[JosephM]

soma, on Dec 19 2008, 02:49 PM, said:

Christ is demonstrating the union between our soul and God because our soul is nearer to God than it is to our body. We have higher and lower powers just like Jesus because we enjoy the bliss of eternity (I feel this is what Joseph is saying) while, at the same time, suffering and struggling here on earth. We should not inhibit the function of our consciousness, but train, offer it up to God and be in harmony with it at all times. Jesus showed us how to assign suffering solely to the body, the lower faculties and the senses so our consciousness can be plunged into the pure consciousness of our Lord. He showed us how to love God in all things ( do service projects) so the more purely and simply we love in unity the more thoroughly our deeds will wash away our selfish thoughts and purify our minds. Jesus meant for us to follow him intelligently and spiritually so not to be manipulated by literal interpretations that lead us away from love. Following Christ consciousness in our own way depends on our love not our superficial actions. It is love that blots out sin and knows no fear so there is nothing else a man can do that is as beneficial as loving everything and everyone. We are in the spiritual and physical realms at the same time. I feel we can help people by not jumping into the well with them, but by staying grounded in the blissful spiritual state and pull them up from above. Joseph correct me if I am wrong, but I feel this is what Joseph was saying.

Yes Soma,

You have read very carefully what I have written without drawing highly conditioned responses from labels that imprint the mind of carnal man and make it nearly impossible to understand deep spiritual things. You have spoken well for me. Thank you.

Love Joseph

[billmc]

A text that comes to my mind in this regard is where Jesus tells his audience to be compassionate as God is compassionate. One of the gospels says "perfect", but many scholars agree that compassionate is a better rendering of the Greek. If this is the case, that we should be compassionate people, then we would need to take evil and suffering seriously because compassion is a response to human suffering. And maybe this, too, is the image or reflection of God -- to be people marked by compassion.

'Nuff said on my part. Off to do some last minute Christmas shopping...

[soma]

I also believe we should be compassionate, but I think we have too many Evil Czars pointing fingers at what they perceive to be evil without compassion.

[JosephM]

It seems to me that compassion arises naturally by the understanding that we are all in this same boat together. By the understanding that we are all inflicted with the same dysfunction we call ego. And by the understanding that it (ego) is the source of most if not all perceived 'evil' and 'suffering'. Perhaps taking 'evil' and 'suffering' and the related drama too seriously actually strengthens that dysfunction of humans. It also seems to me that perhaps merely being aware and recognizing this dysfunction is enough to generate the compassion that will get us beyond it.

Love Joseph

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Since i've just read about the "Charter for Compassion?", Karen Armstrong's recent idea to change the world, this connection to compassion is fascinating! I love it!

[rivanna]

I agree about compassion as a defining feature of the image of GOd - also thought Joseph made a good point. And the reference Wayfarer brought up— the phrase “be perfect as God is perfect” is better understood as meaning whole or complete, IMHO.

p.s. Wayfarer, are you still interested in discussing Marcus Borg’s book on Jesus?

[billmc]

rivanna, on Jan 9 2009, 08:29 AM, said:

I agree about compassion as a defining feature of the image of GOd - also thought Joseph made a good point. And the reference Wayfarer brought up— the phrase “be perfect as God is perfect” is better understood as meaning whole or complete, IMHO.

p.s. Wayfarer, are you still interested in discussing Marcus Borg’s book on Jesus?

To be honest, Rivanna, I just don't know if I fit on this forum anymore. To me, Joseph, rather than making a good point, made an uncompassionate point. I quote:

Quote

It seems to me, when one deeply subjectively experiences Life, there is found no separation or difference between God the creator and the created. From this perspective distance and location disappears as irrelevant and suffering is not possible. Good and evil also lose relevance and natural physical laws become mute.

According to Joseph, there is no such thing as suffering, no such thing as good and evil, and, therefore, no place for compassion. Compassion is a response to suffering, not something that stands by itself alone. Good is a response to evil, not something that stands alone.

Then we have someone posting here that pretends she is Jesus. And no one except me, it seems, sees this as a problem?

So, IMO, this forum doesn't represent Christianity, even of a progressive nature. It is more of a UU forum where anyone can say anything they like and others are never supposed to critique them or suggest that they might be wrong. All in all, just a little too "out there" for me.

So, no, I won't be facilitating the discussion on Borg's book. Borg takes the stance that, as Christians, even liberal ones, we should do something about suffering, not simply sit back and proclaim that it doesn't exist. And it would be awkward if this forum's "resident Jesus" showed up in the discussion and tried to set everyone straight.

