Realspiritik

This leads to some other thoughts. How would you define enlightenment? What do you think it would "look" like if you "got" there (metaphorically speaking, of course). What practices do you think would help you "get" there (bearing in mind that metaphors of arrival may, in fact, undermine the whole concept)?

Hi, Soma. I really like what you said here about the birds. I love to listen to the birds and watch their joyful flight. Yes, this is so true. Hope your moving quest continues on track without too many backaches or headaches! Jen

I`m enjoying TNH`s poetic heart. In Chapter Two, I especially like this quote: "The most precious gift we can offer others is our presence. When our mindfulness embraces those we love, they will bloom like flowers. If you love someone but rarely make yourself available to him or her, that is not true love." I think Jesus was trying to say the same thing.

Hello, Burl. The parable came from my practice as a cataphatic mystic. Those who have known me for a long time on TCPC know that I do this kind of thing from time to time. My conversations with Jesus just sometimes come out this way. He still likes parables -- what can I say? When he shares a new parable with me, there`s always something important in it for me and hopefully for some others. No need to read them if you`re uncomfortable with them. God bless, Jen

As to the heart of the flower, and what we can see within it, I found I had written this note at the top of the page where the concept of "interbeing" is first introduced (page 11): "we [i.e. Jesus and myself] don't see flowers in this way -- when we look at a flower, we know we don't have to see everything in the cosmos, we just have to try to hear what Mom & Pop are saying." (Note: in a my practice as a cataphatic mystic, I refer to God the Mother and God the Father as ``Mom and Pop,`` for they are my adored parents-of-soul.) For me, sitting quietly with the beauty of a flower is a chance to experience not everything in existence, but one small story held within a much larger and more expansive story. Although I started out in my academic life as a chemistry student, and although I continue to admire new discoveries made within the fields of chemistry and physics, I simply can`t see the flower as made entirely of non-flower elements; it has no independent, individual existence. I`m fully aware at an intellectual level of all the elements that make up the flower`s biology. I`m not arguing about that (just as I`m not arguing about the multi-billion-year age of the universe). But the flower is more than the sum of its parts. The flower (like the soul) transcends the periodic table of elements and becomes something fully independent and individual -- though, like all independent and individual beings, it doesn`t know everything, can`t do everything, depends on others for survival, and longs to share its gifts with others to the best of its (limited) ability. The periodic table of elements is a wonderful language (one I understand deeply and intuitively) but it`s not a complete language, so to speak. It`s a perfect language for understanding and coping with aspects of Materialist, classical physics. And sometimes, where it makes room for quantum mechanics and the like, it opens the doorway to an understanding of non-Materialist, quantum physics. But the periodic table doesn`t tell the whole story. There are many layers of quantum story-telling held within the flower. The surface layer -- the classical physics, chemistry, and biology -- is just the beginning of what the flower can say to us about God, Creation, and our relationship to all other beings within God`s great family. A flower is like a small but complete sentence within a much larger narrative. But it only makes sense -- and it only speaks to us -- because it is independent and individual. Even though it`s small and temporary and possibly even imperfect, it has worthiness in God`s eyes. It has something to give to others, something to receive from others. It`s the part of the tapestry of life. It`s not a hologram that contains every bit of information about every corner of the universe. It`s just a lovely sentence, a sentence that reminds us about connections and gratitude and beauty and poetry and art and simplicity. The smallness of the flower reminds us that it`s okay with God if we take the journey one small step at a time.

Hi Burl, I'd just like to mention that Elaine Pagels is a respected scholar and researcher. She happens to have a gift for writing for lay audiences (much better for the bank account than writing solely for academic audiences), but she's first and foremost a reputable scholar. Her book Adam, Eve, and the Serpent (New York: Vintage, 1988) is one of the most carefully researched -- and readable! -- books on the history of early Christian theology that I've ever come across. I went back and reread the introduction she wrote in Living Buddha, Living Christ. (I first read the book a few years ago in preparation for a paper I was writing, though I need to reread it for sure!). For myself, I find her introduction very helpful and interesting. She introduces the themes of change and growth in our ideas about faith (the Nag Hammadi texts, when discovered in 1947, forced scholarly revisions of many "certainties"). She talks about the Gospel of Thomas, which is undoubtedly the most nuanced and philosophically mature text within the Christian corpus because of its teachings on inclusiveness, insight, and what happens to your heart and mind when you abandon all forms of status addiction. She also offers a sound historical context and shows us that although we think we're very clever today to be asking these deep and important and mysterious questions, we're not the first ones to do so. Nor will we be the last. The journey of faith, and our struggle to find meaning and context within that journey, is always new and yet is never new. Each of us has the opportunity to add our own small chapter to an otherwise immense and unfolding story of Divine Love within Creation. Blessings, Jen

I'm with Burl and his definition of hell. I hope your move goes smoothly, though the thought of moving in such heat makes my Canadian bones shiver.

