Realspiritik

Thanks for your comments, Joseph and Soma. Soma, your comment that "we can use it or we can let our brain use us" is very true. We have much to learn about the brain. It's my hope the church will begin to use neuroscientific findings in a more conscious way (rather than the traditional empirical -- and sometimes accidental -- way) to help shape effective spiritual practices for the third millennium. As others have said on TCPC, God is the ulitmate scientist, so I'd like to think God would be smiling if we were to incorporate more neuroscience into our faith practices. Jen

This morning I was excited to read an article in the current issue of Discover (July/August 2015) that gives a really good analogy for what I do as a cataphatic mystic and how I learned to do it. The article is called "Sonic Vision" by Berit Brogaard abd Kristian Marlow, and it's excerpted from an upcoming book called The Superhuman MInd: Free the Genius in Your Brain by these authors. If you have a subscription to Discover, you can read the article online. Or you can buy the current issue at the newstand, as I did. First, though, a quick story that sort of shows how I navigate in my life as a mystic and auditory channeller. (Some of you may recall that I have a strong auditory connection to the soul who once lived as Jesus son of Joseph. Again, I understand this is problematic for some readers and, again, I can't apologize for who I am and what I do.) To find the Discover article about humans who are blind but have learned to navigate in their environment by using sophisticated echolocation skills, I could have just kept checking on the Discover website until such an article appeared. But that's not how I live my life. There's only so much time and so much money and so much brain energy. What I do instead of constantly checking websites or subscribing to print magazines is to patiently wait until I get a message from my angels. (Again, I understand this is problematic for some readers, but this is a Christian website, and angels or messengers or persons-of-soul or whatever you want to call them have always been part of the Christian narrative.) So here's how my discovery of the Discovery article went. First, I realized I needed to go buy a birthday card for a friend. Then it occurred to me I could walk to the plaza instead of driving (though often I drive). And because I walked to the plaza, I passed by the window of a convenience store I hadn't been in for a long while. And because I walked past the window, I saw their sign for inexpensive cards. (I'm on a tight budget, so I'm always looking for good value). And because I saw the sign, I went in. And because I went in, I discovered the store has been turned into a good magazine shop with titles that don't normally show up in the local drugstore. And because there was a good selection of science magazines, I was able to "feel" the quantum Post-It note that was attached to the Discover issue. Don't laugh, but this is how I do all my shopping. It's a process of navigation. It's a process of following quantum threads until they lead me to the quantum Post-It attached to the thing I need. Often the Post-It is attached to something I'd forgotten I needed, but while I'm standing there, with my hand reaching out unerringly toward the shelf, my mind (often the slowest part of me to catch on in these situations) suddenly says, "Oh, yeah, I actually need that!" At which point I know I've been guided by my incredibly kind and incredibly thoughtful angels. So anyway . . . back to the article about echolocation in Discovery. If you have a chance to read it, you'll discover an amazing story about a man named Daniel Kish who lost his sight to retinoblastomas at the age of 13 months and then figured out on his own how to use echolocation to "see with his ears." What's really fascinating (apart from Kish's skill, dedication, and willingness to teach others how to see with their ears!) is that he and others with this skill use the visual processing area in the brain's occipital lobes to generate spatial imagery in their minds. They suss out echoes that most of us can't hear (because we haven't practised hard enough) and these echoes are processed not in the auditory centres of the brain, but in the visual cortex (which does process some sounds). Using comparative informative (between the sounds going out from their clicking tongues and the reflected sounds coming back from nearby objects), the brains of these individuals can construct highly detailed images of what's nearby. It takes proper training and lots of practice and commitment, but it can be done. Sighted people can learn how to echolocate, too, although the phenomenological experience may be different. The process described in this article is very similar to what I do and how I do it. I don't click with my tongue, of course, but I seem to be able to "click" with an as-yet-to-be-determined type of brainwave. I get "quantum echoes" coming back from nearby persons-of-soul, and these are the echoes my brain processes and turns into words and imagery. I've known since December 2004, when I had my brain scanned on three different days at the Amen Clinic in California, that the visual cortex of my brain lights up like a Christmas tree when I'm talking to Jesus, but my auditory cortex isn't really involved in the channelling process. I've also learned after 15 years of daily experience as a cataphatic mystic that when I'm awake and channelling, I don't really "see," yet I get black-and-white visual imagery with the words that come in from persons-of-soul, including Jesus. The words always come in clear as a bell -- the same as having a conversation with somebody whom my physical eyes can see. This is a voluntary and learned process -- just as echolocation is a voluntary and learned process. It's a scientific process. And I had to be trained how to do it properly, just as Kish's students have to be trained. In a few people (such as Kish) it develops instinctively. But most people have to be trained. Being a cataphatic mystic is a bit different from being a non-sighted person who's learning to echolocate. The process is more complex, and not many people are born to be full-fledged cataphatic mystics (which is as it should be -- the world only needs a few full-fledged mystics at any given time!) But everybody is born with the brain-talent for intuition (a talent which, on rare occasions, such as during an intense emotional crisis, gets pushed more towards the mystical end of the spectrum, with actual sensory impressions coming through briefly from Spirit). And everybody can learn how to use their intuitive circuitry better than most people do. Some adults have so badly fried their intuitive circuitry that they can longer hear a damn thing from God/Spirit/Source/angels, though the potential is there -- just as the potential to echolocate is there for both sighted and non-sighted people. This potential can be developed with proper training, practice, and commitment. With the proper development of the brain's intuitive circuitry, anyone can strengthen their relationship with God (who's talking to us all the time, whether or not we consciously realize it.) Here's a great quote from the article: OMG -- welcome to my life! I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read this quote. Tough-love is definitely the key. All the best, Jen Edited for missing words.