Therefore, I'll be bowing out at this point. My journey leads me in a different direction than the direction this forum is going. And that's okay, especially for me. Thanks to everyone who interacted with me. I learned alot.

Take care,
bill

This post has been edited by wayfarer2k: 09 January 2009 - 09:57 PM

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

I hope you don't leave, Bill! I have learned a lot from you! And I also feel called to do something about the suffering in this world. It is one of the problems I have had embracing any eastern philosophies. My goal is not to transcend the world, but to be an active force for love in the world.

I have also learned a lot from Jen, even if I have never agreed with either one of you 100 percent. Each of our responses to God is very personal and very individual. I hope we can work through any awkwardness and hurt feelings for the good of exchanging ideas and with the goal of making a difference on a shared journey.

Janet

[rivanna]

Wayfarer, it would be great if you’d continue here. You and AITOP are both so articulate. I know what you mean about the “channeling Jesus” thing, but I also sense that she was in a lot of pain. What I liked in Joseph’s last post was that we are all in the same boat together, not the lines you quoted about suffering being an illusion. As you say, an essential focus of progressive Christianity is the purpose of helping others, sharing, trying to understand.

[JosephM]

wayfarer2k, on Jan 9 2009, 09:50 PM, said:

To be honest, Rivanna, I just don't know if I fit on this forum anymore. To me, Joseph, rather than making a good point, made an uncompassionate point. I quote:
According to Joseph, there is no such thing as suffering, no such thing as good and evil, and, therefore, no place for compassion. Compassion is a response to suffering, not something that stands by itself alone. Good is a response to evil, not something that stands alone.

Then we have someone posting here that pretends she is Jesus. And no one except me, it seems, sees this as a problem?
(snip)

Greetings Bill,

Perhaps you read too much in to my posts or they may at this time be rather too deep to comprehend. If I believed there were no place for compassion then I would not even be responding nor saying "It seems to me that compassion arises naturally by the understanding that we are all in this same boat together". It seems to me it would be beneficial to just let my posts pass for the time being and allow your compassion for my perceived ignorance to heal these strong feelings that come over you and attempt to separate you from interactions that I perceive is exactly what you need at this time.

I, speaking for myself, do not desire to see you go on my or anyone else's account. I for one do not require you to accept anything I post. If I say something that may be of benefit or your spirit witnesses with then that is fine, if NOT, perhaps you will become aware of your reaction to my words, in which case they will no longer move you and you will be healed of a great dysfunction that affects us all. It seems to me that it is not love or compassion or that you are finished here that is telling you to move on but rather a resistance found within each of us that opposes our evolving consciousness because the price of our evolving is death to this resistance.

I love you in Christ very much and hope you reconsider and stay and forgive any "undesirable aspect" you may perceive in me.

In defense of Jen, She never said she was Jesus. She only professes to channel / communicate his words. There is no requirement to believe or disbelieve her. It seems to me that there is something to be learned from all interactions here.

Love Joseph

[billmc]

To Janet:

You wrote: “And I also feel called to do something about the suffering in this world. It is one of the problems I have had embracing any eastern philosophies. My goal is not to transcend the world, but to be an active force for love in the world.”

I couldn’t have said it better! The following is sweeping categorizing but I left fundamentalist Christianity because it was willing to let the present world go to hell in hopes of a heaven someday. Progressive Christianity, in my opinion, is just as willing to let the present world go to hell as long as an elite few reach a state of enlightenment which leads them to declare things such as evil and suffering don’t exist. Due to my own journey, much of which I have not shared publicly here, I have a strong bent towards doing something about suffering. The truth cemented in my heart is to love God and have compassion on his creation. For me, the best way to love God is to have compassion on his creation – fellow human beings and the care/stewardship of this earth. So I seek those who share in this same heartcall.

I understand, Janet, that each of our responses to God is very personal and very individual. That is indeed what makes it a “personal relationship.” But, to me, that doesn’t mean that all of our responses to God are right or beneficial for ourselves or the rest of humanity. One of the benefits of being in a community is to have a place where our responses to God are critiqued (not criticized, but evaluated) to see if our responses fall in line with loving God and loving others. The focus here on PC seems to be to allow anyone to say anything they like as “truth” without critique (except for the few fundies, of course). To me, such “openness” isn’t a progressive search for truth, it is simply allowing everyone to have a turn at the microphone with canned applause afterward. Granted, these are ‘my’ perceptions of what I see here. They lead me, not to condemn such openness, but just to realize that it isn’t for me.