Hi Byrch. I've been reading your posts and I definitely relate to them. It's very difficult in today's world to be a person of faith, a person of intelligence, a person of creativity, and a person of toughness all at the same time. So yes -- sometimes it's damned lonely. I found it a bit easier to find like-minded people when I lived in a smaller community, but now that I live in the gigantic city of Toronto -- where I can't even expect to find respectful drivers much of the time, let alone respectful people of faith -- it's harder. And lonelier. (I moved here for family reasons, but, in terms of spiritual communities, it's not my first choice.) I do the best I can each day to listen to what God is saying, to what Jesus has told me (though Jesus is only an amazing teacher and friend for me, not my saviour), and to what my own soul is saying (or sometimes shouting when I'm really not paying attention to what's going on around me ). It's a pretty good way to go through life, even if it's sometimes lonely. I wouldn't trade it for the life of smug certainty I used to have. All the best to you, Jen

Parable of the Rift-Sawn Wood Once upon a time, there was a judge who lived in a small community. Although the judge had no particular claim to either humble kingship or wise judgeship (his training having been in other disciplines altogether), no error of word or grammar or logic or math could escape his perfect eye. Flaws in the words of others shone forth as brightly to him as the sun in the noonday sky, and so, over time, he became a protector of sorts, demonstrating to his little flock the dangers of ill-proved words. He took pride in his calling as upholder of the One True Truth. One day, during a harsh drought, he decided to build a wooden courthouse at the top of the hill so his humility, stability, and permanence could be draw others into the fold of the One True Truth. This, he was certain, would help them cope during their travails. “I will build a courthouse to rival the halls of Solomon,” he said with unwavering dedication. “Those who enter will find only justice. But,” he continued, “the courthouse must mirror to everyone the perfection and permanence of my judgments, so every piece of wood you bring to me must be sawn so the blade runs perpendicular to the rings of springwood and summerwood. These planks are the purest and strongest. No others will do for our courthouse. Discard all the rest.” Each piece of wood was brought to the judge for his inspection. He turned each plank this way and that, peering at the rings from all directions, seeking only those boards that mirrored the timeless alternating pattern of springwood and summerwood, springwood and summerwood. He chose each piece with exceeding care. As the floor and pillars of the courthouse slowly grew, so too did the piles of discards at the base of the hill. In one pile lay the boards that showed small knots, for the judge found evidence of branching deeply troubling and not at all reflective of humility. In a second pile lay the boards and burls that showed curved lines or cupped profiles or uneven grains, for the judge found irregular patterns toxic to his quest for stability. In a third pile, which was by far the largest, lay heaps of tangled roots and rugged, timeworn chunks of bark, for the judge found these ugly and unusable in a courthouse constructed to honour the teachings of the One True Truth. At last all the trees in a wide radius had been cut down and the courthouse was complete. The judge nodded in satisfaction at his unobstructed view. The building was perfect, right down to the bold name Justice chiselled throughout. But it needed one final touch. This he accomplished himself. In the very centre of the structure, he placed a raised swivel chair upon which he could turn in every direction to see approaching newcomers. Each word they spoke, each point of logic they raised, came easily to his eyes, and made him shake his head in sadness when he saw the knots and burls and roots they carried. According to his duty, he took all newcomers on a tour of his courthouse, patiently showed them the perfection of his planks, and, though it pained him to do so, eventually sent each one away in tears to seek unblemished pieces of the One True Truth. One autumn day, after a particularly cold, wet spring, and an even colder, wetter summer that had ended the drought, one of the judge’s followers came rushing in. “Sire,” said the follower (for his followers admired him and thought his mastery over words and logic made him wiser than Solomon), “sire, the rains have caused a terrible mudslide. The rain has poured down the hill and taken all the soil with it. A dangerous river, filled with rampaging branches and roots, has suddenly materialized. The town has been swept away. The roads are destroyed. The fall crops are gone. There is nothing to eat. You and I are the last survivors.” The judge nodded sadly but wisely. “It was meant to be, my faithful friend. There's nothing we could have done to prevent this tragedy.” “What will we do?” said the follower. “How will we survive?” The judge thought long and hard for several minutes. The answer came to him in a flash of brilliant light, the same flash he always saw when he studied the impoverished words of others. “We’ll take the wood from the courthouse and build ourselves a raft. We’ll travel. We’ll teach. We’ll save. You and I have been blessed with survival because we alone understand the meaning of the One True Truth, which is pure permanence from pure impermanence, pure freedom from pure determinism, pure justice from pure logic.” The follower happily obeyed, and soon pillars and lintels had been torn down and refashioned into a raft. In many places, the word Justice peered up at them from the perfectly sawn planks. “What shall we call our raft now that it’s finished?” said the follower. “Shall we call it Justice?” “I think not,” said the judge. “You and I have transcended the simple justice of this courthouse. From this moment on, we will name our craft after the greatest law of universal determinism. We will call it . . . Mercy.” from Jesus and Jen

