The great prophets were described as madmen.
I resist channeling. The ‘teachers’ seem to me much like humans, and at times I grow tired of the philosophy, duty, and platitudes.
Many people say they are channeling, but they aren’t. Others don’t, but relate well to the teachers. I do channel some, and they don’t identify with incarnation. Many think channeling is contact with spirit that has no desire for identity any longer, but they do, in a metaphysical sense, have identity.
They are recognized for the content of the message. The identity is the landscape. For them, it’s the landscape. They mostly only respond to questions, and then no definite answers as they are aware of potentials. There is no dichotomy between, and no definite answers because they dwell in the realm of potential energies. This is what spirit means. Actualization = incarnation.
You can tell a genuine channeler because they don’t embellish. In fact, sometimes the spirits refuse to use metaphor so things said by them seem really weird and abstract. They are also very literal. Ask a question and you have to be clear. They answer what is asked. They don’t infer like we do.
The human paradigm just doesn’t really apply, even if they were human. And they are not omniscient. This is the sign of a bogus channeler. There is work on that side, and spirits can have focuses. They can change focus if they choose, but it still is a form of work. That side is very busy. The ‘Spirit Twitter’ is a window into this work.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.