Spiritual mediums

I think there are fake mediums, and there are real mediums. The real ones, especially when they have received some training, and higher knowledge about the worlds beyond the physical, do exactly what they claim to do. And they have numbered in the hundreds in the past 175 years or so, perhaps thousands. The number of people with true, mediumistic tendencies, is easily tens, or hundreds of thousands.

Does Derren prove that all mediums are a fake? Not hardly. But it sure does give Spiritualism a bad name when hoaxes are perpetrated, and when people's gullibility is exploited for a buck. :(

~andrew
 
I think there are fake mediums. And there are fake mediums.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
I like to look at it this way: Although I tend to think that televangelists are, by and large, "fake" - meaning that they are irreverent charlatans out for one thing only (a $) - there are exceptions. As one arhat teacher I know pointed out, Billy Graham is a disciple, plain and simple. I do not say that Billy Graham is the only televangelist who is authentic ... only that he is a good example.

Someone recently pointed me toward Joel Osteen, of Lakewood Church. Although his message may not resonate with me in its entirety, I would be the first to speak out about his positive approach, and like Graham's, I think his television ministry is a respectable - and a "legitimate" one.

And as for so-called spiritual mediums - Does Derren Brown's fabulous photographic memory, and persuasive argument against the competition prove that all spiritual mediums are charlatans?

Not for an instant.

What's most disturbing is that Brown is poking fun at John Edward in particular, and at similar modern Spiritualistic exponents ... and we know from Browns various films that he doesn't even pretend to be noble, selfless, or neutral about his own psychic abilities, powers of memory, or powers of persuasion.

Being able to tap into others' memories, dreams, or even mental-emotional subconscious can be a wonderful, positive gift. Yet here, Brown makes no bones about doing so for his own benefit, in order to woo and awe the audience, and - unlike Edward - he makes it quite clear that he is not a Spiritualist ... then goes on to use psychic abilities to presumably expose the fraudulence of one such as Edward???

Now if that's not the pot calling the kettle black ...

~andrew
 
Derren Brown is a great guy, I have booked him for our wedding aniversary..

As I posted on another forum here thread named... "Derren Brown" In reference to a show called Derren Brown: Messiah...

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/derren-brown-6852.html

But, yeah he has a great skill for reading the mind, manipulation.... And "Planting" -your- chain of thought... And very good at suggestive body language... He is my kind of guy....
 
Have they ever given information out of the reach of a person’s subconscious? I've been researching on the on how Darren Brown works. A skill known as mirroring, where you mirror someone’s actions, there breath, its quite a complex skill but if perfected you can build instant rapport with another person and this is where you can read there body language and there thoughts, then you can go onto other things like leading where u change ur action slightly to see if they follow, using hidden suggestions in your conversation you can get them to do things and even instant inductions of trance states, which can be caused by altering the course of a handshake. A handshake is a subconscious action, so if u break that pattern, you leave the subconscious looking for answers and if done correctly u can fill them in.

These kinds of things happen to us everyday, by advertisers, religions and buissnessmen. And you do it too.
 
Postmaster said:
YouTube - Derren Brown shows how mediums work

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Postmaster, In my opinion a true clairvoyant would not need prompting to glean information about someone.

A good example would be Jesus when he sent for Nathaneal. Now he told no one where Nathaneal was, yet when he arrived and asked how Jesus knew of him, Jesus stated, "I saw you under the fig tree". No one told Jesus where Nathaneal was, yet He saw him plain as day. Jesus went one step further and told the crowd "In him (Nathaneal), there is no guile". So, He saw him physically, and knew his heart intimately, yet they never met before.

Just a thought.

v/r

Joshua
 
Consider this: Here is the homepage of the First Spiritualist Temple, the oldest Christian Spiritualist Church in the world, founded 1883. :)

As I said earlier, the question is not whether, but which Spiritualists are legitimate. I may not be likely to stop by the roadside Palm Reader, but I sometimes wonder if people really have a clue how popular Spiritualism once was ... both in America, in the UK and on the Continent.

Wikipedia page on Spiritualism ...
 