Hi Joseph. I again agree with you. There's no way to prove it unequivocally. Yup . . . for those who want evidence, go get your own! Amen.

Unfortunately, Paul, you're wrong in this assumption about how the brain works. I accept that the science of brain scanning may not serve as a suitable proof for you in this discussion and there's nothing I can do about that. I'm not disagreeing with your point that a radical terrorist believes in his cause and can rationalize his hatred and violence by making claims about God's justice. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you on that point. Again, I make the point that what a person says about God and faith doesn't have anything to do with what's actually going on inside his or her brain. Again, I repeat that there's no "religion" box in the brain. There's also no one "faith" region or circuit. The experience of faith is, again, an experience of relationship, love, forgiveness, empathy, humbleness, openness to change, admitting one's mistakes, being able to learn from one's mistakes, being able to find meaning in difficult situations, being able to feel another person's pain, being resistant to addiction, being able to draw on the body's natural placebo effect, being able to trust. All these things add up together to allow the brain to feel what the soul already understands about God and the infinite wonder of Creation (i.e. faith). So because isn't just one thing -- because it draws on so many different potentials within the brain -- you'd have to look at a number of different factors in comparing the brain scans of a radical ideologue (who may or may not use religion as a rationalization for hatred) and a non-ideologue who has experienced God's presence. One thing you'd have to look at the overall activity of the brain in the baseline state: the pattern of the most active areas, the density of neurons, the density of white matter, the density and patterns of many neural networks. Right off the bat, if you see decreased volume of grey matter in three related structures -- the left and right anterior insular cortex and the dorsal anterior cingulate -- you know there are probably going to issues with OCD, insistence on being "right," difficulty being flexible and open to others in relationships, and possible excessive religiosity (in the sense of rigidly adhering rules and regulations.) These three structures are supposed to work together as "the alarm bell of the brain" to tell other brain regions when "reality deviates from expectations" (http://www.medicaldaily.com/brain-scans-show-ocd-and-schizophrenia-share-common-loss-gray-matter-320724). But reduced grey matter in these structures has recently been shown to have a common association with several major mental illnesses. This is just one example. There are many, many more available online. If you're interested in learning more, I'm sure you can find them. So how do I know -- or better, how can I prove -- that my brain "on faith" is any different than the brain of a radical ideologue? Well, that part's easy. I had my brain scanned in 2004. I had a baseline scan, a concentration task scan, and a scan taken while in my regular cataphatic mystical state of connection with "the other side." So I'm pretty confident in stating I have lots of grey matter, lots of white matter, strong connectivity, balanced connectivity, and healthy function in all the brain circuits needed for empathy, relationship skills, time and timing, healthy interoception, positive mood, strong impulse control, and emotional insight. These aren't the brain patterns researchers would expect to see in someone who lacks empathy for others (radical ideologues) and who acts on that lack of empathy. I think it's extremely important to be aware that the brain patterns evident in cases where individuals lack empathy for others and act on that lack of empathy extend far outside the boundaries of religion to include all forms of radical ideology. The 20th century, unfortunately, gave us several examples of how badly off-track the brain can become when empathy circuits have been discarded (e.g. the pre-WWII genocide in the Ukraine, the European Holocaust, the Cambodian Holocaust, and the Rwandan Holocaust, to name just four). Human beings don't even need religion to be their worst selves (witness the atrocities committed by assorted atheistic and/or non-religious regimes) so it's not okay to turn the issue of massacres into a condemnation of religion and/or faith. It's always an issue of brain health, addictions that are denied, and the use (or perhaps misuse) of free will. There are radical ideologues everywhere in the world (including the ranks of all major world religions) and there are also non-ideologues everywhere in the world (including the ranks of all major world religions). Each individual has the right and the ability to decide for him/herself how to assess and learn from the teachings of his or her religious tradition. Each individual has the potential to experience God's presence and the peace that comes from faith, but each individual has to choose that. Radical ideologues don't choose that. The science and the history aren't on your side on this one, Paul.

