Spiritual mediums

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

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.

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

v/r

Q

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

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

v/r

Q

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.

~andrew

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

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.

~andrew

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.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

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.

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.

How childish. How typically, vainly male.