Of course, not one to have ever used a Ouija board more than ... once or twice? - I do recall being invited by an Indian professor (of religion) at the college where I worked, to bring the board to her class and "demonstrate" it. This was all good, safe, healthy fun I suppose, yet it was serious enough that I made sure we did it right.

We weren't about to call up someone's dead grandfather (big no-no), nor anyone from history who wouldn't be able to respond. And I do think that a good number of "spirits" aren't thus capable - in quite the way we were seeking.

I asked the students to pick a well-known name from history. Socrates wasn't good enough (something told me, just in terms of the rapport), and I can't recall if anyone else was suggested, but one person said, Sir Thomas More. Perfect! :)

Did I mention I had never used a Ouija board before? lol

Anyway, my instructions to two students who were willing volunteers was to first come up with a simple question, to which everyone in the room knew the obvious answer, and then for everyone to be silent, for us three (at the board) to repeat the question slowly (mentally), over and over ... and for other folks to gently focus on that same question.

It needed to be precise, so the question, 'Is it raining?" was refined to, "Is it raining outside, here, right now?" And it was not. So we knew what we were looking for, and this means that a silly "yes" answer, or something like "purple," would show what silliness ouija boards really are! ;) :p

Not surprisingly, no one felt anything dramatic, yet three of us, together, could all attest that the natural direction of the pointer, as it gently but unevenly slid across the board ... was toward the word `No' (see image).

I would accept this much as the work of the sub/super-conscious ... even our collective awareness, as three, or as a classroom, that this was the correct response. Even so, we have a potentially interesting discussion, or subject, if not quite that of mediums. :)

But it was the next question, and its response, which I could never forget, simple as it was ... and unconvincing as this would be for any diehard skeptic. Still, it's fun to consider, in the very least.

Whereas I had come up with the first question, the "control" for the test to follow, I asked one of the other people present to compose our next question. Nothing too obscure, I suggested, yet use your imagination. I wanted it to be more than a simple yes/no question.

So it was put to Sir Thomas More, via the board, "What do you think of the state of the world today?"

And we relaxed our touch on the pointer, which the reader should note, means that each of three fingers was gently, very gently resting on this lightweight piece of plastic. Even subtle movement, is fairly visible, when one person's finger, or the motions of the arm, are at play.

So does the pointer move on its own? Clearly not. WE moved it, in response, and any fool who uses a ouija board understands that whatever agency may direct, the movement itself comes via the three individuals (I recommend three) at the pointer. This is not in question.

Sir Thomas More, if in indeed that is who or what answered, told us this:

C

E

S

T

B

O

N


... and as the pointer very gently moved from one letter to another, and as a fourth student wrote down each letter that we got, I must admit, I had really started to lose heart by the letter `T' or `B.' After all, cestb is hard to pronounce, and sounds like crap.

Ah well, you can't win 'em all.

The state of the world today? C'est Bon

And so I had to ask, of the two people at the board, did either one know any French? The dude? Nope. The girl? "Yeah, a little." But as she answered, I don't think she had even realized what had been spelled. This was all we got, and all three of us understood with the seventh letter that there was no more.

Short. Concise. Direct.

He answered.

So, I maintain to this day that it was so, especially as I have learned in retrospect that Sir Thomas More is regarded by some as a Master of the Wisdom. I believe such at the time, yet I had another individual in mind entirely.

It did not matter, I believe, for the motive was pure enough, the demonstration was simple enough, and there was nothing there, even for the the more religiously conservative of students in the class, to be offended by in the least.

I would gladly repeat such an exercise with any two people who were either earnest seekers, or even just enquirers of general open-mindedness and good character. The reason, imo, that our classroom experiment was so successful (in the way I had hoped), had everything to do with the environment, the magnetism present, and the fact that a certain degree of openness to the possibilities was established from the outset - and maintained throughout. Indeed, it was the very pretext, or purpose, for my being invited.

I think this last point really could not be too greatly stressed. Jesus, when there was no faith, could not heal. And yet, it was FAITH ... which he said could move mountains. Somewhere in between, may lie the power and the wherewithal to speak with the dead. It all comes back to motive.
 
