Realspiritik

Yes, thank you, Fatherman. The entire human brain is built on quantum interfaces and there's no way around it. So Fatherman, your starting thoughts about user interfaces are entirely valid. The difficulty for most human beings lies in the way we understand these interfaces. We try to understand them using simple Materialist cause-and-effect models. We imagine the brain as a bunch of simple Lego blocks that can easily be rearranged to suit our primary belief system (and we all have a primary belief system, even those who claim they've risen above such pettiness). It's a large and complex and confusing and difficult subject. There are only a few things about it that can be said with certainty, in my view. The first certain thing is that it can't be reduced to simple formulas. Simple formulas start out as monism (ah yes, we're all One!), then quickly devolve into dualism (ah yes, we're all One, but some are more equal than others!), and eventually end up in pure hierarchy (ah yes, I'm the One, and you should obey me!). George Orwell expressed this pattern well in Animal Farm. Interfaces can't be infinitely reduced to create a smaller and smaller (or bigger and bigger?) unified Truth. Interfaces always operate in parallel, not in series (to use an analogy from basic electrical circuits). Every time we, as humans, try to shrink the number of interfaces and wire them in series rather than in parallel, we get "the narrow portal" where a small band of self-righteous leaders tell ALL the rest of us why they're right and we're wrong. "The narrow portal" pops up everywhere in human society, not just in religion. Right now, one of the most conspicuous examples of "the narrow portal" is scientism, where individuals place blind faith in the dictates of scientific papers without taking the time to consider the research in nuanced and objective ways. It isn't science that's inherently bad (or religion that's inherently bad) but our all-too-human tendency to look for simple one-size-fits-all answers to complex questions. Another certain thing is that interfaces draw on data from both Materialist physics (i.e. classical Newtonian physics) AND non-Materialist physics (i.e. quantum physics, particle theory, and field theory). Underneath the Materialist synapses and neural circuits of our brains lies a whole lot of messy quantum stuff that you can't control with your human brain (no matter how clever you think you are). You can certainly "push and pull" the Materialist matter of your brain through the principle of neuroplasticity (and this is a good thing), but you have no say in the underlying quantum mechanisms. That part's up to God. (And thank goodness for that, because if I had to take more responsibility for anything beyond the quadrillion bytes of storage capacity in my own brain, I think I'd throw up: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-estimate-boosts-the-human-brain-s-memory-capacity-10-fold/). For any human being to insist that they can and do control not only the matter of their own brains but also the underlying non-local quantum fields starts to lead down the slippery slope of profound hubris -- 'cause if you say you can control quantum fields, which are intertwined and non-localized throughout the universe . . . aren't you really saying you're God? A third thing that's quite certain, no matter how inconvenient it may be for spiritual teachers, is the reality of Time as a quantifiable, verifiable, LINEAR factor in the foundation of quantum theory. As human beings, we're only at the threshold of understanding how linear Time relates to other fields such as gravity and magnetism, but I have no doubt that unfolding research will eventually confirm this. (The exciting detection of gravitational waves is a small step in this direction: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/searching-for-the-gravitational-waves-ligo-can-t-hear/). For readers who are going to jump down my throat about the importance of "the Now," let me hasten to say that I don't believe having a linear concept of time interferes in any way whatsoever with one's ability to live a life of full acceptance and grace and wonder. There are many factors that prevent us from being in full relationship with ourselves, with each other, and with God. But Time itself isn't one of them. Time, like gravity and magnetic fields and dark matter and dark energy, is a powerful universal current that helps us find each other and connect to each other's hearts in God's vast and wondrous universe. As with gravity and magnetic fields, it's pointless to pretend it doesn't exist and is only an illusion of our minds. It just ends up sounding like a big, fat, lazy excuse for not doing the hard work of learning to love, learning to forgive, learning to transmute pain into meaning, and learning to use our free will wisely. And this, by the way, leads to the reason I don't find Eckhart Tolle's teachings helpful (not that I can fault him for his brilliant ability to tap into people's deep yearning for healing!) I see no qualitative difference between his book The Power of Now (with its focus on "negative energy fields" and "pain bodies") and all the ancient religious teachings on "demons" and "spirit possession." He uses no science in his book. He provides no footnotes or bibliography or references. And it draws heavily on the "lessons" of ancient apophatic mysticism. It's pure revelation -- drawn straight from his own head and the heads of other apophatic mystics who have taught "the narrow portal" to healing. In my view, telling people to ignore the powerful lessons of the past (difficult though they may be to glean) and focus only on the present is about as narrow a portal as one can get. Edited for grammar and clarity.

