Training for Newcomers to the Spirit World.

kardecian wrote:

Detlef wrote:
from the book: The Spirits' Book   Allen Kardec

The Soul

134. What is the soul?
"An incarnate spirit."                He could not be further from the truth.
- What was the soul before its union with a body?
"A spirit."                        again       He could not be further from the truth.
- Souls and spirits are, then, the very same thing?   

"Yes; souls are only spirits. Before uniting itself with a body, the soul is one of the intelligent
beings who people the invisible world, and who temporarily assume a fleshly body in order to
effect their purification and enlightenment."         The soul creates spirit (an energy construct ) in order to be able connect    with a physical body

135. Is there in man anything else than a soul and a body?'
"There is the link which unites the soul and the body."
Of cause the soul is never in the body Yes the link is there, as well as spirit.

 Hi Detlef,
I don't see what this has to do with Joan's post. But, I personally think that Kardec's info is pretty spot on here. My understanding is like Kardec's, as most Spiritualists I know would agree with him. Your idea that 'soul creates spirit' is totally foreign to my ears. I've never heard of such a thing.  My understanding is that we are soul/spirit (probably simply a translation thing) and that only God can create spirit.  I've never heard of a 'soul creating a spirit.' Also, the soul is in the body. There is a link, but the soul dwells in the body.  Where did you get your information from?  Also, perhaps you should start another thread on this subject, as it really doesn't have anything to do with Joan's post.
I get the feeling you are antagonistic towards Spiritism and Allan Kardec. If that is the case, perhaps you should start a thread on the subject and get it out of your system.
Mike

mac wrote: " But, I personally think that Kardec's info is pretty spot on here. My understanding is like Kardec's, as most Spiritualists I know would agree with him."  As a Spiritualist of some 30 years I would disagree that most other Spiritualists would agree with him....


 "Your idea that 'soul creates spirit' is totally foreign to my ears. I've never heard of such a thing.  My understanding is that we are soul/spirit (probably simply a translation thing) and that only God can create spirit."  I agree with the first section of this paragraph but disagree that "...only God can create spirit."

 If you mean discarnate individuals when you say 'spirit' then the way I understand things is that God doesn't create them.  Perhaps it's semantics getting in the way?

But if you mean the life-force that we call 'spirit', something found in everything and everybody, then God didn't create that either.  Spirit is and spirit always has been - there wasn't a point when it was created because that would mean that it didn't exist before.

spiritone* wrote:My belief is, once we are Souls again, we have incarnated many times, so we have abilities we wouldn't have as humans. I understand that we as souls who want to contact the other side know we have to lower our vibrations and that the contact on this side has to raise their vibrations. I have never read anything about having to learn from a medium how to do that. Of course I haven't read the book Joan read. I plan on looking up that book now. Hope I can find it in the US.

I'm sure Mediums who pass have special positions on the other side.  It would be interesting to read a book that talks about that. Has anyone ever read one you can recommend, other than the one Joan mentioned?

kardecian wrote:

mac wrote: " But, I personally think that Kardec's info is pretty spot on here. My understanding is like Kardec's, as most Spiritualists I know would agree with him."  As a Spiritualist of some 30 years I would disagree that most othe..............
But if you mean the life-force that we call 'spirit', something found in everything and everybody, then God didn't create that either.  Spirit is and spirit always has been - there wasn't a point when it was created because that would mean that it didn't exist before.

Hi Mac,
I think part our disagreement might be semantics.  However, I do believe that 'spirits' or 'souls' are 'created' simple and ignorant, and that they progress upwards from there. Whether the substance of the 'spirit' or 'soul' has always existed... probably.  However, I do (personally) believe that it's God Who first causes that 'life' to enter into the 'material' world.  Whether that life is part of God, or whether God creates it, I can't say for sure.  I'm not sure anyone can say for sure.  I know the Higher Spirits are not able (or perhaps are not permitted) to dispel this.

kardecian wrote:Mac, you said "As a Spiritualist of some 30 years I would disagree that most other Spiritualists would agree with him...." And I disagree with you.  I've been involved with Spiritualism since 1985.  My grandmother was a Medium.  I've never personally met a Spiritualist who doesn't agree with Kardec.  I think it's a matter of the TYPE of Spiritualism one is involved in.  You are what I'd call a SECULAR SPIRITUALIST.  The Spiritualists I've always been involved with would not be considered Secularist.  I also know for a fact that at least one other Spiritualist on this site (who is in Britain) would agree with Kardec also.  