This is an important thread and I appreciate the honesty and compassion of everyone who has spoken on this topic. Fatherman, my heart goes out to you with regard to your son's attempted suicide. Mental health and its relationship with religion and spirituality is a messy, difficult, painful, chronic reality and I don't disagree with any of the comments that have been made here. My personal journey of cataphatic mysticism has been, in many ways, an attempt to sidestep many of the mental health problems that can accompany an intense spiritual journey. I have no history of major mental illness, but I've worked in the field, and I have great empathy for anyone dealing with depression, bipolar disorder, psychosis, addiction, and other illnesses. It scares the crap out of me when I read the spiritual advice given by some teachers and gurus. I read some of their teachings and can't help thinking . . . there's a recipe for major depression, manic episodes, even full-blown psychosis. The recovery period can be very long, as SteveS55 points out. As a practising mystic, I work like a dog to look after my brain. Part of my practice is to avoid all alcohol. This isn't a popular cultural choice, but it's a choice I've needed to make. I also don't meditate. I engage in active contemplative work, but not forms of meditation such as stillpoint. I greatly respect the approach of the Twelve Step Program, and I also wish that psychiatry and mental health issues were treated with the utmost care, compassion, and respect they deserve. Thank you again, everyone.

I agree with you, Fatherman, and I think you've presented a wise and sensible solution. I suppose I should amend that to say it's one part of the solution, since the solution involves more than one element, but your approach of using historical context is an important and often overlooked element in the overall discussion. Thank you.

I've been thinking about this overnight. I think what you've written here, Fatherman, speaks to a wider issue. I think the issue involves the true meaning of inclusiveness -- not the meaning from our human point of view, but the meaning from God's point of view. As human beings, who stumble and make lots of mistakes, I think we sometimes have a tendency to rely far too much on the power of words and not enough on the power of courage. Words do, indeed, have a great deal of power in our world to create positive, lasting change. (Witness the recent "seismic shift" in the U.S. journey towards true equality, as the CBS News described it in their newscast last Friday). On the other hand, words have often been used in the long course of history as a tool to disguise lack of courage, lack of forgiveness, and lack of acceptance of all creatures as fellow children of God. It's too easy to say "I'm inclusive of everybody so I'm a nice person." If a person who claims to be Progressive is not welcoming conservatives or moderates, then perhaps there's an unwillingness to go deeper into the question of what God means by inclusiveness. You're right, Fatherman. It isn't a new issue in the church. Jesus wrote about it in James 3. I guess we're still trying to understand it.