Hello, Joseph I take no offense at your words. Your personal experience is your own and, as always, it's up to each individual to decide what to do with his or her personal experiences. Your experience, in the way you describe it, is, of course, a classic experience of apophatic mysticism. Experiences of apophatic mysticism are described in all major religious systems, including Christianity (though it's a minority viewpoint within the history of Christianity). It's the majority viewpoint in Buddhism -- and is, in fact, the starting point for Siddhartha Gautama's revelations -- which may explain why a number of TCPC readers over the years have wondered if you're more Buddhist than Christian. I can't help noticing that you ended your comment with this statement: "While i certainly encourage others to continue their search and share , it is to the end that they also find a point where "seeking" and constructs are no longer required for relationship." You wouldn't be suggesting, would you, Joseph?, that the apophatic path is the only correct path, the preferred path, the one "narrow portal," the "one-size-fits-all God interface" to spiritual completion? Because, speaking only for myself, I'd have a problem with that.

Each of us has different ways of understanding and expressing our relationship with God, so it's never crap when we try to find a way to express this relationship. Apart from the fact that I personally object to Eckhart Tolle's teachings, and find his book an unhelpful starting point for the spiritual journey, I think you have some interesting things to say in your starting post here. Your observation about the one-size-fits-all God interface has been expressed by others in different ways, but it remains a valid observation. No need to apologize for it or call it crap. In fact, the problem of the "narrow portal" (a.k.a. the one-size-fits-all God interface) is one of the greatest challenges we face as children of God and communities of faith (not communities of religion per se, but rather communities of people seeking relationship with God). It's an important reality that needs to be discussed.

Hi Tanakh, welcome to TCPC. Glad you've joined us. As you've probably figured out already, we're a mixed bunch here, with everyone coming from different backgrounds and different parts of the world. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! All the best, Jen

Like you, Jack of Spades, I find labels to be helpful as long as the meaning behind them is contemplated and understood through the lenses of both heart and mind. I find freedom in not fearing words or labels. In my experience, it's a fear of looking behind the labels at the hidden motivations that causes suffering. As human beings, we often find it easier to blame the labels instead of blaming our unresolved issues with anger and hatred and jealousy, etc. In the Gospel of Thomas (77b), Jesus said, "Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there." Most of us are afraid to life up the rock (metaphorically speaking) because we know the first thing we'll see is bunch of wiggly critters squirming around on the ground. But the wiggly critters are part of God's Creation, too, and once we let go of our own hidden prejudices, we can love the "swarming things" and be glad and grateful for their lives and their contribution to the web of life on Planet Earth. Words and labels can do great things in the world as long as the meaning behind them aligns with the needs and wishes of God and the soul. God bless.

Hi Jack of Spades. Yes, I'm the author of the blog, but I had to go back and read what I wrote about my life as a heretical Christian before I could reply to you! Yes, it's very difficult to be a mystic and not be a heretic -- especially because a mystic is always questioning, puzzling over the "big questions" about life and death, and returning to original sources to say what they might actually say (as opposed to what we've been told they say). So I'm a big history geek, too. I think it comes with the territory. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Best wishes, Jen

Hi Jack of Spades. Welcome to TCPC (and your English is excellent, by the way, so no worries on that score). I think you'll find others on this site who have questioned as much and as often as you have (including myself). I hope you'll share your thoughts and insights with you and teach us what you've learned on your journey. We all need each other!