To Joseph:

You wrote: “It seems to me it would be beneficial to just let my posts pass for the time being.”

That might be beneficial if you hadn’t posted in the thread on suffering that the whole discussion was moot because suffering, in your view, doesn’t exist. That is belittling to the subject and to those who actually desire to do something about it.

I hope you understand that I’m not leaving because of your (or anyone else’s) account. No one here has shown me the door. I am leaving on my own account. The focus of this forum is indeed on Eastern mysticism and that path just is not for me. This doesn’t mean I find nothing of worth in Eastern thought. It just means that I don’t want to join in a movement that attempts to recast Christianity as a New Age religion. For instance, I am interested in the historical Jesus or whom scholars call the pre-Easter Jesus. To me, this is my path. The general bent of this forum is on the mystical Christ, the “Jesus in all of us”. This simply doesn’t work for me. Human history is replete with far too many people who have pushed their own evil agendas in the name of God or Christ. When Jesus becomes completely subjective, then anyone can claim divine authority to do whatever they want. To me, this is not compassionate, this is dangerous.

I understand what you mean about “there is no requirement to believe or disbelieve” what anyone says here on this forum. I agree. But there is also no, for lack of better words, mechanism or safeguards to encourage people to know and recognize the truth either. As I said to Janet, someone could claim to channel Adolf Hitler here and that person would be applauded for realizing their “God within” because, according to your view, there is no difference between God and Adolf Hitler.

There is indeed something to be learned from interactions here. As I’ve said, I’ve learned a lot, much of it helpful. It is beneficial to see how other people think. But I simply can’t go with the general stream of this forum into the ocean of Eastern mysticism. IMO, that is not the way forward for Christianity. To me, the way forward is to recapture the teachings of the historical Jesus and actually live them out. That’s my bent and my desire.

I know that it is the outlook of some parts of progressive Christianity that “all roads lead to Rome”, that “as long as you are sincere, it doesn’t matter what you believe” i.e. to thine own self be true. There is, I think, a small component of truth in that statement. But I also think that it is a delusion to think that all religions and all viewpoints are equally valid and beneficial to mankind and to our world. There are, I believe, serious consequences for us as a human race if we don’t develop compassionate views of God, our religion, and of each other. We do indeed need to move past the “tribal-war-God” images found in the Hebrew scriptures. But I don’t think the answer to this view of God is to move to the view that we are all gods and that we are all correct. Such notions are just too reactionary for me. It is one thing to say that God is everywhere. It is quite another to say that we are all gods. I still believe that there is, not a separation, but a distinction between me and God. And that is where my paradigm is different from what I find here. So it is of my own accord and desires that I depart.

Wishing you well and all the best on your journey,
bill

[JosephM]

Bill said:

To Joseph:

You wrote: “It seems to me it would be beneficial to just let my posts pass for the time being.”

That might be beneficial if you hadn’t posted in the thread on suffering that the whole discussion was moot because suffering, in your view, doesn’t exist. That is belittling to the subject and to those who actually desire to do something about it.

I hope you understand that I’m not leaving because of your (or anyone else’s) account. No one here has shown me the door. I am leaving on my own account. The focus of this forum is indeed on Eastern mysticism and that path just is not for me. This doesn’t mean I find nothing of worth in Eastern thought. It just means that I don’t want to join in a movement that attempts to recast Christianity as a New Age religion. For instance, I am interested in the historical Jesus or whom scholars call the pre-Easter Jesus. To me, this is my path. The general bent of this forum is on the mystical Christ, the “Jesus in all of us”. This simply doesn’t work for me. Human history is replete with far too many people who have pushed their own evil agendas in the name of God or Christ. When Jesus becomes completely subjective, then anyone can claim divine authority to do whatever they want. To me, this is not compassionate, this is dangerous.

I understand what you mean about “there is no requirement to believe or disbelieve” what anyone says here on this forum. I agree. But there is also no, for lack of better words, mechanism or safeguards to encourage people to know and recognize the truth either. As I said to Janet, someone could claim to channel Adolf Hitler here and that person would be applauded for realizing their “God within” because, according to your view, there is no difference between God and Adolf Hitler.

