Why Make spiritualism into a religion?

As I understand it (and I may be wrong here), Spiritualism claims as its basis to be able to provide evidence that we survive physical death; that our survival is simply part of the natural cycle of existence; that we will continue to exist no matter what we believe, although our behaviour now can influence our rate of progress in the future.

If this is so and it is truly based on evidence and not faith, then it appears to me that it is no different from any scientific discipline and I cannot see any place for a 'belief system'. I can see how people may have different theories based on their own experience, but I cannot see how that necessarily implies any organised system of religious faith is necessary or even appropriate. Where is the need for churches, creeds, hierarchies, control, religious services if Spiritualism is about evidence and fact? If it is about belief then how is it different from other religions? Does the world really need another religion? Does the world need Spiritualism?

It is an interesting point Obi, I guess it is because we believe in God, the Great Spirit, the Infinite Intelligence. My understanding is that the dictionary definition is that such belief equates to a religion. Given we have no obvious home in any of the other "belief" systems because they mostly reject our views of continued existence its probably not unnatural that it started its own religions.

I say plural because we have three real strands (if you ignore the new development of all inclusove New Age Centres reflecting the older idea of "magical" Spiritualism), Christian, Rational and Spiritist. Allan Kardec expressly said Spiritism was not a religion but over time it seems to have developed into one.

I am aware that there is a philosophical atheist belief in survival as well.

This is a very ionteresting issue to discuss.

Jim

Spiritualism would be better placed if it could free the mind from such restrictive thinking, but I suppose that evolution from theology to open outlook takes the route it takes.
Religion is a comfort zone for many, offering a kind of shelter from Life's blast, but it is also cause and effect in action.
Perhaps the most helpful approach is to consider Spiritualism as a massive door into a multi-compartment inner world that offers much riches to those who would explore. Exploration must be undertaken by the individual and carried out at a pace comfortable to him/ her. There appear to be few limits to where the mind can probe, but personal fears are best dealt with at the outset.
I'd agree fully with dropping religious trappings, but there will be many views to the contrary.

Admin wrote:It is an interesting point Obi, I guess it is because we believe in God, the Great Spirit, the Infinite Intelligence. My understanding is that the dictionary definition is that such belief equates to a religion. Given we have no obvious home in any of the other "belief" systems because they mostly reject our views of continued existence its probably not unnatural that it started its own religions.

I say plural because we have three real strands (if you ignore the new development of all inclusove New Age Centres reflecting the older idea of "magical" Spiritualism), Christian, Rational and Spiritist. Allan Kardec expressly said Spiritism was not a religion but over time it seems to have developed into one.

I am aware that there is a philosophical atheist belief in survival as well.

This is a very ionteresting issue to discuss.

Jim

Interesting point Jim. I may be wrong but I don't think Buddhism has a God, A Great Spirit or an Infinite Intelligence does it or Taoism? - I could be wrong - it wouldn't be the first time/

A very interesting blog which is related to this subject

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://theartofjoyfulliving.blogspot.com/2009/12/implications-of-spiritualism.html&ct=ga&cd=qRUl54V77XE&usg=AFQjCNHM1vysnkznLC6M93iuUXyek6udYg

This must be the day for synchronicity the following link takes you to the blog of a self proclaimed Spiritualist Rationalist
http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/12/alfred-russel-wallace-spiritual.html

Admin wrote:A very interesting blog which is related to this subject

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://theartofjoyfulliving.blogspot.com/2009/12/implications-of-spiritualism.html&ct=ga&cd=qRUl54V77XE&usg=AFQjCNHM1vysnkznLC6M93iuUXyek6udYg

"The Implications of Spiritualism" was originally written by Maurice Barbanell.

Admin wrote:This must be the day for synchronicity the following link takes you to the blog of a self proclaimed Spiritualist Rationalist
http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/12/alfred-russel-wallace-spiritual.html

"Two Worlds" recently published my article on Alfred Russel Wallace. The introduction reads:

Wallace was the first famous scientist to investigate Spiritualism in Britain, and was also the greatest scientist ever to testify in favour of survival and communication with spirits.

He will always be remembered as the co-discoverer of the Theory of Evolution with Darwin.

But for the exchange of views between these two great men, Darwin may have delayed publication of his theories for some years and the credit given to Wallace who was prepared at the time, to lay his theories before the world of science.

He investigated table phenomena and the mental and physical mediumship of Mrs Marshall in 1865.
From 1866 onwards he investigated the remarkable mediumship of Mrs Guppy.

Though a stout and heavy woman her body was often levitated, but she was most famous for her apports of flowers and fruit.

In 1869 Wallace served on a committee appointed by the Dialectical Society for the investigation of psychical phenomena.

This committee presented the most favourable report on Spiritualism ever given by an investigating body. It was accepted and printed privately by the Society in 1871.

Later he stated that the phenomena of Spiritualism “are proved quite as well as any facts are proved in other sciences.”

I thought I recognised that piece its on here properly attributed I must look at that blog again I do not think he is attributing it to Barbanell

As for synchronicity perhaps we have hit an etheric nerve?
In the first blog you mention it is interesting to note the usual misunderstanding of the meaning of retribution and restitution - or perhaps a freudian slip?

obiwan wrote:As for synchronicity perhaps we have hit an etheric nerve?
In the first blog you mention it is interesting to note the usual misunderstanding of the meaning of retribution and restitution - or perhaps a freudian slip?

It should be restitution in that particular context. I don't remember Barbanell making that sort of mistake in the original pamphlet. Obviously someone copied it and made a typing error and it has been repeated ever since!