Hello follow-just-j. Glad to see you here. As I read your post, it reminded me of the most difficult end-of-semester paper I ever wrote in theological college. I picked the topic of ancient Greek word usage around the concepts of "kingdom," "kingdom of the heavens" (Matthew's usage), and "kingdom of God" (Paul and other Gospel writers' usage). It was so complicated I thought my head would explode. My own personal belief about Jesus' Kingdom teachings is that Jesus was trying to teach others how to be in full relationship with God the Mother and God the Father -- not in a future time, but right here and now, in the present. In this interpretation, the Kingdom represents a person's inner state: the choices he/she makes, the values he lives by, her willingness to blend heart, mind, soul, and strength in everything she does, especially in the task of learning (or perhaps I should say remembering) how to love well. The Kingdom can be reached by anyone at any time if he/she follows the path of courage, trust, gratitude, and devotion to seek humble relationship with God, with all others, and with the self. Some people will "enter the Kingdom" during their human lifetime and others will not. It's about the choices we make in life and what we choose to learn from the mistakes we make along the way. In many religious traditions, it's common for some leaders to teach that if we, as humans, fail to make all the right choices, we won't be saved by God and won't ultimately end up in Heaven. I don't think this is what Jesus was saying, though. I think Jesus was saying just the opposite, in fact. I think he was saying we're all so worthy of God's love and forgiveness that there's no possible way we won't all end up in Heaven. The problem isn't the future, said Jesus. The problem is today. How can we use the limited skills we have as human beings and somehow turn all our lemons into something resembling lemonade? How can we be in full relationship with God even though we aren't perfect and we make mistakes and we don't understand much about, well, anything and we can barely get through each day in one piece? Those are the kinds of questions Jesus was interested in -- questions about loving and forgiving and healing despite all the problems and confusions. The Kingdom, therefore, is the internal mental, emotional, physical, and spiritual state that arises inside ourselves when we let go of our worries about being saved at some future time and instead focus on doing the best we can each day to love God, our neighbours, and ourselves. In that sense, the Kingdom is ever-present, which is what Joseph, Fatherman, and Soma have also said.

Although I'm a little late in replying, I'd just like to thank you for this timeless message about what it means to be in relationship with self, other, and God. Our lives are, indeed, a living grace. Amen.

Hi, MOW. Interesting observation about the gender of angels. The church I attend doesn't do Christmas pageants (maybe because the mean age of the congregation seems to be about 65!). So no comment on Christmas pageants per se. But the history of angelology in Christianity is fascinating. A really good systematic study of the history of angels is Gustav Davidson's A Dictionary of Angels: Including the Fallen Angels (New York: The Free Press, 1967). It covers angels from the annals of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and a whole lot of other religions, past and present. Historically, most angels were considered either genderless or male. But there's the occasional female angel in the list. I've noticed that in recent years there's been a lot of artwork with beautiful, golden-haired, female angels, often accompanied by mythical creatures -- unicorns, fairies, gnomes, and clouds and clouds of butterflies. Lots of pretty, fluttery butterflies. Maybe this is meant to make us think that God is kinda spineless?

Thanks for your encouraging words, Soma. I appreciate it. God bless.

