Talk:Helen Schucman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 June 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus/default keep.

This article needs much fleshing out. Anyone who wants to, please dig in.

Scott P. July 8, 2005 18:21 (UTC)

Hope this helps. - Dexter, July 9, 2005, 06:03 (GMT)

[edit] Removed Spiritual Medium categorization

I don't think Helen Schucman really fit the mold of a spiritual medium. -- Campania 05:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you please explain why? Religious scholar Wouter J. Hanegraaff labels her (and other channelers) as such. Mediums are not confined to spiritism. Thanks in advance. Andries 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Campania for these three reasons based on Webster's definition of a spiritual medium which is: a person through whom the spirits of the dead are alleged to be able to contact the living. My three reasons are:

1. Webster's definition uses the plural for spirits. Schucman was not known to have contacted anyone besides Jesus (at least to the best of my knowledge).
2. There are many Christians that might argue that Jesus doesn't fully qualify as one who is dead, in light of the Christian belief that he was resurrected.
3. I personally have never before considered single-source channellers as mediums, which is a view that would be consistent with Webster's definition stating that a medium channels multiple spirits, i.e. spirits plural.

For these three reasons, it seems to me that classifying Schucman as a medium might be a bit of a stretch. Channeller yes, medium maybe not. For whatever my personal opinion might be worth. Scott P. 08:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I understand and agree that the categorization of spiritual medium may be wrong. I will however re-introduce the statement that she is a medium as Wouter J. Hanegraaff's attributed opinion. At this moment I only have a Dutch languages source for this but Hanegraaff has also written extensively in English language about channeling and I would be very surprized if he uses a different terminology in English. 17:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Certainly sounds good to me. Perhaps to quote Hanegraaff in the article. Thanks. Scott P. 22:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Her pre-eminent role in the production of this text is often reflected in the mediumistic-spiritualistic ascription scribe."

If no one minds, I'd like to edit or just delete this sentence. I don't really know what it means to say she has a pre-eminent role. Also, I don't think that the term "mediumistic-spiritualistic" really describes her very well, which is discussed above already anyway. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 13:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-POV and other editing

Okay, I just did a little editing. I also removed the "New Age" category. That's a completely subjective move on my part. Certainly, many people do consider ACIM to be a New Age book, and that simple fact could perhaps justify listing ACIM as a New Age book because the term "New Age" is not really a definitive term, many who read ACIM stress that it is NOT New Age, as it has nothing to do with reading auras, chakra alignment, aromatherapy, crystals, meditation, or most of the other things that are associated with New Age spiritualities. If someone puts that category back, fine. I won't be offended or angry or anything. It is just my subjective opinion that it doesn't fit this subject. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi 13:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that the Workbook spends a great deal of effort teaching what is often called meditation, claiming it has nothing to do with meditation is a bit of a stretch. Gene Ward Smith 08:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)