Hi Bill,

I am now even more convinced that it will do you well to remain here. You have not yet learned to try to understand things in context. There is no defined path here that you must follow. Progressive Christianity is not another religion with a spokesman. And yes most here believe Christ is in all of us. That is about as Christian as you can get. It is not eastern mysticism. Jesus is recorded as saying that he is in us and we in him and prayed that we would all be one with God even as he was. That can be found in the gospel of John. Perhaps you are drawing conclusions from linguistic words written here and applying them without a full understanding of what the person was speaking of. No one here applauded Adolph Hitler. that is your incorrect conclusion. No one said that suffering wasn't real to humans or doesn't exist for them, that is your incorrect conclusion. A more careful reading might bring you to a different conclusion.

True compassion will attempt to try to understand others and categorize them less. If you seek love and compassion, in my view, this is a wonderful place to allow it to be exercised.

Love Joseph

[David]

I like to listen to the members of the Unity Church who come to the Jesus Seminar. From what I can see those members share at least some of the “Christ consciousness” thinking that has been associated with Eastern thinking (an association that may have some merit with a lot of explanations). Anyway, the Unity people there are also very interested in the historical Jesus and the Jesus Seminar. Now the members of the Seminar would strongly disagree with Joseph that the Gospel of John reflects Jesus, but instead the Gospel of John reflects the early Church. So the Unity people at the Seminar obviously “get it” that the historical Jesus made no claim to be the Christ and their “Christ consciousness” thinking is more related to the followers of Jesus. They live comfortably with the historical Jesus and “Christ consciousness”.

I think it is a fair observation to note that many Progressive views are underrepresented on this message board. In any case, the Unity movement or “Christ consciousness” folks are an important part of, but, nevertheless a small percentage of Progressive Christianity. I would question Joseph’s statement that “most of us” agree with him. I would suggest that “most of us” agree with the Jesus Seminar. Currently I hope that people look to the TCPC website more than this message board if they are trying to understand Progressive Christianity which obviously is a religion/social movement.

But in any case, regardless of whoever represents the “most of us”, this should be a discussion among friends. I would suggest that the goal of this and any such discussion on this message board not be based upon the goal of unity, but the goal should be pluralism. I think the Unity people at the Jesus Seminar model that for us.

[davidk]

Wayfarer,
Good comments. Genuine concerns. Spot on observations about this site. You're a man of integrity. Stay or go, let it be known that though we may not exactly see eye to eye, you have been honest and forthcoming. It has been a pleasure for me.

God's grace to you, always,
Dk

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

"Progressive Christianity, in my opinion, is just as willing to let the present world go to hell as long as an elite few reach a state of enlightenment which leads them to declare things such as evil and suffering don’t exist."

"So I seek those who share in this same heartcall."

"One of the benefits of being in a community is to have a place where our responses to God are critiqued (not criticized, but evaluated) to see if our responses fall in line with loving God and loving others. The focus here on PC seems to be to allow anyone to say anything they like as “truth” without critique (except for the few fundies, of course). To me, such “openness” isn’t a progressive search for truth, it is simply allowing everyone to have a turn at the microphone with canned applause afterward. Granted, these are ‘my’ perceptions of what I see here. They lead me, not to condemn such openness, but just to realize that it isn’t for me."

Bill,
I really appreciate your response, and I share much of your frustration and definitely the same heartcall. I think I don't fully understand what someone is saying when they say "evil and suffering don't exist." I just can't wrap my brain around that. However, it is very meaningful to others on the forum. Maybe they are on a different journey and that message speaks to them. I can see how it is possible that message could do some good and be a loving message for some. For example, some people (myself included at times) take on a victim mentality, spending their energy that could be better used elsewhere.

I have a small comunity of friends where I can get my thoughts about God critiqued. One of my friends is more into the eastern mysticism, one is an evangelical, and another is on the more traditional side of Methodism. It is difficult for us to develop that kind of relationship over the internet, because you can't see my facial expressions or hear inflections in my voice, so some things may not come off the way they were intended. I read this forum with interest, but it will not replace the community I have with my friends.

Each of us has a limit in our faith where we don't want others to cross the line. When I have had gut-level responses to something another has said, it is generally useful for me to understand why.

Janet

[David]

JosephM, on Jan 10 2009, 05:53 AM, said:

In defense of Jen, She never said she was Jesus. She only professes to channel / communicate his words. There is no requirement to believe or disbelieve her. It seems to me that there is something to be learned from all interactions here.

Love Joseph

This is like saying that Pat Robertson does not say he is God, he only tells us word for word what God is saying. Just because we have a right to disagree with Pat does not mean that we should embrace this kind of epistemology. Just because we may agree more with Jen’s Jesus does not make it a different epistemology. It seems the same to me. I would suggest that revelation always start with the phrase “I heard”, not “God/Jesus said”. Both assume a relationship between the human and the Divine. It is very dangerous however to think that the difference is not very important.

