Mediumship
- Thread starter Lorri
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mediums spiritualism
Clancie said:
No, you post here with a profound belief that there really are such a thing as real mediums.
Clancie said:
Please spare the condescending tone. We have discussed mediumship for so long now that we are practically experts on the subject.
Clancie said:
But you have experienced ADC for yourself, so you must have that 100% certainty, yes? Why do you still maintain that "there might be something to it"?
Clancie said:I would like to know more about what you do, but posting here as a believer can quickly leave one overwhelmed trying to answer all the responses you'll get--so I'll wait a while.
Don't hold back. Let's hear your questions, just as you hear ours. With your year-long experience with a great many mediums, most false, a few true, you could teach us a lot.
Lorri said:
When is the message symbolic, and when is it not?
Lorri said:
You are not addressing the point apoger is trying to make. There are many ways of profiting from doing what you are doing, money being only one of them. Power over people, power to influence their lives, power to control their grief.
Lorri said:
Then why don't you want to give that to us, e.g. by merely demonstrating it?
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Could you specify the method for recognizing a sceptic versus a skeptic? Is it similar to recognizing a believer versus a beleiver?
~~ Paul
TheBoyPaj
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,640
Lorri said:
OK, I propose a little game. I say what will make me change my mind and believe that you are truly talking to the dead, and you say what it would take for you to change your mind and denounce the idea of mediumship. Whoever appears the most reasonable wins the title of "open minded". OK?
I'll start. Talk to dead people in a controlled setting, such that the possibility of cheating is removed, and pass on information which you could not possibly have guessed or found out in a non-paranormal way. Do that and I'll believe you. Sounds simple eh? Pretty much what you claim to do already, apart from the controlled setting bit. Do you agree that you could do this?
Now, what would it take to change YOUR mind?
Edit: I didn't spot that Mercutio had asked pretty much the same thing. But since I was the one being labelled, I think the question bears repetition.
In wanting to add to my post about "switchboard operator", I have a question about this statement. Don't we all gain life experiences as we live from day to day? And losing my father was certainly a difficulty I had to deal with. Would I not be "tuned in" to the frequency you speak of?
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
Perhaps we could put skeptik and sceptick to good use, also.
~~ Paul
~~ Paul
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
Lorri,
How do I know this? Because I have had many discussions over the past 4 years with a Pentecostal Christian, who has many years of experience in these matters. He knows without any doubt at all (because god himself has directly 'moved' him) that there is a heaven and a hell, and unchristened people CANNOT go to heaven. This person has experienced personal miracles, and has studied (and prayed!) on the subject for a decade. He cannot be wrong (he assures me), as he has seen the good it brings to his life, and those around him. And he has seen the suffering and pain of those who do not accept Jesus.
So, I have your clear, heart-felt and detailed account of "life after death". And I have his. You both claim knowledge and 'absolute confidence' in your position. Your claims are contradictory. There are 3 options :
1. You're right, he's wrong. But his 'evidence' and 'outcomes' are identical to yours? Why should I believe you rather than him? What can you offer me that would convince me you are telling the truth, while he is simply a well meaning but misguided individual?
2. He's right, but you're wrong. Despite your good intentions and and strong conviction, you are wrong. He would say that a demon has mislead you into your current set of beliefs. He would urge you to abandon this behaviour IMMEDIATELY, because you are simply being played for a fool by Satan, weakening the case for Jesus though the use of demon powers in the guise of "compassion".
3. You're both wrong. Both of you have real experiences and offer real compassion and support to those around you, but neither of you is explaining "reality" except as you choose to filter it though your own wishes.
For now, I'll stick to #3. You'll need to do more than tell tales of "successful readings" if you want to make your case.
I'm sorry, but you are just plain wrong. The father and son CANNOT be together. Even if you could speak to the dead, you have completely misread this 'image' from the spirit world, and you have (unknowingly) lied to the grieving woman.
How do I know this? Because I have had many discussions over the past 4 years with a Pentecostal Christian, who has many years of experience in these matters. He knows without any doubt at all (because god himself has directly 'moved' him) that there is a heaven and a hell, and unchristened people CANNOT go to heaven. This person has experienced personal miracles, and has studied (and prayed!) on the subject for a decade. He cannot be wrong (he assures me), as he has seen the good it brings to his life, and those around him. And he has seen the suffering and pain of those who do not accept Jesus.