Hi all. I wrote this essay for a friend and thought there might be a couple of people here who'd be interested. Best wishes to all, Jen AFFIRMING MINISTRIES AND AND THE CURIOUS CASE FROM MARK Here in Canada, many church congregations are asking themselves whether they want to become an Affirming Ministry, which, in the words of the United Church of Canada, means "ministries [that] declare, in words and actions, that God loves and accepts people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender." This is an important step on the journey of transforming the church from its roots in righteousness to its blossoming in God's love. But, as with any long journey where a lot of people are asked to walk together in the same direction, more or less, there are major disagreements and a whole host of new questions. Are we sure Affirmation is the right path? If God wants us to do this, why hasn't God left us a map? Why can't it be simple? Why can't it be clear cut? What about Jesus? Did he say anything about Affirmation? Would he say anything about Affirmation? For many congregations, the question of Affirming Ministries is a difficult and confusing issue. Individuals must wrestle with complex questions about who we are as unique human beings, who we are as members of families,communities, churches, and who we are as children of God. Sometimes, in these discussions, our deepest beliefs emerge, and we can find ourselves alternately pleased and dismayed at our own inner reactions. All on the same day! At a time such as this, I think it can be helpful to consider what Jesus said to us about a different but equally important matter. It's sort of a "peripheral vision" technique. When we stare and stare right at the middle of the Affirming Ministry question, sometimes all we can see is the main black and white issue. But if we let ourselves see with our peripheral vision, too, where things are kind of blurry, but also much wider in scope, then sometimes we can see the bigger picture a bit more clearly. I think this is something Jesus did, something he tried to teach others to do. He tried to help others see God not only in the central issues but also in everything around us. Nowhere is this clearer than in Mark's portrayal of Jesus as a physician scholar who was way ahead of his time in his understanding of what causes illness. We forget, sitting in our comfortable, modern homes with access to a full range of modern diagnostic tools and medical interventions, that once upon a time -- during the time when Jesus lived, in fact -- the prevailing model for understanding neurological and psychiatric conditions was demonology. Demons were thought to cause medical disorders such as epilepsy. Not everyone believed this, of course. Certain schools of philosophy and science had long been working on the idea of healing as a form of science. But, for the most part, diseases were blamed on divine causes. People went to priests, magicians, oracles, and holy men to find out which god or demi-god had been offended and what steps had to be taken to settle the debt and make things right again with the divine. This was big business, and a lot of money was made by those who claimed to be gatekeepers for healing and exorcism. The Gospel of Mark includes several fascinating stories that mention demons and spirits. Even today, people tend to interpret these passages in Mark as proof that Jesus followed the lead of others in believing that demons were the cause of neurological disorders. I won't go into all the background reasons for why I think this interpretation of Mark cuts out some of the very best and most helpful insights into Jesus' teachings, but I'd like to draw your attention to the curious passage in Mark 9:14-29 about the healing of the epileptic child. It's quite a strange story to include in the middle of a religious narrative. It's also a bit of muddle to us today. If you read it carefully, it seems as if the author isn't sure how to describe what happens when a distraught parent brings his epileptic son to Jesus for healing. The descriptions seem part medical science -- "whenever it seizes him, it dashes him down; and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid", which is medically accurate -- and part religious invocation -- "he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, 'you spirit that keeps this boy from speaking and hearing, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again.'" To our ears, it sounds as if Jesus believes there's a demon inside the boy that can be exorcised. But when you read the passage in its original Greek, you see some shades of meaning that aren't obvious to our English-speaking ears. For starters, the usual Greek words for "demon" aren't used in the story of the epileptic boy. Each time the spirit is described, the Greek word is a cognate of pneuma. And pneuma is one of those tricky words in Greek that can mean a lot of different things, including breath, wind, spirit, disposition (as in personal characteristics) -- and sometimes a spirit with evil tendencies, though not always. I think it's quite possible that Mark was using the word pneuma to describe a "force" that's real and tangible inside the head, even if we can't see it with our physical eyes -- the way breath and wind are strong forces that can't be seen directly with our eyes but are very real and measurable nonetheless. It's Jesus' understanding of this real but unseen force inside the head (what we know today are abnormal cortical events causing seizures) that leads him to treat the boy and his family in ways that would have been unthinkable for most religious scholars of the time, whether Jewish or Hellenistic or Mithraic. It's Jesus' understanding of the boy's condition as a scientific matter that leads him to ask the same kinds of questions a doctor would ask today: "What are his symptoms? When did they first start? How can we treat this right here and right now?" We tend not to notice what Jesus doesn't say to the boy and his family. Jesus never judges them. He never says to them, "What did you do to deserve this? How did you offend God? How did your parents and your parents' parents offend God? What sacrifices have you offered at the Temple to remedy your offenses? What have you done to restore your purity?" Jesus asks none of these questions. He says only that it's a matter of faith and prayer. And after he treats the boy as a person, and asks the right medical questions, and performs some sort of healing treatment (though we're not sure what), and stays with the boy as he convulses to the point of appearing dead to everyone in the crowd, Jesus does the most remarkable thing of all. Jesus, a Jew, doesn't step away from the body, the body from whom the spirit or pneuma appears to have departed. Jesus doesn't step away from the corpse to protect his own ritual purity (which would have been considered religiously appropriate at that time and in that place). Instead, he moves even closer to the boy, taking him by the hand, lifting him up till he's able to stand, and (we infer) returning him to his father's care. For Jesus, no one was unworthy of God's love and healing, despite what those around him said. In first century Palestine, with its blend of Hellenistic and Jewish cultural norms, an epileptic child would have been considered a blemish, a punishment, a valid reason to revoke some or all of the family's "honour and status" and treat them as unworthy, little better than the dogs who eat the crumbs from under the table. Today, we'd never dream of doing this. But in Jesus' time, it was the norm to marginalize whole families simply because one member was sick and needed proper treatment. It's interesting to note that although Jesus goes around the Galilee and the Decapolis to assess and treat many kinds of illnesses and neurological disorders, he's never once shown by Mark as trying to heal or "fix" somebody's sexual orientation. It's pretty clear Jesus is keen on monogamy. It's also pretty clear Jesus is keen on people not committing adultery. But monogamy and adultery are altogether different issues from sexual orientation, and if we rejected everyone from the church who's ever broken faith with Jesus' teachings on adultery, I dare say the church would have snuffed itself out like a dying candle long, long ago. Jesus does give us a hint about how the epileptic child is healed. He says to his apostles in Mark 9:23 that "all things can be done for the one who believes" and then, in Mark 10:27, he adds some more information, saying, "'For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible." Jesus was a man of science, but he also believed in miracles. It isn't up to us, as Christians, to reject the very children whom God loves. Jesus' healing of the epileptic child tells us that even when we don't understand, as human beings, the unique challenges and talents given to each child and adult around us, God understands. God loves what we don't see. God accepts what we try not to see, what we try not to speak of or hear. When we're ready, though, God shows us how to speak of and hear Divine Love, as the epileptic child began to speak and hear once he and his family accepted they were worthy of God's love and healing. God stands by, ever ready to help, when we find the courage to take the same steps on the path of understanding and inclusion that Jesus once had to take. God loves us all, each and every one. God bless. Edited for clarity: added the word "cortical"

