Universal Philosophy

S

Interesting but different from some other channelled materials. I can see why you may hit some problems because of these. In honesty I would not be in a position, from my experiences as a medium, to accept this without raising many challenges to the concepts and ideas expressed. Indeed much of it makes me very uneasy

However thanks for posting this.

Yes it's both confrontational and provocative. What I have written is a compilation of many past question answering sessions. My guide has shown himself to be fearless and explicit. I've never had a question that didn't receive an answer that was authoritative. I always caution the listener to listen and consider. We both know it's not good to believe everything we hear. Everything should be challenged. Accept or reject. I proceed on the assumption that everything in the history of humanity on earth can be explained.

I had expected a posting for debate/discussion rather than a monologue or a lecture....  

You did say, though, that you like to preach. (or something similar)  I don't care for that.  And small, attractive morsels are more appetising and digestible I find.   

james simmons wrote:Yes it's both  confrontational and provocative.   What I have written is a compilation of many past question answering sessions.  My guide has shown himself to be fearless and explicit.   I've never had a question that didn't receive an answer that was authoritative.   I always caution the listener to listen and consider.  We both know it's not good to believe everything we hear.    Everything should be challenged.   Accept or reject.   I proceed on the assumption that everything in the history of humanity on earth can be explained.  

"Accept or reject", the latter for me James. I notice that there are many areas where an individuals sub conscious and personal experience could either have overridden the communicator or, in fact, become the real communicator. It is well worth looking at the early work on the sub conscious and communication particularly in the American Society of Psychical Research but not forgetting the personality studies in the Society of Psychical Research.

In honesty I am not a great fan of "Channelling: and even deep full trance mediumship (where the medium has no knowledge of the communication) requires considerable discernment. Now if the content you receive fits your personal philosophy then there will be less discernment and a considerable risk of more of the self coming through the communication.

As I said I can see why you may have some problems with various sites if this reflects the core of your universal philosophy. It does, as Mac suggested, seem to be a preach and heavily derived from biblical elements. I am not even sure I can accept the view of an animal soul which was slowly replaced in humanity sometime after their first forefathers. Nothing like that in any other teachings I have seen albeit human supremacists have long suggested the human soul reigns supreme (and not long ago that was only White People thank God that has changed and Spiritualism always treats everybody as equals).

You will also find some interesting material on here which indicates we are not really in agreement with multiple reincarnations (or any which do not occur with the free will of the Spirit) no forced reincarnation is a generally held view with Spiritualists. Still I respect your right to your views on this material but the material you have posted does not represent Spiritualism in most of its content or relate to the  words of the past great Spirit Communicators like Silver Birch, through full deep trance (which in themselves do have some elements that are influenced by the medium or jar with the tone of some teachings).

Thanks anyway

Jim

Yes it is a preach as you put it. And yes it attempts to reconcile the Bible with the world of spirit. I present in historical context because it makes nice stories.

I do conscious channeling. It's much safer than trancing (trancing is known to make the medium sick.... witness Cayce) and the medium does not give away his or her authority to stop if there is a need. It is to be noted that channeling is no more than connecting with a discarnate human being or the memory of one. There is no particular reason to think that just because someone is contacted that that someone must be qualified to pontificate. Some of us claim to represent "masters" but I will say that no master would engage in such activities in a direct sense. Usually what they do is to place teachings in the astral emotional plane where spiritual folks can make contact. I make no claim regarding my source. If a source says he/she is a master we may be certain that he/she is not.

I like to preach as I said. Preaching it is. It's not for debate. How does one debate when there is such a high level of subjectivity in the first place. Not easily. I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything. Evidence? Proof? Almost impossible. My posts are supposed to be fun reads. Period.

I'm going to begin a topic tonight that will help me to understand all of you a little better.

Thanks

James

" My posts are supposed to be fun reads. Period."  I prefer postings to have substance and import.  I can consult comic books should I want a fun read.  

Accept or reject you counsel us.  This is one member who won't accept preaching on a Spiritualist website so I will go with reject.

james simmons wrote:Yes it is a preach as you put it.   And yes it attempts to reconcile the Bible with the world of spirit.   I present in historical context because it makes nice stories.  

I do conscious channeling. It's much safer than trancing (trancing is known to make the medium sick.... witness Cayce)  and the medium does not give away his or her authority to stop if there is a need.   It is to be noted that channeling is no more than connecting with a discarnate human being or the memory of one.   There is no particular reason to think that just because someone is contacted that that someone must be qualified to pontificate.   Some of us claim to represent "masters" but I will say that no master would engage in such activities in a direct sense.  Usually what they do is to place teachings in the astral emotional plane where spiritual folks can make contact.   I make no claim regarding my source.   If a source says he/she is a master we may be certain that he/she is not.

I like to preach as I said.   Preaching it is.   It's not for debate.   How does one debate when there is such a high level of subjectivity in the first place.   Not easily.   I have no interest in convincing anyone of anything.   Evidence?  Proof?   Almost impossible.   My posts are supposed to be fun reads.   Period.

I'm going to begin a topic tonight that will help me to understand all of you a little better.

Thanks

James  

Strange you make it sound like you are serious about the content then you say

"My posts are supposed to be fun reads.   Period"

That does not seem to make sense, do I treat this as a bit of fun or as a serious piece of   

"conscious channeling"

In honesty I reject the content of this "message" from your guide or your subconscious.

I would disagree on the benefits of Full Trance mediumship. Cayce was a very different person and tends not to be regarded as a Spiritualist. Certainly it tends only to be in America that Spiritualists really show much interest in his work.

Certainly preaching for fun is not a part of this forums position, especially when the material is long, lacking either evidence or proof and relatively opinionated. When there is no proof then it does not fit in with Modern Spiritualism which requires Truth and Proof. Spiritualism also makes no mention of Masters, ascended or otherwise and rejects most of the modern "channelling" from these sources, which give no evidence and where every promised ascencion has, as expected by Spiritualists, never occurred.

Additionally this site is not driven by a desire to reconcile the bible with Spirit but to explain, promote and share the philosophy and history of Modern Spiritualism. Remember the majority of us who are Spiritualists are not Christians and do not seek teachings from the traditional bible. Even the staunch Christian Spiritualists take a different stance to traditional Christians and everyone is becoming aware of the historical inconsistencies in the bible itself.

Still that is enough on this subject as you yourself said it is your piece and its not for debate because of the high level of subjectivity. I reject it, not accepting it, simple enough.