So, I have your clear, heart-felt and detailed account of "life after death". And I have his. You both claim knowledge and 'absolute confidence' in your position. Your claims are contradictory. There are 3 options :
1. You're right, he's wrong. But his 'evidence' and 'outcomes' are identical to yours? Why should I believe you rather than him? What can you offer me that would convince me you are telling the truth, while he is simply a well meaning but misguided individual?
2. He's right, but you're wrong. Despite your good intentions and and strong conviction, you are wrong. He would say that a demon has mislead you into your current set of beliefs. He would urge you to abandon this behaviour IMMEDIATELY, because you are simply being played for a fool by Satan, weakening the case for Jesus though the use of demon powers in the guise of "compassion".
3. You're both wrong. Both of you have real experiences and offer real compassion and support to those around you, but neither of you is explaining "reality" except as you choose to filter it though your own wishes.
For now, I'll stick to #3. You'll need to do more than tell tales of "successful readings" if you want to make your case.
Round and round and round we go. A new believer comes in, makes claims that cannot be substantiated, gives us no real clue as to their process and says we must find our own evidence. Any "skeptic" asking a tough question is labelled close-minded. Clancie chimes in with the "there might be something to it schtick" and also takes a pot shot at skeptics. Ian nitpicks at everything, except when it comes to Mercutio's post (which contained several good points). These Ian doesn't touch, except to point out the part that the skeptics here are open-minded and how he disagree's with the sentiment. Yet he address' none of Mercutio's relevant points. I've seen episdoes of Inspector Gadget with more surprise twists than this.
Loki
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 1,406
Clancie,
"personal experience". You argue that people interested in this need to go to a reading so they too can (perhaps) gain such a "compelling personal experience". Yet, we KNOW for a fact that such compelling experiences can be created without the involvement of the spirit world. I've seen Ian Rowland reduce a woman to tears through cold reading, not mediumship. This woman had a "compelling personal experience" that is as good as anything you want to put forward from a sitter who has been read by JE, Sylvia, etc - yet it was totally based on mundane processes. Surely this means "compelling personal experience" is a very poor indicator of what is really going on? I dismiss "compelling personal experiences" not because they don't exist or aren't significant, but because they do not necessarily have anything to do with mediumship.
The sitter wants it to occur, the medium wants it to occur, and the spirit (presumably, or why are they bothering?) wants it to occur. Three parties, all keen on success. Why then aren't we working towards a reliable communication link? Shouldn't we expect an increase inquality through repeated sessions?
I'd say this is because "scientific testing" is avoided religiously by mediums and supporters alike. The frauds (and yes, we all agree they are there) agree to tests under THEIR conditions only. The home grown variety of mediums don't want to be tested. WHere to now???
Now here's what I don't understand, Clancie. You constantly emphasise the "compelling personal experience", going so far as to point out that you yourself have "been there". It seems that the trigger for Steve Grenard's interest was an amazing
"personal experience". You argue that people interested in this need to go to a reading so they too can (perhaps) gain such a "compelling personal experience". Yet, we KNOW for a fact that such compelling experiences can be created without the involvement of the spirit world. I've seen Ian Rowland reduce a woman to tears through cold reading, not mediumship. This woman had a "compelling personal experience" that is as good as anything you want to put forward from a sitter who has been read by JE, Sylvia, etc - yet it was totally based on mundane processes. Surely this means "compelling personal experience" is a very poor indicator of what is really going on? I dismiss "compelling personal experiences" not because they don't exist or aren't significant, but because they do not necessarily have anything to do with mediumship.
Let me get this straight, here:
1. Lorri is tapped into this "universal power" through some spirit buddy.
2. With whom she argues and asks for proof.
3. This "universal power," however, is so lame as to be unheard and unseen by nearly all of us
4. This power is also so lame as to offer "symbolic" cures
5. She is absolutely convinced of her mediumship, contradicting, of course, #2, above.
5. Though she won't give a taste of it on PalTalk.
6. Though she certainly won't take the JREF challenge
7. Though she only makes recordings for her sitters and makes no other records
8. She has met most of the pointed questions with claims that we "must produce our own evidence," contradicting, of course, #2, above
9. And we must be close-minded, contradicting, of course, #2, above
I must check my garage for invisible pink unicorns. Gotta do something. Lorri's condescending arrogance and lameling spirit buddy bores the sh!t out of me.