[JosephM]

David, on Jan 10 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

This is like saying that Pat Robertson does not say he is God, he only tells us word for word what God is saying. Just because we have a right to disagree with Pat does not mean that we should embrace this kind of epistemology. Just because we may agree more with Jen’s Jesus does not make it a different epistemology. It seems the same to me. I would suggest that revelation always start with the phrase “I heard”, not “God/Jesus said”. Both assume a relationship between the human and the Divine. It is very dangerous however to think that the difference is not very important.

David,

It seems to me, no one is saying to embrace any so called epistomology of this kind. Perhaps you mistake an embrace of Jen for an embrace of the perported or perceived source of her words which to me seems to have no bearing on that which she writes, unless of course one wants it to.

Truth can come through anyone without exception whether we agree or not in the theory or the practice. It is not a case of agreeing with one more than the other. In my view, Pat Robertson is also welcome here and embraced as a fellow human being on a path. Whether or not one chooses to dialog with him is of course, their own personal decision. After all, this is the debate and dialog section for those who may have widely differing views.

Perhaps people do not fit into the image we may have made of a progressive Christian, nevertheless, point 4 is not exclusive of those who may not be like the perceived us. Therefor I find no others here either dangerous in their wording or a real threat to progressive Christianity in general and speaking for myself they are accepted as they are at this point in time with no requirement to change their thinking.

love in Christ,
Joseph

[billmc]

To Joseph:

You are correct to point out to me how important context is. I couldn't agree more. But it is especially difficult to get context on a forum where, for every 10 words that are posted, there are 100 words of context that are behind those public 10. It takes getting to know that person, something that is difficult, time-consuming, but often worth it.

I really don't have a problem with the concept of "Christ in all of us" or "God in us" or the divine spark or whatever label you want to use for it. Holding to panentheism rather than supernatural theism, I find "God in us" to reflect my own understanding of our human nature and our relationship to God.

But it is quite another thing to go from "God in us" to "we are god." This, to me, is one of the mistakes of the early Christian church, going from acknowledging that God was "in Jesus" to "Jesus is God." To believe, in theistic terms, that the all-knowing, all-seeing, everywhere-present Divine was in Jesus of Nazareth and helped him discover and teach truth is one thing, something very believable. To believe that Jesus was (and is) this same Divine makes Jesus unbelievable. God cannot die. Jesus died. This is just one small example where the paradigm that "Jesus is God" leads to logical inconsistencies. God is all-seeing. Jesus was not. God is all-knowing. Jesus was not. God is everywhere-present. Jesus was not. Nevertheless, his followers recognized the Divine in him. And it seems that after his death, they struggled with how to interpret the Divine in Jesus. Some were content with "God was in Christ". Others "promoted" him and said, "Christ is God." Out of that struggle, the doctrine of the Trinity was eventually born, a doctrine that even Trinitarians admit makes no sense...and, therefore, is a difficult (if not impossible) doctrine for any thinking follower of Jesus to hold to.

Now, where I am really wanting to go with this response is not to discuss the nature of Jesus or Christ, but to point to the fact that, due to 2000 years of Christianity where the "Jesus is God" theology has won out over "God was in Jesus", the word/person of Jesus carries ALOT of context in our culture. Fundamentalists worship Jesus as God himself. Liberals tend, generally, to see him as a teacher whose teachings are divine. Regardless, in our society, the words of Jesus carry alot of God-context, alot of authority. Right or wrong, when someone claims to speak for Jesus (and many do), they are usurping, in our culture, the authority of God himself. In the words similar to those of EF Hutton, "When God speaks, people listen", or they should.

My point of view is that when Jen posts as Jesus (and she does because "Jesus" is logged into this forum as Jen), she is usurping all of the God-context and authority that Christianity has given to the person of Jesus Christ. In popular Christianity, you had better listen to Jesus...or else. The Jesus of popular Christianity is someone who commands, if not worship, then at least an audience and often obedience. After all, Jesus, as found in the scriptures, said that what others thought of him ("Lord, Lord") was less important than whether they obeyed his teachings.

So what to do when someone claims to speak for Jesus? My first response is, as David says, why can't they simply just speak for themselves? After all, if Christ is in us, isn't that enough "authority" (if that if what we desire) to ask that our words be heard? For someone to speak as Jesus, IMO, implies that if they speak as themselves, they doubt they would be heard? So if we are truly "progressive", why not encourage them to speak as who they are?