I don't conflate them either. You may think I do, but I don't. I didn't return to university at age 49 and slog through a graduate degree in theological studies to make the rookie mistake of conflation. I also don't believe I have an infallible access to the Truth. Mystics only have access to their own truth and are quite content with that.. If you're looking for the people claiming to have infallible access to the Truth, those would be the prophets. I make no claim to being a prophet, nor have I ever done so.

Yes, Joseph, I understand that Fatherman can speak for himself. I made it clear at the beginning of my post that I was speaking only for myself. I didn't share specifics of what I thought Fatherman might be feeling, only that I felt I might understood why he said he was leaving. The comments I made were mine alone.

So to be clear . . . you want to keep Jesus in the bullpen, not because Jesus believed in Mother & Father God and in angels and in souls (good souls, that is) and in an afterlife and in healing during this life and in miracles during this life and in relationship with God during this life and in a non-apocalyptic, non-eschatological, non-salvific faith that calls upon all your heart and all your mind and all your soul and all your strength . . . and not because you trust and respect Jesus for his teachings on same . . . but because he's a nice guy? There are many nice guys in this world, so I'm sure you'll have no problem letting go of him entirely and choosing what you want to choose. Blessings to you on your journey.

I think I may understand how Fatherman feels. Speaking only for myself, it's very difficult to come on this site and be constantly judged for being a theist -- someone who starts with the assumption that there's a loving God who's with us at all times and in all places. This site, which claims to be a Progressive Christianity site, with an approach grounded in the 8 Points, almost never promotes the 8 Points. Take a look at the main page of the Forum and see for yourself how few people ever post about the 8 Points. Why is that? Is it maybe because the 8 Points, however you slice them, still emphasize the ever-so-inconvenient theistic teachings from Jesus? I live in Canada, where just about everybody I know (including some militant atheists) say they uphold humanist values. Sure, some of them only say they do, and don't actually practice such values, but our newspapers and commentaries and current election debates are filled with humanist values. It's normative here. In some other countries, it's the same. It's not really that hard in this day and age to find widespread support for humanism. Humanist values are great -- I support them too -- but saying you support humanist values or New-Age-type-enlightenment is not the same thing as saying you're a Christian. If you support humanist values, but don't believe in God, then please have the courage to step away from the label of "Christianity" and find some other way to describe the individual and group choices you adhere to. There are so few places where Progressive Christians who believe in God and believe in the example set by Jesus can get together to share their insights and help each other heal. Isn't that what's it's all about? The desire to heal our hearts and spirits and bodies? If it's not about healing -- because you think you've already got it all figured out and don't need anybody else's help or insight or words or actions -- then what are you doing here? Just showing how clever you are because you've noticed there are problems and inconsistencies in the Bible? It's not hard to see the problems and inconsistencies in the Bible. The real question is . . . what are going to do about them? If you're just going to sweep them all under the carpet and pretend they're irrelevant to our lives today, you're missing the point of what Jesus taught and why. Sweeping inconvenient theologies under the carpet isn't new. It's been done for millennia by assorted religious teachers. But Jesus didn't do that. He challenged people to examine existing theologies and use both the good stuff and the bad to help springboard people into more loving relationships with themselves, each other, and God. This is much harder to do than simply washing your hands of the complications and pretending you're above all that sort of thing. As Point 8 says, being a follower of Jesus is costly. Indeed.