Thank you, Joseph. You explain the distinction well.

Paul, what you're describing here is not what I've been trying to describe. You're describing a different aspect of human cognition and behaviour than the one I'm trying to describe. What you're describing is fideism -- blind faith in an ideology. This isn't the same "neurological package" as the life-altering experience of God's presence that some of us have felt. In fact, the two are so different (on the inside of one's head, so to speak) that I wonder how you're able to present as "fact" your contention that "many suicide bombers and extremist Islamics experience the presence of God also." All human beings share the same DNA (allowing for the minor variations that create our minor differences, of course.) All human beings are born with the same basic set of brain wiring and brain potentials. So when people make claims for their experiences, we now have the tools to begin to assess and compare those claims. We can see which parts of their brains are active when they're thinking about God and which parts are not. There are many complicated neurological and psychiatric issues that can have an impact on the origin of a person's claims for experience of God. What are the conditions under which the experience happened? Was there a head injury? A seizure? Use of a psychotropic drug? A viral infection? Sepsis? And so on. It's very complicated, and these issues affect the whole brain, not just the part you seem to speak of as "religion." There's no "religion" box inside the brain. There are only networks related to memory, cognition, decision-making, communication skills, relationship skills, intuition, and so on. Religion takes advantage of those basic networks, but so do politics and justice systems and professional sports and technology and economics and pedagogy. So on a scientific basis, it's not correct to separate religious ideologies from other ideologies. They're all intertwined. We all have the same basic brain toolkit. But we don't all use it the same way. And by the time we're adults, some of us have damaged the potential of our brains and therefore have damaged the potential of our brains to experience emotions such as love, trust, forgiveness, and empathy. So please. Just because a person uses the words "love, trust, forgiveness, and empathy," it doesn't necessarily mean their brains have grown to adulthood with the capacity to experience these emotions. Words are tricky little beasties, and we need wisdom in order to feel the true intent behind the words. Blind faith -- fideism -- relies almost entirely on the fact that System 2 brain circuits aren't wired to feel emotions such as empathy, so words are assumed to hold the meaning of their "face value." System 2 dominant thinkers can't feel what's going on behind the words, so the words hold more power than they should. But the experience of faith that comes from the heart and soul . . . that's something else entirely. And the scientific reality is that if one has stopped using the circuits of the brain that process quantum emotions such as love and forgiveness, you not only can't feel love and forgiveness in your relationships with other human beings, but you can't feel God's presence. God is love. If one has chosen to stop feeling love (as in psychopathy) . . . guess what, you can't feel God's love, either. It's just the basic math of how the brain works. So a zealot may talk about God's love, but they're only "talking the talk," not "walking the walk." One can only "walk the walk" if the brain's relationship circuits haven't been fried. Although you yourself may not have personally experienced the kind of faith I'm talking about, my experience is a daily one, not a "one off." Please don't assume that you know better than I do what my experience is. I say this because the way in which you're talking about faith in this thread (as opposed to religion) makes it sound as if you're sure you know better than the rest of us what faith is and what faith feels like. Maybe you have something in your life that's really important to you -- maybe something like scuba diving or rock climbing or gardening a rare species of orchid. If you had a deep connection to scuba diving, and you knew what it feels like (not in words, but in terms of ongoing experience and knowledge and memory and learning), do you think you'd appreciate it if you read about somebody else's "opinion" about scuba diving when he or she has never learned to swim let alone scuba dive? Would it seem reasonable that others should give priority to the opinion of somebody who's only read about scuba diving over your daily experience as a scuba diver? So just to be clear . . . the blind faith (fideism) that you're conflating here with an experience of God's presence is not what I'm talking about in terms of faith.