This, to me, goes to the issue of honesty. You know me well enough (from my posts and private emails) to know that I try, to the best of my ability and the nature of online communications, to be honest about who I am, my struggles, my questions, even my few, small "enlightenments". But I post as ME, not as a Divine figure.

This is getting long, so I'll conclude. Either Jen is channeling the REAL Jesus (who lived 2000 years ago) or she is self-deceived and either willingly or unwillingly trying to deceive others. I can't speak to her motives. By the nature of what she writes, as Jesus, she is expressing her relationship to the Divine. But by posting AS JESUS, she is willingly saying that those words carry the same import and authority as those of the historical Jesus 2000 years ago. Do they? I suppose that is up to each of us to discern and decide? If we want ANOTHER revelation of Jesus, we don't have to look very far to find one. The Mormons have one. The Book of Urantia is one. And most of the time, these other "Jesuses" downplay or even contradict the historical Jesus.

Should Progressive Christianity lose the historical Jesus? Some would say yes. Some would say that Jesus of Nazareth was solely the product of his own time and theology and that what matters is "Christ in us" (as the apostle Paul claimed) that gives each of us the authority to revise or even negate what the historical Jesus taught us. Maybe this is part and parcel of this new "Progressive Christianity", to see the historical Jesus as deluded or in error on his revelation to us of what God is like and how we should treat each other. But I, for one, am not ready to give up the historical Jesus to history and claim the role of "Jesus" so that I can have an audience and/or following. To me, there is truth in Jesus' words, not because he was God, but simply because his teachings seem to reflect our best concepts of God and how we should treat each other.

Sorry this is so long. But I have to question why someone on this forum would claim to speak for Jesus and why others would support that claim. Speaking for Jesus is a heavy responsibility in our culture. If Jen wants the freedom to speak for him, is she willing to take the responsibility for those who start to follow her Jesus?

In the spirit of this thread, were we created in the image of God...or were we created as gods? It is an important question and VERY MUCH reflects how we treat each other.

[David]

JosephM, on Jan 10 2009, 07:25 PM, said:

David,

It seems to me, no one is saying to embrace any so called epistomology of this kind. Perhaps you mistake an embrace of Jen for an embrace of the perported or perceived source of her words which to me seems to have no bearing on that which she writes, unless of course one wants it to.

“I” am saying that to take Pat Robertson at face value is to embrace the epistemology of revelation via direct dictation. Are you saying that to take Pat Robertson at face value is to embrace something different? Are you saying that epistemology is not important?

My responses to Jen surely show that I embrace Jen. She is a wise person and her insights are powerful. The “source” of the words is exactly the point. Why do you invalidate that point by stating that I somehow do not embrace Jen? Certainly “I want to” make this point. Certainly you are free to say that the alleged source of words is not important. I just think that view is dangerous and dangerous not because “I want to” see it that way.

This post has been edited by David: 11 January 2009 - 11:06 AM

[JosephM]

wayfarer2k, on Jan 11 2009, 09:28 AM, said:

To Joseph:

(snip)

Sorry this is so long. But I have to question why someone on this forum would claim to speak for Jesus and why others would support that claim. Speaking for Jesus is a heavy responsibility in our culture. If Jen wants the freedom to speak for him, is she willing to take the responsibility for those who start to follow her Jesus?

In the spirit of this thread, were we created in the image of God...or were we created as gods? It is an important question and VERY MUCH reflects how we treat each other.

Bill,

Very well written and articulate post so I took the liberty to snip most of it out in my reply since it was rather long. There is no disagreement in me in what you have said in your post. I don't know whose line that is that we as humans are God. It is surely not mine. An image is not the real thing so i have no problem with your words.

Now for the Jen issue..... it seems to me enough to work out my own inner conflicts and not to take on a role of deciding whether Jen should or shouldn't make a claim or speak in a certain way. To me that seems to be her business. Whether she takes responsibility or not is of no business to me. Not because I don't care about others but because that is not my purpose here on earth that has been given me. You seem to be moved to a significant degree by her manner of speaking. I am of the opinion that when you are no longer moved by words that don't sit right with you then a barrier to truth will be lifted from you. That is only my perception and you may agree or disagree or do with it what you will.

Regardless, I consider you a friend and if there is ever anything I can do for you, I would be most happy to be of service.

Love Joseph