I agree. To a point. I would try my best to show them, not simply tell them, about the ramifications of jumping off. If they were to jump anyway . . . I would forgive them, then climb down the embankment with a first aid kit and do my best to help.

Thanks for taking the time to read my comments, Bill. While I appreciate that your thoughts and beliefs about theism and Jesus come out of a Calvinist background, mine do not. Nor does my personal daily experience as a mystic. So I have to laugh when you say that mystics believe God is a father-figure "up" in the sky. This isn't my understanding of God. And I doubt very much it was Jesus' understanding of God. I in no way approach my relationship with God as I would my relationship with a spouse. In fact, I find such claims deeply offensive (though I'm aware of a tradition within Christianity that makes such claims). God the Mother and God the Father are my parents. I am their child. I try my hardest each day to be their child. I don't try to be them. I'm only their child. I do the best I can with what I have and who I am. There's no need to turn to Jesus' example if the path being chosen is one of pure humanism without reference to God. Referencing Jesus adds nothing to the humanist position since one thing all humanists can agree on is the importance of trying to treat each other with dignity, inclusiveness, and social justice. If this is all one plans to take from Jesus' teachings, I'd say leave the Bible behind, stop looking backwards to what Jesus said, and simply get on with your tasks of loving and living. It isn't Christianity, but it's definitely a viable path. Everyone who in good conscience feels that humanism (without God) is the right path for them should follow that path without guilt and without feeling the need to reference Jesus. Jesus was, after all, only human. No need to look to him for his thoughts about God if one has decided that God isn't real or necessary.

I wonder, Joseph . . . would you stand by and let someone who's never before seen a bridge jump off that bridge? Is it always enough to simply give references so people can research it for themselves? Do vulnerable people always stop and carefully check background references? Is it enough to simply be a good example? If it were enough, would we have the societal troubles we currently have? I personally feel that there are times when you can show someone the references and other times when you have to be more explicit about what will happen if they jump off the bridge. Kind words aren't always enough to help someone who's in distress. Sometimes you have to be very direct. The example of Helen Keller and her mentor, Anne Sullivan, comes to mind as an excellent example of what I'm trying to express. Edited, as always, for typos.