Yes. I agree completely. Faith is an experience deep within the self. It's a transformative, healing, uplifting way of being in relationship with all of Creation. Belief in a "cause" or an "ideology" (as with suicide bombers and, indeed, with all fanatics and zealots) creates completely different sensations inside the brain than the sensations created by relationship with God. I can remember how I "felt" inside my own head when I was a young adult, long before I embarked on my journey of faith as a mystic. I remember what it felt like to be "right." The pleasure in being right was so brief, and I was so quick to judge others and become angry. There were times I didn't like myself very much. In faith, I've found the peace that comes from setting aside ideology and allowing myself to be in full relationship with myself, with others, and with God. I'm so very grateful to God for helping me find the currents of peace and love that flow through and around all of us when we open our hearts to Divine Love. Thank you, blessed Mother and Father!

There's a difference between being a person of religion and being a person of faith. From what I can tell, you're unhappy with the people of religion who are being hypocritical, judgmental, and filled with hatred towards others. I, too, am unhappy with the people of religion who claim to be speaking for God and with God and through God, but whose actions and emotions don't match their stated belief in God. A person of faith, on the other hand, may or may not belong to an organized religious group. A person of faith -- that is, a person who has experienced God's presence in their lives in positive, loving, affirming ways -- does not pray to God to blow up non-believers. The man who committed such terrible deeds in Orlando was a human being with serious issues that can only be understand from a neurological and psychiatric perspective. He didn't even claim allegiance to his "newfound cause" till he was already inside the nightclub. What he did has nothing to do with faith or God. He may have used the words, but he wasn't speaking from his heart and soul; he was speaking from some seriously messed up brain circuits that had fallen into the terrible brain habits of narcissism, hatred, anger, vengeance, and psychopathy (none of which have anything to do with God or faith). I have deep compassion for any human being who has messed up his/her own brain so badly that killing a lot of innocent people seems like a good idea. I forgive those who blame others for their own mistakes and I forgive those who think vengeance is ever an acceptable way out of pain and suffering. It must be awful -- even terrifying -- to be inside your own head and hear such hateful things going round and round without peace, healing, or respite. So no. I don't think of it in terms of logic or intelligence or stupidity or ignorance. I think of it in terms of free will gone astray, addiction problems run rampant, and the suffering of individual human beings who can no longer hear the infinite kindness and wisdom of their own souls. But it's not just in matters of faith and/or religion where I see these same issues of free will gone astray, addiction problems, and suffering. I see this same suffering in all aspects of human life where people allow themselves to absorb and accept unloving cultural habits -- whether it's in physical and mental health, education, job-seeking, connection with Nature, or anything else that matters to us. Religion is just one sphere of life where we seem to be really screwing up. I don't think we'll find peace within ourselves or our communities until we start being more honest with ourselves about how our brain-soul nexus really works. (I know you don't believe in a brain-soul nexus, Paul, but this is how I see it and this is what the neuroscience is slowly starting to point towards.) God bless, Jen

I've reread your original post several times, Paul, and it still seems to me that you're criticizing those who believe in a God who intervenes. In your own words, you say, "Now I'm sure some people pray in the sense that they wish the deceased and their surviving families well, but again, who do they think is listening? And IF that entity is listening, why do they expect that entity to take any action now, after the event? In fact, when in the history of mankind have they ever seen such an entity intervene, or when do they think they will?" I based my reaction on your words and also on the tone of your words. Then you went on to say, "Firstly, I don't think stupidity has anything to do with it. If fact, very intelligent people hold all sorts of beliefs that make absolutely no sense to the general population. Often, even in the face of logical science. Having those beliefs doesn't make them stupid in my opinion, even if I can't accept their beliefs." So really . . . come on, now, Paul . . . although you didn't use the word "stupid" in your opening post (I'm using the Canadian Oxford Dictionary definition of "stupid" in this context, meaning "showing lack of good judgment; foolish; obtuse; lacking in sensibility; general term of disparagement), aren't you criticizing those who believe in a God who can intervene? You certainly seem to be criticizing a lot of people of faith. But you also say you're talking about "the types of people that pray but then do nothing themselves to prevent such a reoccurrence." I agree with you about the hypocrisy of that kind of behaviour, but, sadly, it isn't just the people who pray who are guilty of this kind of hypocrisy. On that note, I like something I saw in Saturday's Toronto Star about Australia's highly effective response to a mass shooting that took place in 1996 . According to the sidebar, the Australian government responded by implementing a massive mandatory gun buyback program. Apparently, 650,000 legally owned guns were peacefully seized, an estimated 20% of all privately owned guns in Australia were removed, and the rates of gun-related suicides and homicides dropped substantially. That's an awesome response that the rest of the world should sit up and take notice of!