1. Lorri is tapped into this "universal power" through some spirit buddy.
2. With whom she argues and asks for proof.
3. This "universal power," however, is so lame as to be unheard and unseen by nearly all of us
4. This power is also so lame as to offer "symbolic" cures
5. She is absolutely convinced of her mediumship, contradicting, of course, #2, above.
5. Though she won't give a taste of it on PalTalk.
6. Though she certainly won't take the JREF challenge
7. Though she only makes recordings for her sitters and makes no other records
8. She has met most of the pointed questions with claims that we "must produce our own evidence," contradicting, of course, #2, above
9. And we must be close-minded, contradicting, of course, #2, above
I must check my garage for invisible pink unicorns. Gotta do something. Lorri's condescending arrogance and lameling spirit buddy bores the sh!t out of me.
I am reposting Lorri's comments in this thread in order to let Mr. Coghill to explain us the secrets of Bioelectromagnetics
Lorri I will respond to your message within the day.Thanks
To which Lorri replied:
Lorri I will respond to your message within the day.Thanks
Originally posted by Cleopatra addressing Mr. Coghill's post
That's jazzy!
Well sir you might be a guest in this skeptic lounge and we might have gathered here to listen to your solos but do us the favor to play some of our favorite tunes; answer to our questions please.
You know since I belong to the group you described above allow me to correct you. We don't talk to the dead when we gather in churches but we claim that we communicate the non existent since we cannot provide evidence for His existence. The difference is huge.
I believe because I need to--that makes me a fideist--others believe because they have taken the story for real and they believe in its historical truth, others believe because they have realized that religion is a good way to manipulate people, your friends the necromants are included in this catefory.
To which Lorri replied:
To be exact I belong to the vast majority of human beings that have many needs not just one , religion covers only one need.
It's true that all religions in the world are formed on a certain pattern. It took me a while to see it but my discussions with my friend Mercutio contributed in that.
Is seems that there is a mechanism in the way we believe? Have you read Michael Shermer's book " How we believe". Well for us the europeans is not a masterpiece but he was presented the case of beliefs beautifully.
I do not call myself spiritual but religious. I believe in a universal power that is there for all of us no matter what colour, creed or religion others might be. I am a Christian Orthodox and we believe that God loves everybody regardless of their creed. I believe in personal responsibility more than anything else in my life , I call this inner knowing of what is right or not a moral code that was planted in me by my religion.
Where do we differ? Why spiritualism isn't just another form of religion. If there is a universal power there must be a ritual that helps you to communicate it and benefit from it, is mediumship your ritual?
The way you dismiss my ideas and my personality reminds me of the way people that belong to different religions than me reject me.
Cleopatra said:
To be exact I belong to the vast majority of human beings that have many needs not just one , religion covers only one need.
It's true that all religions in the world are formed on a certain pattern. It took me a while to see it but my discussions with my friend Mercutio contributed in that.
Is seems that there is a mechanism in the way we believe? Have you read Michael Shermer's book " How we believe". Well for us the europeans is not a masterpiece but he was presented the case of beliefs beautifully.
I do not call myself spiritual but religious. I believe in a universal power that is there for all of us no matter what colour, creed or religion others might be. I am a Christian Orthodox and we believe that God loves everybody regardless of their creed. I believe in personal responsibility more than anything else in my life , I call this inner knowing of what is right or not a moral code that was planted in me by my religion.
Where do we differ? Why spiritualism isn't just another form of religion. If there is a universal power there must be a ritual that helps you to communicate it and benefit from it, is mediumship your ritual?
The way you dismiss my ideas and my personality reminds me of the way people that belong to different religions than me reject me.
I am not a spiritualist - spiritualism is a religion and i am not religious. Now that I have attacked you, you are whinging. Read your posts and you will see that you are the one who attacks mediums etc., with your silly names such as woowoos
Lorri said:
You don't believe that psychics can talk to dead people, that is, spirits?
Spiritualism is not as such a religion. A religion is usually defined as a belief in a greater being, service to and worship of this greater being, and a set of morals coming with it.