The cases you've presented are valid and speak to the wider question of how we choose to act on our religious or spiritual beliefs "when the going gets tough." It's very easy to kick back with a pot of organic tea and rhyme off a long series of cliches and spiritual pleasantries when the sun is out and there's food on the table and no one in the family is sick or dying. It's also very easy to say we should respect all spiritual beliefs and not challenge anyone who expresses an opinion about choices deemed "spiritual." The problem with this approach is that it ignores neuroscientific reality, the reality that no choice is purely "spiritual" as far as the human brain is concerned. We may think we can separate our spiritual choices and practices from the rest of our human neuroanatomy and neurofunction, but we can't. Any major choice we make affects the way the brain wires itself. This is the principle of neuroplasticity. When we make major choices about our religious or spiritual beliefs, we give instructions to our biological brains to go ahead and start rewiring circuits to support and reinforce our major belief systems. So when we make major religious choices, it can go one of two ways: the brain's overall function can become more balanced, holistic, and able to deal with nuance and ambiguity; or the brain's overall function can become more rigid, dualistic, and less able to deal with disagreement or dissent. It depends on which major connection bundles become reinforced and which bundles become weakened. It also depends on factors such as proper nutrition, healthy sleep patterns, and avoidance of psychotropic substances. Religion and spirituality are also never separate from DSM issues such as major mental illness, Axis II disorders, addiction disorders, co-morbidity, and non-psychiatric illnesses that create psychiatric symptoms (e.g. psychosis arising during sepsis). Religion and spirituality are also never separate from psychopathy, which, for reasons that remain unclear, still isn't included in the DSM. For too long, in my view, theologians and spiritual leaders have tried to sidestep these biological realities and pretend that fideism somehow allows a person to transcend all these pesky biological realities. Fideism, of course, can often make biological issues worse by forcing the brain to try to do its job without a proper toolkit of biological resources: proper nutrition, proper sleep, respectful touch, avoidance of toxic substances, access to learning opportunities, and inclusion in a supportive, loving environment. In addition to the basic biological toolkit (which many people in Western society already incorporate into their daily lives), the brain wires itself together along several different emotional and spiritual vectors. If these emotional and spiritual vectors are intentionally suppressed, the brain will do its best to work with what it's told to work with, but it won't be a very happy or well balanced brain. The major emotional and spiritual vectors are (1) the need to give and receive love (respect for boundaries) (2) the need to know and recognize oneself (interoception) (3) the need to recognize and mirror other people's pain (empathy) (4) the need to work wisely with Time (patience, common sense, deferral of gratification, acceptance of limits) (5) the need to be grateful for other people's talents and blessings (humbleness) (6) the need to take action when harm is being inflicted on vulnerable beings (courage) and (7) the need to be honest about immoral choices and then forgive immoral choices (free will combined with all the other vectors). When the human brain is working as it can when fully balanced (as seen on a fMRI or SPECT scan as full, balanced perfusion across all parts of the brain) then a person experiences a sense of purpose, motivation, acceptance, and compassion for others. The brain is hardwired at the DNA level to want and need this kind of purpose, motivation, acceptance, and compassion. BUT TOO MANY PEOPLE TODAY ARE NOT FEELING THIS WAY. So, returning to the question of what to say to someone who's vulnerable to the predations of cult leaders, one way to assess a positive and specific alternative to radicalization or cult membership is to look at how the daily practices of a religion would affect the brain's functioning over the long term. How do those practices either enhance or diminish a person's internal experience of wholeness without sacrificing love, sense of self, empathy, patience, humbleness, courage, or forgiveness. You can force the brain to accept an external framework of purpose and motivation over the short term. In fact, the brain is quite good at this. What it does is suppress impulses coming from System 1 brain circuits and give preference to System 2 impulses. This is supposed to be a short term measure (to help you, say, when you're faced with an emotional or spiritual predator, a.k.a a psychopath). But over the long term, your brain can become more and more imbalanced (with altered activity in the major limbic system networks). Long term effects can include depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, ADHD, and early Alzheimer's Disease. The reason I'm a believer in the original teachings of Jesus (not to be confused with the original teachings of Paul) is that Jesus was an early pioneer in teaching others how to build and maintain a healthy brain and a healthy brain-soul nexus. Jesus was a passionate theist, a person who believed with his whole being in a personal God. So for anyone who wants to choose a spiritual path that disavows a personal God, there's not much point in trying to uphold Jesus as a teacher whose way had merit. There have been plenty of philosophers who didn't believe in a personal God. It makes much more sense for atheists or for those who don't believe in a personal God to walk away from the Jesus teachings and find other mentors and theologians to guide their path. Jesus' Kingdom teachings make no sense outside the context of relationship with a personal God. Jesus' Kingdom teachings (which intertwine both System 1 and System 2 practices) are a positive and specific alternative to the "dead ends" of thinking patterns that rely almost exclusively on System 2 patterns. But the Kingdom teachings are not especially easy and they do take time. They also depend on mentorship (because the brain learns best with loving, forgiving, courageous mentorship). What vulnerable human beings are usually seeking most when they turn to radical cults is mentorship. Therefore, the best contribution you could make to a vulnerable human being is to offer mentorship. There's really no substitute for the soul's need to be in fellowship with others and to learn from the wisdom and experience of others who have already walked the path of healing. This is the best short answer I can give to the question you've raised, Mcarans. Thanks again for your great questions. God bless, Jen Edited for typos and clarity.

Romansh, my thoughts are with you and your wife. God bless.

Moriah is beautiful, Bill. You are blessed to have her love.