Detlef wrote:

kardecian wrote:

Detlef wrote:
from the book: The Spirits' Book   Allen Kardec

The Soul

........
Of cause the soul is never in the body Yes the link is there, as well as spirit.

 Hi Detlef,
I don't see what this has to do with Joan's post. But, I personally think that Kardec's info is pretty spot on here. My understanding is like Kardec's, as most Spiritualists I know would agree with hi............ith Joan's post.
I get the feeling you are antagonistic towards Spiritism and Allan Kardec. If that is the case, perhaps you should start a thread on the subject and get it out of your system.
Mike

 then have it deleted please
I have no intention to enter a discussion about, what and who is god, if we would discuss the term god, or soul or spirit.
After all you follow doctrine, as it seams. That's OK I choose not to.

mac wrote:

kardecian wrote:Mac, you said "As a Spiritualist of some 30 years I would disagree that most other Spiritualists would agree with him...." And I disagree with you.  I've been involved with Spiritualism since 1985.  My grandmother was a Medium.  I've never personally met a Spiritualist who doesn't agree with Kardec.  I think it's a matter of the TYPE of Spiritualism one is involved in.  You are what I'd call a SECULAR SPIRITUALIST.  The Spiritualists I've always been involved with would not be considered Secularist.  I also know for a fact that at least one other Spiritualist on this site (who is in Britain) would agree with Kardec also.  

 As I've mentioned already, the US Spiritualism scene is somewhat different than that in the UK but even then just because you've never personally met a Spiritualist who doesn't agree with Kardec it doesn't mean that most Spiritualists do.   On your final point I don't know the Spiritualist member over here you're referring but one member is hardly statistically significant. Give me sound, meaningful statistics and I might be persuaded.


It's an interesting situation that Modern Spiritualism emerged in Hydesville, NY but the current US version is significantly different from that found in the UK which - it seems to me - is much less prescriptive.  There's an interesting difference, too, in the way that the US has 'spiritual mediums' and 'psychic mediums' whereas in the UK we just say mediums, those found associated with the religion of Spiritualism mostly/often being evidential mediums.  Nations separated by a common language?


I've been called many things over my time 'in the spooks' but I've never been described as a 'Secular Spiritualist'.  Those descriptions seem to me to be mutually exclusive.  Although the Spiritualist church has no importance for me as a person, I do support its aims and refer seekers to it as a means of furthering their search.


And as I totally accept Spiritualism as a religion - as my religion - I can't see how I'd be seen as secular, one definition of which is: "...of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious or spiritual".

 

kardecian wrote:

mac wrote:

kardecian wrote:Mac, you said "As a Spiritualist of some 30 years I would disagree that most other Spiritualists would agree with him...." And I disagree with you.  I've been involved with Spiritualism since 1985.  My grandmother was a Medium.  I've never personally met a Spiritualist who doesn't agree with Kardec.  I think it's a matter of the TYPE of Spiritualism one is involved in.  You are what I'd call a SECULAR SPIRITUALIST.  The Spiritualists I've always been involved with would not be considered Secularist.  I also know for a fact that at least one other Spiritualist on this site (who is in Britain) would agree with Kardec also.  

 As I've mentioned already, the US Spiritualism scene is somewhat different than that in the UK but even then just because you've never personally met a Spiritualist who doesn't agree with Kardec it doesn't mean that most Spiritualists do.   On your final point I don't know the Spiritualist member over here you're referring but one member is hardly statistically significant. Give me sound, meaningful statistics and I might be persuaded.