Joshua,

You said,

"...a true clairvoyant would not need prompting to glean information about someone."

--> In my experience, clairvoyants come in varying degrees of ability. People expect new clairvoyants to go from zero to perfect in nothing flat. It does not work that way. It takes a new clairvoyant a lot of hard work, just like anything else.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
Joshua,

You said,

"...a true clairvoyant would not need prompting to glean information about someone."

--> In my experience, clairvoyants come in varying degrees of ability. People expect new clairvoyants to go from zero to perfect in nothing flat. It does not work that way. It takes a new clairvoyant a lot of hard work, just like anything else.
Click to expand...

Then, by your own admission, they are not clairvoyant. The prophets of old were "perfect", as you disdain in believing, with no practice, so to speak. There is a difference between a learned lesson and a natural gift.

I would think one such as yourself would appreciate that most. Some are born to fly, and some have to learn to fly, and some have no business flying.

v/r

Joshua
 
How can you class Derren Brown as a clairvoyant, when he doesn't believe in any form of spiritual world? He see's it all as cons... And then does this himself and in many shows, shows you how it is done....

"I find the whole idea of spiritualism ugly..."
Derren Brown.

In regards to spiritualism....
"it doesn't take much: just charisma, some techniques, and a total lack of moral fibre. People can of course believe what they want, and we all believe what makes us feel nice, and if it makes someone feel better and get on with his/her life, then I'm delighted for that person. But if it's lies, and despicable lies at that, who decides that we need to hear such things for our own good?"
Derren Brown...
 
In that video he performed just as good if not better then other so called high profile spiritual mediums, Darren Brown got alot of information correct to the point he made the audience emotional. The only difference here is he claims there to be a science to it whereas they claim it to be spiritual.
 
Anyone who has experienced the reality of psychic phenomena, including examples wherein you yourself have been psychometrized rather than done the reading - or clairvoyant/clairaudient perceiving directly - needs no convincing, nor the commentary, of Derren Brown, or Quahom1.

We know the reality of what we have experienced, and therefore we know the inaccuracy of such a sweeping generalization that clairvoyants are either "real prophets, as of the Biblical days of old," or are fakes and wannabe's.

Yes, there is the sibylline gift, there are past-life tendencies that can be brought in, such as my own sister's automatic clairvoyant tendencies, yet what she does with this ability will largely determine where it goes - both in this lifetime, and the next. It could drop out altogether, from her equipment, such that she is born without such tendencies next time 'round, or if she develops it to such an extent that the lower siddhi becomes more attuned to the higher Siddhis, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a permanent ability is developed.

Either way, every psychic, in the lower sense, must redevelop this ability in a new incarnation, because at this stage of human development, these conditions are not the default of the physical body/brain, astral-emotional body, and mental body, which changes with each new birth. This was as true of the prophets of yore, as it will be of those 1000 years from now. God does not "snap her fingers" - and spring open the higher or lower centers.

Anyone even the slightest bit familiar with these things, knows the whys and wherefores of psychic development, whatever else we may believe. Having predisposition is one thing. Going through the rigorous, sometimes even painful spiritual disciplines necessary to develop our greater abilities ... is another altogether.
 
AndrewX said:
Anyone who has experienced the reality of psychic phenomena, including examples wherein you yourself have been psychometrized rather than done the reading - or clairvoyant/clairaudient perceiving directly - needs no convincing, nor the commentary, of Derren Brown, or Quahom1.

We know the reality of what we have experienced, and therefore we know the inaccuracy of such a sweeping generalization that clairvoyants are either "real prophets, as of the Biblical days of old," or are fakes and wannabe's.

Yes, there is the sibylline gift, there are past-life tendencies that can be brought in, such as my own sister's automatic clairvoyant tendencies, yet what she does with this ability will largely determine where it goes - both in this lifetime, and the next. It could drop out altogether, from her equipment, such that she is born without such tendencies next time 'round, or if she develops it to such an extent that the lower siddhi becomes more attuned to the higher Siddhis, I wouldn't be at all surprised if a permanent ability is developed.