Hi Paul, I'm saying that, for me, the list of things that might help the world begins by starting at the bottom with the root causes of the behaviours that create suffering. I see intercessory prayer as something that grows at the top of the tree, as it were, with intercessory prayer being a "symptom" or a "fruit" of the underlying (or root) choices being made in the brain's biological circuits. Intercessory prayer is typically used by people who are suffering from status addiction without realizing -- or without accepting -- their brains are wired to seek out and cling to sources of status. (Telling yourself that God has to listen to and obey "the right sort of prayer" is a form of status addiction.) I think the general idea was somewhat clear in my original post. But perhaps you and I are using the same idiom to mean two different things. That, or I should have had another cup of coffee before I hit "post." Sorry for any confusion.

Hi HayleyMay, great to hear from you. I believe God in a loving God, too. I'm a Christian despite the fact that my parents raised my sister and me to be more like pragmatic secular humanists than anything else. My 92 year old Dad and I have agreed not to talk about faith because, well, we can't agree on anything to do with God or the soul. It's interesting that you ask about sin. One of the reasons my Dad rejected the idea of faith was because he associates strict, judgmental, religious rules about sin with his strict, judgmental Anglican upbringing. He saw that it's wrong to judge and punish other people for being creative or spontaneous or passionate about their purpose in non-religious ways. So, for example, my sister and I weren't raised to consider homosexuality a sin. For us, sexual orientation was just a normal part of life and the human experience, not something "bad" or "sinful." So that was a great gift to us as we were growing up. On the other hand, my Dad has never been able to see that religion and faith are two different aspects of the human experience. He conflates the two and insists that religion and faith are basically the same thing. I've met people who are very devout in religious terms (always going to church, always following the rules) but haven't a drop of faith in them (that is, they have no relationship with God). I've met people who are deeply filled with faith, but reject all forms of organized religion because they see only the harms that have so often been created -- or, at the very least, amplified -- by organized religion. (One of the biggest harms comes from religious doctrines about the nature of sin.) Somewhere in the middle, it's possible to be a person who has deep faith and who also sees the benefits of belonging to a religious community -- if it's a responsible, loving, inclusive, and open-minded religious community. So I personally don't believe in the idea of sin as it's taught in many Christian congregations (and in certain other religious denominations, as well). I think human beings sometimes make mistakes. I think human beings sometimes make really dreadful mistakes. I think all human beings have times when they're confused or irritated or upset or lonely. For me, that's not imperfection and that's not sin. It's instead an important and necessary part of the journey of being a human being. If you read back through some older threads on TCPC, you may discover along the way that I personally see a lot of problems in the Christian teachings that come from Paul rather than from Jesus. The traditional teachings on sin that we're familiar with in the Western branch of Christian orthodoxy come from Paul and Paul's followers. But Paul's teachings on sin weren't at all the same as Jesus' teachings on the human experience of being "perfectly imperfect." In other words, it's possible to set aside Paul's teachings on sin, stick to Jesus' teachings on relationship with God (who forgives every mistake we make, even when we make the really dreadful ones), and still call yourself a Christian -- all while sleeping the calm and peaceful sleep of those who truly love God. Hope this helps. Jen

