, dowsing etc etc. Apart from Spirits involvement in our creation and the energies around us they are not actually taking part in the events.


Many Psychics and even modern day mediums such as John Edwards are not Spiritualists, you would be surprised how many have never even heard about the movement. They have started their journey on the psychic telephone lines, internet readings, Mind Body, Psychic Spirit expos. Well over 70% of those seeking readings want to know about their love life. The vast majority do not want to hear from their deceased Mother.

Psychic is not Spiritualism, sadly our standards have dropped and we have to few mediums who bring survival messages through that are so powerful they convince even the best sceptics. Nowadays you may well see psychic on platform and from a person who believes they are working as a Medium.

In honesty most of those who go for readings would be better placed seeking counselling. However a good well trained psychic may be better than a bad counsellor. However a bad counsellor will have at least been subject to training and been accredited. A psychic can just print cards and if they sound convincing start to charge money. I have too many real life stories of the damage done by some of them to be relaxed. It is hardly surprising the sceptics such as this writer on the article can have such a field day attacking the new age movement.

Sadly in doing so even the dedicated people have to constantly fend off criticisms. Those of us in Spiritualist centres also face the probem that the whole concept is misunderstood and seekers have little knowledge of what we do. The terms Psychic and medium are seen as interchageable in the same way spiritual and Spiritualism get tangled up. How often do I here an argument that Spiritualism should include anything that is out there because it is all spiritual.

No Psychic is not Spiritualism it is just a name for one tool and an energy transaction.

Admin wrote:. The terms Psychic and medium are seen as interchageable in the same way spiritual and Spiritualism get tangled up.

I take it this was the answer to my question?

obiwan wrote:What do you mean spiritualism is not psychic?

Actually Jim said "Spiritualism" isn't psychic, using (as I consistently do) the upper case 'S' to distinguish the movement, philosophy etc. of (Modern) Spiritualism from that of 'spiritualism' which is frequently used to mean 'to do with spirituality.'

It's an awful shame that in online forum boards Spiritualism is constantly believed to be the same as spiritualism - even when the simple differences are pointed out. I've had many shirty responses to my explanations of that.

I hope that on this website there's no confusion.....

The statement still doesn't make sense to me sorry (whether it is with an S or an s). It is like saying Christianity isn't orange, or Islam can't play pianos. Must be me.

obiwan wrote:The statement still doesn't make sense to me sorry (whether it is with an S or an s). It is like saying Christianity isn't orange, or Islam can't play pianos. Must be me.

I guess, my duck friend, that this issue will never have any importance for you as you're not a Spiritualist. (Although you may be a spiritualist. )

I wonder - Is Christianity the same as christianity? Then why, I wonder, do folks use capital 'C'? Why did you write Islam rather than islam I wonder....?

And don't folks write God with a capital 'G' deliberately to signify the creator and distinguish between it/Him and man-made 'gods'. Along, of course, with the implied elevation suggested by 'He' and 'Him' when referring to the christ (the Christ?) It's deliberately to distinguish him (Him!) from the common man ('he' and 'him'). Some write using truly absurd levels of capitalisation which I won't mention but at which I shake my head in near disbelief.

I still suggest that (Modern) Spiritualism is appropriate to distinguish our movement, philosophy and religion from the 'common', general form of 'spiritualism'.

Mac, it might be easier to distinguish Spiritualism (capital S) as referring to (Modern) Spiritualism, as contrasted not with spiritualism, but with spirituality.

Though I admit that no matter what terms you use, confusion will still result: especially since "Spiritualism" and "spiritualism" both connote, to me at least, some system of belief and practice: whereas "spirituality" connotes some sort of attribute or trait.

Jim

Left Behind wrote:Mac, it might be easier to distinguish Spiritualism (capital S) as referring to (Modern) Spiritualism, as contrasted not with spiritualism, but with spirituality.

Though I admit that no matter what terms you use, confusion will still result: especially since "Spiritualism" and "spiritualism" both connote, to me at least, some system of belief and practice: whereas "spirituality" connotes some sort of attribute or trait.

Jim

On your first thought, Jim, I've previously tried just what you've suggested without making any more headway than in the examples I mentioned today. Spiritualism=spiritualism=spirituality in the minds of those without adequate understanding or who are just bloody-minded.

My words are now more of a distraction for me than any serious attempt to change anything. I enjoy words but I know when I'm beat!

Maybe I'm maturing as it doesn't annoy me as much as it used to - either that or I'm getting so feeble-minded that I can't focus long enough to be bothered anyway!

I'm having a similar semantic problem when I use the term "near death experience".

You'd think that this would be a household term by now. But I've often met or corresponded with people with whom I've used the term, and been told "I've had one of those": only to learn that what they're referring to was an incident where a speeding car swerved and just missed them: or they caught themselves in time as they were about to fall off a roof: etc.

They're talking about a close brush with death: not about a near death experience, as that term is used in afterlife studies.

Jim

Left Behind wrote:I'm having a similar semantic problem when I use the term "near death experience".

You'd think that this would be a household term by now. But I've often met or corresponded with people with whom I've used the term, and been told "I've had one of those": only to learn that what they're referring to was an incident where a speeding car swerved and just missed them: or they caught themselves in time as they were about to fall off a roof: etc.

They're talking about a close brush with death: not about a near death experience, as that term is used in afterlife studies.

Jim

Only those who have had a 'death experience' are truly qualified to talk about life after death or the continuity of life as I prefer to call it.

[/quote]

Only those who have had a 'death experience' are truly qualified to talk about life after death or the continuity of life as I prefer to call it. [/quote]

Wouldn't that rule out most Spititualists and mediums, Z?

Jim

Left Behind wrote:

Only those who have had a 'death experience' are truly qualified to talk about life after death or the continuity of life as I prefer to call it.

Wouldn't that rule out most Spititualists and mediums, Z?

Jim

lmao. How true.

Left Behind wrote:

Only those who have had a 'death experience' are truly qualified to talk about life after death or the continuity of life as I prefer to call it. [/quote]

Wouldn't that rule out most Spititualists and mediums, Z?

Jim[/quote]

Yes, Jim, - with this proviso - unless they are in contact with those who have had a 'death experience'.

Jim