Whether you're young or older, you can always make the decision to change. How you have lived your life till now does not have to determine how you live your life from now on.
The choice is yours.
I suspect that the information on this site will be very confronting to most visitors. So, before you jump into the main content, let me explain why I choose to accept the material. It comes primarily from channelled messages given to Washington lawyer James Padgett around the time of the First World War. I use these messages as they are very cohesive and explicit, and the proof of their reliability is probably stronger than for many other messages.
But why on earth would anyone accept supposed messages from Spirits when the messages contradict most of what the western world has believed for centuries? The Catholic Church, in which I grew up, still teaches that all messages from spirits are in fact attempts by Satan to mislead us. Hence we should not pay them any heed.
So, let me explain my logic process:
1. First, one must accept that there IS a spirit world, inhabited by the souls of deceased humans.
I know that there are people who believe that this life is all we get and there is nothing after it. But I think that most people - east and west alike - accept that there is an after-life. There are many books available by reputable professional people which validate the reality of spirit communication. One such is "A Lawyer Presents the Evidence for the Afterlife" by Victor Zammit. Victor is a retired barrister of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the High Court of Australia. I have now added a page giving a summary of the Zammit book - see "Zammit" in the top menu.
Other reputable authors who demonstrate communication with spirits are Brian Weiss and Michael Newton.
2. Is it possible for spirits to communicate with humans?
Well, Christians, Jews and Muslims all accept messages given in the "Old Testament". Christians believe that Jesus and John received messages. In fact the Catholic church has canonised countless mystics and visionaries throughout the centuries: mystic-Saints such as St Francis of Assisi, St Catherine of Siena, St Theresa of Avila etc. are accepted as genuine, authentic mediums/visionaries. So it all comes down to whether the medium is considered "genuine".
Given the Church's stance on spirit communication, I do not consider that it is a reliable authority to pass judgement on any given message or medium. Instead, I believe that we need to apply scientific (or quasi-scientific) criteria much as a court of law would do. This is precisely what Zammit did in his book. He was for many years a confirmed skeptic about all things spiritual. Then, after he had a number of repeated psychic/mediumistic experiences he began to question, read and research. Adopting a scientific criterion, Victor was able to select information which could withstand and pass the many rigid tests of repeatability and objectivity.
Dr Brian Weiss was professor of psychiatry at Miami university and his published books give many detailed accounts of interaction with spirits. Similarly, Dr Michael Newton Ph.D. recounts numerous instances of spirit communication.
So, I accept unquestioningly that humans CAN receive messages from spirits. (But not all mediums are reliable nor honest - just as not all priests or bishops are automatically honest and trustworthy).
3. Can we accept the messages to James Padgett as reliable?
Given that he was a staunch Methodist, most of the information he channelled was entirely at odds with his religious upbringing and not something which he could possibly be expected to fabricate. Furthermore, he was a highly respected lawyer in Washington, and he gave his own sworn statement of the veracity of the messages, so I would think he can be trusted. But if we add the testimony of his colleagues who witnessed many of the messages being received, and the fact that he wrote faster than a man could possibly think, then I suggest that his messages can be accepted as genuine.
There is a lot of evidence to justify accepting these messages as real and genuine. I cannot give all the proofs and justifications here. But if you persist you will find lots of proof on this site and elsewhere on the internet.
4. But how can the Padgett messages be true if they strongly contradict most of the beliefs of all Christians?
If we have established that the medium is reliable and the messages are presumably reliable, then we need to look at the cohesion of the information and its inherent logicalness. All the messages received by Padgett show an unfailing insistence on their inherent reliability, and there is no variation in the content of the core messages - except to elucidate matters as Padgett progressed. Padgett originally disbelieved that his wife was contacting him; but she eventually gave him evidence to prove that it was her and Padgett grew to recognise his wife's contact. Nearly all the messages he received - especially those which seemed too unbelievable (e.g. from Jesus and famous historical figures) were immediately confirmed by his wife as being genuinely from the spirit concerned.
There are two other reasons for accepting the content of the messages:
(a) if God is what and Who we believe, then much of the New testament information has to be false; God cannot be totally and unconditionally loving and then show anger, wrath, displeasure or similar negative qualities. Nor can He be loving and then condemn a person to eternal punishment - in fact the very concept of punishment is incompatible with unconditional love. And
(b) most biblical scholars and scientific experts agree that the Bible is incredibly unreliable.
Each "book" was re-written dozens of times over the first 2-3 centuries and there was massive disagreement among the various church branches/leaders about what was true and what was false. It was not till Constantine ordered the warring factions to come to a consensus that the current "bible" was accepted and promulgated. Furthermore, there are many, many quotations in the New Testament that are totally at odds with one another. So, in order for church authorities to maintain the veracity of these conflicting quotations, they have to force an unrealistic (and oftentimes foolish) interpretation onto these quotations to make them fit with accepted "orthodox" beliefs.
Hence, the disparity between the Bible and the Padgett messages is to be expected. And the messages show far more logic than the various Christian Creeds display.
Therefore, I accept that the Padgett messages are more likely to be true than is the bible.
5. One further "proof" of the validity of the Padgett messages, is that there have been many messages channelled more recently and they consistently reaffirm the same message. One of the mediums who received messages was Dr Daniel Samuels who met Dr Stone in 1954 and received messages over a 12-year period. Another was a series of messages from 2001-2003 from Judas. And there are many other mediums who have received confirming messages during the last 50 years. This is an area that will require of you, more study and research.
6. I have decided to add here, an additional "justification" for disputing or denying much of what is regarded as undeniable truth in the Christian tradition. My justification comes from books written posthumously by Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson, a former catholic priest. I have created a separate page for this material; it is not essential to read it but it does give some interesting insights on religion, spirituality and Christian beliefs. The page is called simply "Benson". (Oct 2016) - more info to be added as I get time.
So, if you are a tiny bit curious; or desire to know how to achieve greater happiness in this life; and would like to know what to expect in the next life, then please read some of the pages.
I assure you that if you take the time then the day will come that you will be forever grateful that you came.
Whatever your decision, with all my heart, I wish you a rewarding and joyful life journey. Remember that I am always happy for you to contact me if you have questions - or a point of dissent. (Click on "More/Contact")