From: "John Fitzsimons" 
Newsgroups: 
            
lt.paranormal.channeling,talk.religion.newage,alt.paranormal,alt.
            consciousness.mysticism
Organization: Melbourne PC User Group Inc, Australia
Original Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:28:01 GMT
On Mon, 09 Jun 1997 09:57:04 -0500, "Patrick Alessandra, Psy.D."
 wrote:
>On Channelling
On posting
Did you really think 18 newsgroups would be interested in 
channelling ? One of them twice !
Original post :
alt.paranormal.channeling,talk.religion.newage,alt.alien.visitors,
alt.alien.wanderers,alt.books,alt.consciousness.4th-way,
alt.paranormal,alt.religion.gnostic,comp.org.cpsr.talk,
talk.religion.course-miracle,alt.atheism,alt.neo-tech,
alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.paranormal.channeling,
alt.drugs.psychedelics,alt.parallel.universes,
alt.astrology.metapsych,sci.astrology.misc
>"According to the research I have done a "channelled" writting can
>actually be from many different types of sources -- some good but some
>intent on deception. 
Yep. Whether one is using a TV channel, a radio channel or a human
channel the user can be positive or negative.  :-)
>The criteria to determine this seems to be whether
>or not the so-called channeller is conscious or unconscious.
Not correct. One can be in total unconsciousness (eg. deep trance)
and channel highly evolved entities, OR low vibration entities.
> If the person is conscious (awake with eyes open) then it generally 
> would be good. 
Try telling that to victims of mass murderers, and others, who were
attacked by someone with their "eyes open".    :-)
>If the channeller is unconscious (eyes-closed) with some entity
>using the body then definitely not good (despite apparent good
>information...) 
Why "apparently" good ? Either it is or isn't. Seems like a situation
of ignoring contrary evidence so that the "formulae" is shown to be
correct. Some unconscious (eyes closed) information is complete
rubbish and/or negative. Some is very uplifting and positive.  :-)

 
> The unconscious rendering of our bodies for the
>use of other entities separates us from this spiritual evolution -- this
>is the reason that so-called possession is a bad thing. "
IMHO What rubbish. Possession is neither a good thing or a bad thing. 
Saying possession is bad is like saying all knives are "bad" because
many people are knifed to death.
A knife can be "good" or it can be mis-used and be termed "bad". Just
like possession. It can be "good" (where a highly evolved soul
communicates) or it can be "bad" (eg. where a discarnate murderer,
rapist, liar, etc. communicates).
>"Any true spiritual being, living on spiritual planes, would communicate
>with us through our spiritual self in full consciousness.
Never been to an asylem ? Plenty of people there supposedly
communicate with spirit planes while being "in full consciousness".
>The use of
>someone's unconscious body by another entity is always being done on
>some lower level and thus (although those involved may believe that they
>are doing the right thing)
If one changed "unconscious" to unwilling then I would agree. However
if a properly trained medium does unconscious channelling then there
shouldn't be a problem.   :-)
>there is no access by the person to spiritual information.
Ignoring the fact that spiritual information "can" come via an
unconscious channel.   :-)
> Also, unconscious body possession sets up a very unhealthy
>chemical vibration in the brain cells which usually leads to some form
>of debility. "

Partly correct. Possession by "lower" vibration entities can
directly/indirectly lead to physical illness, or death. Possession by
"higher" vibration entities can often have a healing effect on the
channel, as well as people nearby around him/her.  :-)
Regards, John.
 
 ****************************************************
  ,-._|\    John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
 /  Oz  \   johnf@melbpc.org.au, Fidonet 3:632/309
 \_,--.x/   http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
       v    http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/
            
--- MailGate 0.25e
---------------