[minsocal]

David, on Mar 27 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

Great topics for discussion but you dodge what is important to Jen. Again you are showing what is important to you, not what is important to Jen.

Jen is saying that she speaks to a divine being that she claims has a fundamentally different nature than you and I. I do not see Jung supporting the existence of angels. Jen is attempting to support that argument by using scientific terms that can easily be found on the internet. The fact that things like the “God spot” are now “old” science tells us that her divine being is not a good scientist.

Again if you have science that supports what is important to Jen, please show it to us.

See boldened. I really wish you and davidk would just shut up on the issue of talking for me. Please.

[David]

minsocal, on Mar 25 2009, 03:41 PM, said:

Now, I'm going to check this out and determine for myself whether people here responded to the content of what Jen has to say or only the format. This, should be interesting. More to follow.

I guess I will just wait for the "more to follow".

[minsocal]

David, on Mar 27 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

I guess I will just wait for the "more to follow".

The more to follow will not be for your benefit. It was never intended for just your benefit. You have been in waiting for 250 years, you can wait a bit longer.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 27 March 2009 - 04:50 PM

[David]

wayfarer2k, on Mar 23 2009, 03:19 PM, said:

Now, THERE is a subject that would interest me greatly, David. I would love to hear from Jesus about whether he is the actual incarnation of Yahweh (to me, Israel''s god-of-war) and why the apostle Paul presents a different method of justification (faith) than Jesus did (good works). Actually, I've got a ton of questions for him and if it was really Jesus, he would most like answer my questios in true rabbinical style -- with another question.

Though my post to Jen was reactive and somewhat strong, I would like to think that I am open to further revelation. I just don't know how I would guage if it was true or not, especially considering that I am not completely convinced that everything found in the Bible is true revelation. It's very possible that Paul believed he was channelling Jesus, so I suppose there is scriptural precedent for it.

I'm just not sure how to keep one foot rooted in the past (Christianity) while having the other in the future (Progressive). Christianity seems so superstitious and mystical to me, in spite of the fact that I admire most of Jesus' teachings. So I would certainly enjoy hearing how Jesus himself would admonish us to go forward. Maybe that is what the 8 Points are about.

bill

Hi Bill,

I had assumed you got mad and left. Glad to see you are still around.

I think your point is well taken. I think it is appropriate to compare Paul and Jen. There are obviously many claims to such revelation. The whole book of Mormon is based upon this claim. The Holy Qur’an is based upon this claim. I have noted that Pat Robertson makes similar claims. If you accept that such revelation is possible then you really do have a problem as you note. I would not underestimate the seriousness of this problem. Much of what is going on in the world can be traced to fights over "true" revelation.

I would suggest that there is no such revelation because the God I know does not work that way. That God does not provide “direct dictation”. On the other hand I certainly support the mystic. I think we can learn much from mystics. But one of my clues of whether one mystic is “true” or not is whether they claim communication with a super and separate divine being. I tend towards those who claim “oneness” with God and do not claim to be a secretary for a separate God.

David

This post has been edited by David: 27 March 2009 - 07:11 PM

[billmc]

David, on Mar 27 2009, 06:45 PM, said:

I had assumed you got mad and left. Glad to see you are still around.

Yes, I'm very human. I get upset. I get frustrated. But I keep coming back because I need to grown. I can't go back to conservative fundamentalism...and yet, at the same time, I don't want to go down the paths of some here. But that doesn't mean that I can't listen and learn from their paths.

Quote

I think your point is well taken. I think it is appropriate to compare Paul and Jen. There are obviously many claims to such revelation. The whole book of Mormon is based upon this claim. The Holy Qur’an is based upon this claim. I have noted that Pat Robertson makes similar claims. If you accept that such revelation is possible then you really do have a problem as you note. I would not underestimate the seriousness of this problem. Much of what is going on in the world can be traced to fights over "true" revelation.

There is a saying, I think it is amongst the United Church of Christ, "God is still speaking." I would imagine that many progressive feel that way, that the canonization of the Bible was not the end of God (not just Judeo-Christian God but GOD) speaking to humanity. But it does leave us in sort of a quandry as to how we discern if it is really God speaking to us or our ego or our conscience or social mores or...whatever. It doesn't happen often, but once in a while someone will claim that God told them to blow up a building or fly a plane into a tower or kill a child to cover some sin or some other what I would consider to be an evil act. Again, I don't put Jen in this category, not at all. But Jen's claims to open the door for others to make the same claim, that they are channeling Jesus or God, and I can't help but wonder if the benefits of having "private revelations" is worth the danger.