Bill, there is never any replacement for a person you love. Just want to make that clear from the start of this post. What I'm about to say isn't meant to be a consolation prize. I'm sharing from the heart in case it might help (though I understand it might not). I thought I might mention a few things I did after my son's death that changed me as a person (hopefully for the better). In a way, I suppose it would be fair to say that I'd lost myself while I was growing up, and my son's death (with everything that happened around it) gave me the chance to use my free will to make new choices and reclaim my own life. Circumstances taught me about humbleness. I'd been intellectually smug till that point, and it became harder for me to be smug after being so vulnerable and so in need of help. Circumstances taught me about empathy. I'd never understood before my son's illness what it's like to suffer excruciating emotional pain, exhausting family pain, wearisome financial pain, and spiritual doubt and fear. Afterwards, I was much less sympathetic to the conservative "they're not trying hard enough" approach to life. Circumstances taught me about my own heart. Pretty self-explanatory, really. I'd been living "in my head" but my heart got busted wide open, despite all my efforts to shield it. I cried my eyes out. My heart remains open to this day. Circumstances taught me about gratitude. People were so good to us throughout our ordeal. I was amazed and beyond grateful for the help we received. I can't say I understood gratitude before that time (having been smug and intellectual). Gratitude is a miracle, in my view. I learned to be a better mother to our surviving son. You can bet I never took him for granted! He's 31 y.o. now and we have a wonderful friendship and supportive relationship that grew out of our shared grief. He and his brother taught me how to learn from them, my children, an experience which has filled my life with joy and blessings. I tried to give back to the community, to "pay it forward," so to speak, because I was so grateful for the care and love we'd received. I started volunteering because my heart wanted to, not because my head said it would be a smart thing to put on a resume. Did God make me do all these things after my son died? No. Was it predestination? No. God stepped back and let me stumble my way through a whole lot of tears. I made the changes because I wanted to -- maybe not with perfection, but certainly with heart. Free will doesn't give ANYONE the power to be separate from their environment, biology, or circumstances. Free will only gives you the right to make choices about your own thoughts, feelings, and actions inside your own little head (what Jesus called "the Kingdom"). But by God when people choose to take charge of their own thoughts, feelings, and actions (and stop blaming other people for their own mistakes), amazing things can happen in the world. God bless.

It's not possible, Bill, to harmonize certain theological doctrines with free will. So if you're being told (or if you believe) that God has sovereignty over us and nothing happens without preordination, predestination, or Divine decree, you'll be unable to reconcile the role of free will in your granddaughter's death. There are other theological paradigms, however, that speak in a different way about God, death, and free will. One of those paradigms is Jesus' paradigm -- the Kingdom paradigm -- which was radically different in its theology from Paul's Temple paradigm. It's very hard on the soul within to look at the circumstances of your granddaughter's death and NOT see it as the result of free will on the other driver's part. It's correct for you, as a human, as a soul, and as a child of God, to understand what happened as a result of free will. It's also correct for you to believe that God or God's angels may have been able to step into this situation and save your granddaughter, yet this didn't happen. This is the hard part. How do you put these two apparent contradictions together? Why did your granddaughter have to die? (I know what it's like to rant and rail against God for the death of a precious child so I understand the difficulty.) Despite what many religious leaders over the past few millennia have claimed, it's not true that human beings can overcome death or be guaranteed a long life without illness or suffering. Some people live more fully in a few short years than others live in their entire biological lifetime. I eventually had to come to terms with the fact that my son had lived well and taught brilliantly in the three years he was with us. He was a person of great courage and trust. Eventually, I came to understand that his example would always be my guiding light in this life. Although he knew nothing of theological doctrines or debates, he knew everything about what's important to the soul. He will always be one of my personal heroes. I feel his love to this day. God's purpose in putting us here on Planet Earth has nothing to do with worship or salvation or healing the universe or other eschatological claims along this line. God's purpose in putting us here is to give us the chance to work through some very difficult emotions and experiences because we, as persons-of-soul, want and need this opportunity. Because God knows what we're capable of and because God TRUSTS us as souls, God gives us the opportunity to wrestle with ourselves and learn more about ourselves through that wrestling. God gives us the opportunity to see what it feels like to use our free will to FORGIVE when it seems completely impossible to forgive. Yet it's not impossible. This is what Jesus spoke of. The driver of the car that killed your granddaughter is now presented with possibility of learning how to forgive himself (damned near impossible) and you and your family must now see if you can find any kernels of transformation hidden within this tragedy. This process of digging into tragedy until meaning and purpose is found was the subject of Dr. Viktor Frankl's master work, "Man's Search for Meaning." Logotherapy -- the school of therapy he founded after his horrific experiences as an inmate in Auschwitz and other camps -- speaks to the unquenchable need of the human spirit to dig deep into suffering and stop making easy excuses for it. Finding meaning in the midst of tragedy calls upon all your courage, all your faith in God, all your humbleness, all your relationships, and all your faith in yourself. Is it easy? Hell, no. Is it worth it? Totally.

Dear Bill, I'm so very sorry to hear about your granddaughter's death. My heart goes out to you and your family. I'm a bereaved mother, so I have some awareness of the pain. But each family's grief is unique. I wish you well on the long journey of healing you and your family are on.