Hi HayleyMay, It's good of you to come onto this site and share your thoughts and questions. I hope you'll be able to find some of the answers you're looking for as you seek to build a relationship with God. One of the important things I've learned over the years as person of faith is that each person has a unique way of experiencing God's presence in his or her life, so although it's important to share experiences of faith and trust with others, it's also important to cherish your own relationship with God and not allow others to draw you into comparisons. God is the one who knows you best (even better than you know yourself most days!) so God knows best how to communicate with you in subtle ways and help guide you towards being the person you most want to be. As with any loving relationship, it takes time, patience, and a willingness to learn from each other to build a strong and trusting connection. So ask lots and lots of questions. God never rejects the learning process, even when it's filled with potholes, obstacles, U-turns, and misplaced maps. (I mention all the obstacles along the way because I know from personal experience that asking God to show you what Divine Love means will take your life down some very unexpected pathways!) If it feels to you as if Jesus' teachings have something important to say to you (even without the bits about dying and saving the world), then maybe there's a map you can follow towards his understanding of God, the good soul, healing, love, forgiveness, and empathy. Be patient and brave, because it always takes time. God is very patient, too, though, so don't worry that God will judge you if you don't figure everything out right away! God bless, Jen

For me, making the earth a better place to live, and making a list of things that might help, always starts at the bottom (with neuroscientific research) rather than at the top (with practices such as intercessory prayer that are only a symptom of the underlying neuroscientific realities). For me, I had quite a few questions following the Orlando massacre. I wondered (not for the first time, and not alone, since so many others are also wondering) about the "right to bear arms" in the U.S. (which seems to me a manifestation of the Deist "right to be right," which influenced so many aspects of the early American Constitution). I wondered again about the devastating impact of status addiction on the human brain. I wondered again about DSM issues, such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder, addiction disorders, and the big white elephant in the DSM room (i.e. psychopathy, which has never even made it into the DSM). I wondered again about the way in which certain patterns of biological dysfunction in the brain seem desperately in need of Big Ideas (i.e. ideologies such as radical, well, radical anything) to hold their brain circuits together. I wondered again (in sadness) when we're going to start taking responsibility for teaching our children to use their brains in balanced, holistic ways (with both mind and heart) so children don't have to grow up to become psychopaths. I also reflected in awe and wonder at the examples of heroism and courage that have emerged throughout the continuing ordeal (since, for some people, it isn't over yet) and I again noticed (not for the first time) that even in the midst of terrible suffering, some individuals choose to go deep into their core soul strength and find the deep love and compassion they didn't even know they had. This deep love and compassion isn't a "gift" from God that's given to us externally. It's part of who we really are, yet so often we struggle against this reality and pretend we're not capable of such awe-inspiring love and courage. Many Christians talk about surrendering to God. But the hard part is surrendering to the true extent of our inner courage, trust, gratitude, and devotion. In our ability to enter the Kingdom (to surrender not to God, but to our own inner ability to love) we're all equal.

In a general way (and I hope you're listening, Joseph) I again lament the extent to which the TCPC message board has become a place where the views of militant atheists must be respected and deferred to all costs while those of us who still claim a semblance of faith, and who wish to expand the discussion of humanity's issues beyond the scope of Materialist cause-and-effect classical physics, are continually demeaned by those who in their (apparent) infinite wisdom already have all the answers and feel it's their mission to "save" the rest of us from our poor, demented, faith-filled brains. If this attitude were coming from an evangelical Christian telling us we're all going to go to hell, it wouldn't be tolerated -- and, in fact, a small number of such evangelical Christians have been banned from TCPC in the past. Yet on a site that claims to draw its basic principles from the teachings of Jesus (who was a passionate theist, a fact which most certainly did affect his brain in ways that allowed him to see what Divine Love really means) anyone who actually trusts God and loves God can expect an immediate dose of contempt wrapped up in an exquisite package of carefully measured words. I personally am not surprised by the low levels of posting activity on TCPC in recent years. For those of us who've opened our hearts (System 1 thought processes) to relationship with God, who needs this? Who needs to be told repeatedly that we're foolish and gullible and that our faith is on par with belief in fairies and unicorns? (And who knows . . . maybe on one of those many exoplanets in the universe, there really are fairies and unicorns.) Don't worry. I hold no illusions whatsoever that logic, scientific discourse, words, or deep compassion for the suffering of those who hate will ever have any effect on the core beliefs of those who are more concerned with their "right to be right" than in helping make the world a kinder, gentler place. The only one who can prompt transformative change within the self is one's own self. You can vote me down as many times as you like, but it won't stop me from forgiving these individuals and saying what needs to be said. I'm not the one who comes on this site to demean the faith experience of others. There's an old saying in Common Law that says "a person is assumed to intend the reasonable and probable consequences of his/her actions." So what is the assumption that lies behind the posts of militant atheists who have such a strong presence on an ostensibly-Christian board? For the record, I have no quarrel with those who are genuinely agnostic and who come here seeking insight into their many questions. In my view, it's very healthy to be asking questions and keeping both an open mind (System 2 thought processes) and an open heart (System 1 thought processes). Even Jesus went through this process of questioning and overturning old traditions until he finally found a place a peace and balance within himself (the Kingdom) where he could hear both his own inner wisdom and God's quiet, loving, ever-inspiring voice. And he remained a physician-scholar-polymath in doing so. God bless.