For instance, I believe that the apostle Paul did more to undermine Jesus' teachings and purpose than anyone else in "Christian history." I also believe that the apostle John's revelation on the Isle of Patmos is almost pure lunacy. Jesus returns to kill everybody? This is the Jesus of the gospels? I don't think so. But Paul and John both prove that private revelations can be canonized by the church and by Christians. And because they get canonized, they are seldom questioned and hardly ever critically critiqued against the historical Jesus.

Quote

I would suggest that there is no such revelation because the God I know does not work that way. That God does not provide “direct dictation”. On the other hand I certainly support the mystic. I think we can learn much from mystics. But one of my clues of whether one mystic is “true” or not is whether they claim communication with a super and separate divine being. I tend towards those who claim “oneness” with God and do not claim to be a secretary for a separate God.

I hear you. At the same time, Jesus himself stands in line of those who do indeed claim to be a secretary for God. If his claims in the gospels are true, he claimed to speak his Father's words and do his Father's works. That is a heavy-duty claim. But what I see in Jesus, IMO, is that his "private revelations" led him to serve humanity instead of calling humanity to serve him. And his revelations seemed to point to his two greatest commandments - love God and do that by loving each other. These commands, if followed, would, I think, make us and our world a better place.

So I don't know where "Progressive Christianity" falls on the subject of new revelation. Does God continue to send us new prophets and prophetesses? If indeed he does, do we make the same mistake of calling for their silence, sometimes leading, as it did with Jesus, to their execution? I don't know. My conservative roots say that Jesus is the final revelation. But my experiences tell me better. Dr. Martin Luther King was, I believe, a prophet of God. So was, IMO, Gandhi. So was Mother Theresa. I have my doubts about Billy Graham though.

But the bottom line for me is this, if God does raise up people, perhaps in every generation, to speak afresh for him, then whatever message and revelation is given should go back to a God that is for compassion and justice. Not to a God of vengeance. Not to a God who wants to kill sinners. Not to a God who wants the elite to have all the riches and power. But to the God of "the least of these."

Does Jen's Jesus encourage people to get back to that kind of God? I guess that this is a question that each of us must answer for ourselves.

bill

[David]

Thank you for your well thought out response.

I do not see Jesus as a secretary for God. There is much in the Bible that attempts to present him that way. But I think that is the early Church talking. I see Jesus as more in line with those mystics that claim a "oneness" with God. That was present before Jesus, with Jesus and since Jesus. Therefore I do not see Jesus as the "final" revelation although you could talk about a "complete" revelation.

I do think that we can use the word "revelation" to describe what I am talking about. It's just not the same thing Jen is talking about.

[billmc]

David, on Mar 27 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

Thank you for your well thought out response.

I do not see Jesus as a secretary for God. There is much in the Bible that attempts to present him that way. But I think that is the early Church talking. I see Jesus as more in line with those mystics that claim a "oneness" with God. That was present before Jesus, with Jesus and since Jesus. Therefore I do not see Jesus as the "final" revelation although you could talk about a "complete" revelation.

I do think that we can use the word "revelation" to describe what I am talking about. It's just not the same thing Jen is talking about.

Perhaps like you, David, I don't mind the word "revelation" when we speak of it in terms of the Deity's character being reflected in our lives. In Christianese, this is the glory of God shining through his people. This is people being able to see divinity in each other. I find that to be very believable for me because I have seen "Christ" in other people, in their actions and in their lifestyle.

But, yes, I do getting fidgetty when folks start into the "Thus saith the Lord..." motiff. And coming from a Pentecostal background, I saw this alot. What perplexed me about it is that some of these people's lives just didn't reflect that they were God's person to deliver his message. I'm not trying to be judgmental here, I know that God works through broken vessels. But when the message of, supposedly, "God's words" comes through somebody whose life doesn't reflect God's character, then I feel that there is something amiss. Personally, I am much more inclined to listen when someone speaks for themselves then when they claim to speak for God or Jesus.

I like what one Christian said once, "Witness always. If necessary, use words."

bill

[JosephM]

wayfarer2k, on Mar 28 2009, 09:00 AM, said:

(snip)
I like what one Christian said once, "Witness always. If necessary, use words."

bill

Nice....

Love Joseph