It's an interesting situation that Modern Spiritualism emerged in Hydesville, NY but the current US version is significantly different from that found in the UK which - it seems to me - is much less prescriptive.  There's an interesting difference, too, in the way that the US has 'spiritual mediums' and 'psychic mediums' whereas in the UK we just say mediums, those found associated with the religion of Spiritualism mostly/often being evidential mediums.  Nations separated by a common language?


I've been called many things over my time 'in the spooks' but I've never been described as a 'Secular Spiritualist'.  Those descriptions seem to me to be mutually exclusive.  Although the Spiritualist church has no importance for me as a person, I do support its aims and refer seekers to it as a means of furthering their search.


And as I totally accept Spiritualism as a religion - as my religion - I can't see how I'd be seen as secular, one definition of which is: "...of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious or spiritual".

 

Hi Mac,
I can only go by what I know and observe. I don't know if it's possible to give you sound, meaningful statistics as I'm not sure that there is such a record, even online.  I don't believer you would be able to do the same either.
A good part of the disagreement is probably this: I'm not sure that people truly agree on what Spiritualism truly is.
Regarding the term "Secular Spiritualist": I'm not the one who coined it.  It was floating around another site a while back, and I borrowed the term.  It was a Spiritualist medium who coined the term, and who was arguing with another Spiritualist for being too 'secular' if I recall.  I agree that it's probably not a very appropriate term.  
Perhaps a good way to approach this whole subject would be to get down to the question, "What exactly is a Spiritualist?"
I'm out of town for a couple of days.

mac wrote:I think the following called 'Spiritism' is seen, and may be legally registered, as a religion, just as Spiritualism is here, in the US and in Australia.

 I don't understand, then, what a "...Spiritist kind of spiritualism" would be.

kardecian wrote:

mac wrote:I think the following called 'Spiritism' is seen, and may be legally registered, as a religion, just as Spiritualism is here, in the US and in Australia.

 I don't understand, then, what a "...Spiritist kind of spiritualism" would be.

As I've said, in our area there is not a big difference between Spiritism and Spiritualism. A 'Spiritst kind of Spiritualism' is what you get here in Oregon.  I can think of one Spiritist group in Oregon and 4 Spiritualist Churches in our area.  One Spirtualist Church has adopted the NSU (?) statement of doctrine; 2 are clearly Christian and the last one I don't know much about.

mac wrote: Did anyone follow the link to YouTube I posted earlier?  If so, what were your reactions/thoughts to the videos?

kardecian wrote:

mac wrote: Did anyone follow the link to YouTube I posted earlier?  If so, what were your reactions/thoughts to the videos?

Hi Mac,
I saw the Youtube video you are mentioning.  Although I think the fellow in the video is accurate, the presentation bothered me.  I don't know what it is... the suit, the canned answers, etc. bother me.  It's the presentation-style I didn't like.

mac wrote:

kardecian wrote:

mac wrote: Did anyone follow the link to YouTube I posted earlier?  If so, what were your reactions/thoughts to the videos?

Hi Mac,
I saw the Youtube video you are mentioning.  Although I think the fellow in the video is accurate, the presentation bothered me.  I don't know what it is... the suit, the canned answers, etc. bother me.  It's the presentation-style I didn't like.

I thought the presentation allowed time for individuals whose first language isn't English to access what was being said. 

But focusing on the the content, were the Spiritist teachings there the ones that guide your church or you personally?

SpiritVoices wrote:Did you know that new spirits arriving in the spirit world enter training for communication through a medium to be able to pass messages to loved ones in the Physical World?

Joan

spiritone* wrote:

SpiritVoices wrote:Did you know that new spirits arriving in the spirit world enter training for communication through a medium to be able to pass messages to loved ones in the Physical World?

Joan

 Joan, I just read yesterday that when we are in our spirit body we have all mediumship abilities. I hadn't thought about that before, but it makes sense. We know what everyone is doing, we can be more than one place at the same time, we can read minds, we can transport ourselves into human bodies and other objects. 
I don't know if we have to relearn that or if we just are mediums immediately, I guess I have to read further in this book.