Either way, every psychic, in the lower sense, must redevelop this ability in a new incarnation, because at this stage of human development, these conditions are not the default of the physical body/brain, astral-emotional body, and mental body, which changes with each new birth. This was as true of the prophets of yore, as it will be of those 1000 years from now. God does not "snap her fingers" - and spring open the higher or lower centers.

Anyone even the slightest bit familiar with these things, knows the whys and wherefores of psychic development, whatever else we may believe. Having predisposition is one thing. Going through the rigorous, sometimes even painful spiritual disciplines necessary to develop our greater abilities ... is another altogether.
Click to expand...

lol don't need to listen to you either andrew. That was a cheap shot by the way, again.

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
lol don't need to listen to you either andrew. That was a cheap shot by the way, again.

v/r

Q
Click to expand...
No, Q - the "cheap shot" was the rather smug, self-righteous implication that only Biblical prophets were/are the "real" clairvoyants, and that it is "our, Catholic/Christian god" that makes them so.

Don't trot this kind of stuff out there, and the short-sightedness and narrowness of your perspective won't become so apparent. :eek:

~andrew
 
AndrewX said:
No, Q - the "cheap shot" was the rather smug, self-righteous implication that only Biblical prophets were/are the "real" clairvoyants, and that it is "our, Catholic/Christian god" that makes them so.

Don't trot this kind of stuff out there, and the short-sightedness and narrowness of your perspective won't become so apparent. :eek:

~andrew
Click to expand...

Don't think so man. Biblical Prophets are the only proven clairvoyants on record...with "100" percent accuracy. Nothing smug or self righteous about that. I'm not a prophet. There are no other clairvoyants in HISTORY to state or prove perfect accuracy...you were saying?

I'd really like to know what you were saying.
 
Quahom1 said:
Don't think so man. Biblical Prophets are the only proven clairvoyants on record...with "100" percent accuracy. Nothing smug or self righteous about that. I'm not a prophet. There are no other clairvoyants in HISTORY to state or prove perfect accuracy...you were saying?

I'd really like to know what you were saying.
Click to expand...
I'm saying you sure seem to know a lot ... but that's exactly where it ends.

Upon which source do you base your present understanding? And how do you know - unless you yourself have this 100% accuracy - that contemporary prophets do not?

"Only proven clairvoyants on record?" Dear me. There are all sorts of problems with that statement. But Q, there's no point arguing this one with you ... your mind's already made up. There isn't a THING that could be brought before you - that would change your mind on the matter. Just go ahead and admit that - and save us all a lot of trouble. ;)

In short, I do know different. And I can prove it to you, too. But you have to be able, and willing, to consider the evidence. And even if you might be able, I think it's quite clear - you are not willing.

END of discussion, n'est pas? What's to discuss? "Biblical prophets were the real ones, all others are less than perfect." Damn that sounds smug to me!

...

... Hmmm, on the off chance that you were trying to make some kind of point - what was it? That prophetic powers have everything to do with motive, and that lower psychism is not the same as the Higher? Well we might approach the subject from two different angles, but I would agree with this. It's what I said. The last true, 100% accurate prophets did not disappear with the coming of Christ 2000 years ago. That's what I'm getting at. They do exist today, and in the SAME SENSE that God had His Messengers 2100 years ago, 3000, and prior, so they exist in the world, today.

You don't have to believe it; perhaps Catholicism teaches otherwise. But the moment you set something forward dogmatically, like no mediums, or clairvoyants today ... are as accurate as those of Biblical times - you turn the whole discussion into absurdity. Half the people who have posted don't even believe in clairvoyance to begin with. That's kind of the whole point. I, at least, gave an example - if not of true mediumship - of my own experiencs with something semi-prophetic. And I did not claim 100% accuracy, nor would I. Seems YOU want to turn this into an "I'm better than you, my religion is better than you, WE ARE THE ONLY ONES who have EVER had any real true mediums" kind of thing. :rolleyes:

How childish. How typically, vainly male.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top