While a "greater being" could be contained within spiritualism in the sense that dead people's spirits are "greater beings", spiritualists don't as a rule worship the spirits. I also don't see a set of morals attached to spiritualism.
Hi Lorri,
I'm fairly open-minded when concerning paranormal experinces, and this post is not at all written to offend you or your personal experiences, it is merely some suggestions of other reasons than those you rely on.
When I read what you claim is a contact with the spirit world, I especially think of these two situations:
Smell of mint where no mint is present:
Now don't take this wrong, but that is most likely a minor mental disorder. We all have minor mental disorders. For instance, the feeling of deja vu that an estimated 70% of the population have felt, is a 'bug in the system' that causes you to mistake the present for the past. Closely related to temporal-lobe epilepsy. That you get this smell 'out of the blue' on a regular basis, may be a minor mental disorder, we can't rule that out.
Having a gentle felling of pressure or a light stroke against your head:
If this phenomena is not based on stimuli from the enviroment that surround you in the given situation, this could very well be another disorder in your nervous system. Maybe based on the same source that causes you to smell things that isn't there.
However,
I'm not saying that you have a serious mental disorder, but a minor one seems likely. People with mental disorders often claim to have contact with higher sources like aliens, spirits, gods etc.
Another typical issue for people that have these disorders is that they tend to rely entirely on intuition, and therefore draws conclusions that is closely related to pure fantasy.
I'm not saying that you're completely insane, merely suggesting that these experiences you say you have, could very well be the product of a minor disorder in your nervous system.
Don't take this wrong, it's not an attack on your person, just a suggestion you shouldn't reject at all.
Having said that, I would like to finish this off with quote from very old movie I don't remeber the name or director of:
This was related to a revolutionary scientist though, and not to a medium.
From reading you're entire set of posts, another suggestion I can't rule out, is that you're simply a liar. Cheating people for a living.
I, like the others in this thread, would like to see you attend the JREF challenge and prove your skills.
You can also try to read me, you're welcome to try to tell me anything about any past family members that I might have.
/thomas
I'm fairly open-minded when concerning paranormal experinces, and this post is not at all written to offend you or your personal experiences, it is merely some suggestions of other reasons than those you rely on.
When I read what you claim is a contact with the spirit world, I especially think of these two situations:
- Smell of mint where no mint is present.
- Having a gentle felling of pressure or a light stroke against your head.
Smell of mint where no mint is present:
Now don't take this wrong, but that is most likely a minor mental disorder. We all have minor mental disorders. For instance, the feeling of deja vu that an estimated 70% of the population have felt, is a 'bug in the system' that causes you to mistake the present for the past. Closely related to temporal-lobe epilepsy. That you get this smell 'out of the blue' on a regular basis, may be a minor mental disorder, we can't rule that out.
Having a gentle felling of pressure or a light stroke against your head:
If this phenomena is not based on stimuli from the enviroment that surround you in the given situation, this could very well be another disorder in your nervous system. Maybe based on the same source that causes you to smell things that isn't there.
However,
I'm not saying that you have a serious mental disorder, but a minor one seems likely. People with mental disorders often claim to have contact with higher sources like aliens, spirits, gods etc.
Another typical issue for people that have these disorders is that they tend to rely entirely on intuition, and therefore draws conclusions that is closely related to pure fantasy.
I'm not saying that you're completely insane, merely suggesting that these experiences you say you have, could very well be the product of a minor disorder in your nervous system.
Don't take this wrong, it's not an attack on your person, just a suggestion you shouldn't reject at all.
Having said that, I would like to finish this off with quote from very old movie I don't remeber the name or director of:
This was related to a revolutionary scientist though, and not to a medium.
From reading you're entire set of posts, another suggestion I can't rule out, is that you're simply a liar. Cheating people for a living.
I, like the others in this thread, would like to see you attend the JREF challenge and prove your skills.
You can also try to read me, you're welcome to try to tell me anything about any past family members that I might have.
/thomas
Lorri said:
The comparison is quite unfortunate Lorri because I attack those who sell cold reading as communication with the dead I am not attacking you unless you are a medium and you protest like that. Are you a medium?
You said that you do not believe in spiritualism but you are spiritual? You kinda lost me. Can you explain me the difference?
Donn
Philosopher
Mercutio said:
This is something that really interests me (as uneducated and backwards as I am).
Could you drop some urls for further reading on these answers?