I'm not clear, Paul, whether you're criticizing those who say they're praying for the massacre victims or whether you're criticizing those who are stupid enough (in your view) to believe in God -- or at least in a God who can intervene. Perhaps both? With regard to prayer, I agree with Joseph's thoughts on the matter: "Prayer ( a talk with our source) in my view can change the prayer. A changed prayer brings about different choices. Different choices bring about different consequences. The universe is always responding to choices with consequences , howbeit not always instantly ... and in that sense ... one could say God intervenes. Sometimes it appears as miraculous." There are several different kinds of prayer, and the kind of prayer Joseph refers to here -- "a talk with our source" -- is not necessarily what others mean by prayer in a situation such as the Orlando massacre. So it would be helpful first to understand what kind of thought process is going on behind the use of the word "prayer." I personally stopped using intercessory prayer -- a prayer with built-in conditions and demands -- many years ago. Intercessory prayer, by its very nature, assumes from the outset that God doesn't see or hear what's going on on Planet Earth unless we rush to inform God. It also assumes that God can't or won't intervene in a situation unless we first offer worship, praise, and a specific set of instructions for God to follow (e.g. God, Mary Lou is sick and you need to heal her right now!). Such prayers also include the implicit assumption that human beings are smarter than God (with we human beings always knowing what's best in a situation) and the implicit assumption that intercessory prayer has some sort of "magical power" over God's free will. None of these assumptions is very helpful, of course, But for those who feel strongly drawn to try to strong-arm God through intercessory prayer, it's an indication that inside their biological brains, they're giving preference to System 2 thought processes at the expense of System 1 thought processes. So preference is given to cause-and-effect logic; obedience to religious laws in a strict and linear and predictable way; religious humility (which is the opposite of true humbleness); lack of empathy; lack of trust; and lack of emotional courage. On the other hand, prayer of the kind Joseph refers to -- a talk with our source -- is really about conversation; relationship; context; contemplation; slow, careful, patient reflection; willingness to change; insight; and what positive psychologists refer to as MEANING. These are attributes that spring from System 1 thought processes (which, as I've mentioned before, predate System 2 logic in evolutionary terms). Paul, if you're concerned about the extreme example that affect our society, then I'd recommend you turn your attention to what happens inside the biological brain when System 2 thought processes are given constant preference over System 1 thought processes -- and what happens to mood, cognition, empathy, and impulse control when the brain is forced to shut out the wisdom, patience, and relationship skills that spring from System 1 quantum biological circuits. If you're concerned about the extent to which religious traditions can reinforce and even amplify the problem of System 2 dominance in the brain, then yes, I agree completely. But religious tradition is often at the opposite end of the emotional spectrum from FAITH, which is an emotional experience of relationship with God. Intercessory prayer is used to enhance "the power and glory" of System 2 religious traditions. Contemplative prayer (conversation with God) is part of the ongoing process of building a humble and joyful relationship with God -- which is no different, really, than the choice to have long and respectful conversations with the other people and creatures you love so you can better understand them . . . and yourself. God bless, Jen

Interesting thoughts, Jack of Spades. As I read your post, your pairs reminded me of the cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance). The Church has long tried to figure out ways to teach the proper practice of the virtues, but often their efforts have led to more rules,laws, and doctrines, and fewer shining examples of virtue. I went back and looked at a short piece I wrote for a Moral Theology course 3 years ago: Yes, I really did you use the word "turnip" in a theology assignment. I know the official Church position is that all four cardinal virtues are equally important (like the four legs of a chair), but in reality the Church has long put Prudence first and Temperance last. Hence my statement about Temperance.