Although it may have been somewhat unfair for Fatherman to use the word "all," I do feel I'm in a position to accurately observe that (simply from a factual point of view, and not pointing fingers at any one person) "many" -- perhaps "most" -- members of TCPC over the years have assumed that I am indeed crazy and have treated me as such. I also note -- simply from a factual point of view -- that no one challenged Fatherman's statement until I reappeared on the scene yesterday. It's extremely difficult for a cataphatic mystic in the third millennium to find a safe place to lay his or her head. I'm accustomed to the prejudice and abuse that comes my way, and I've also learned the hard way what happens when I speak up to defend myself and others from those who are very, very sure of their own belief that claims of ongoing relationship with God are proof of a DSM-V illness. (. . .Just for the record, for those who don't know me or don't recall the details, I'm a practising cataphatic nature mystic* who self-identifies as a heretical Christian and who can stretch my quantum biology to the point of being able to communicate with the soul who once lived as Jesus, whom I personally believe is not the only Son of God or of one substance with God, but who is, quite frankly, just a child of God like any, but who happens to be a philosopher/mystic/storyteller deep in his soul, which is why I'm able to communicate with him on a daily basis -- long story short. How's that for a sentence with too many clauses?) * I draw on scholar Bernard McGinn's research on mysticism for my definitions.

Hello, Joseph, Thanks for your greeting. I hope you've been happy and well since we last spoke.

How lovely. Thank you.

I started a non-fiction book a few years ago, too. Got about 45,000 words in and couldn't finish it without going back to university. So I know the feeling. If I can help at all, let me know. I hope your music is part of the novel. Best, Jen

Nicely put. A pastor who's afraid of ruffling feathers (not matter whose) may be missing the chance to help community members see issues that have been papered over and ignored. We are all children of God in need of mentorship, guidance, and the occasional reminder that we're not always right. FireDragon76, I love what you said here: "Being "Nice" is valued way to much, and being "real" about life is actually one of those things not high on the list" (Post #5). This has been my experience, as well. God bless.

Hey fatherman, no worries. I'm pretty used to being rejected. Anyway, it's great to connect with you again. It's one of the things I love best about the Spiral Path -- the way God brings us back in a gentle spiralling pattern to relationships and places and ideas we've visited before when we're ready to see them with fresh eyes and a more open heart. Maybe that's why you and I have ended up here again. If you're interested in talking a bit about quantum communication, maybe we could start a new thread. No pressure, though. Only if you (or maybe another reader?) are interested. Let me know what you think. Best, Jen

Hey fatherman, it's so awesome to hear about your journey! I love your list. Mind you, I was a bit surprised to notice my name part way down, but what the heck. What I'm really wondering is . . . why isn't chocolate on the list, too? My list is similar to yours with a few differences. Like you, my list has got longer with time, and, like you. I feel like a square peg in a round hole in church circles. ( I still self-identify as a heretical Christian.) Yet when we believe with all our heart and mind and soul and strength in God's love, we end up needing faith community more, not less. I especially like one of your final insights: "that there is no such thing as supernatural, but there are things that happen that cannot yet be explained by science. all miraculous occurrences are natural." Over the past few years, I've been working hard with Jesus and few other angels to understand better how God builds the fundamental forces (gravity, strong force, weak force, EMF) and how these forces relate to the "emotional" aspects we feel in Creation (Truth, Love, Forgiveness, and Diversity). I've also been using my background in chemistry to better understand the periodic table of elements from God's point of view. (Early days yet on that one.) Yeah, I'm still doing the channelling thing you guys all hated. Maybe one day I'll be able to actually help with what I've learned through my years of quantum conversations. Maybe not. Everybody has free will, so nobody has to accept my contributions. Really. I'm realistic about that. I do know for certain -- and rejoice in the daily wonder of it -- that there's no question and no struggle God the Mother and God the Father won't help us with each and every day of our lives. Take care, all. Jesus says hi. Jen

I have not misunderstood your words. I've listened carefully to what you've written. I don't accept your interpretation that the PC has no defined path. The eight points can be understood as a defined path. I don't think I'm the only person on this site who thinks there is defined path for Progressive Christians, a path which -- according to the eight points -- seems to have something to do with Jesus (the actual, historical Jesus) and something to do with God. I would certainly agree there is no rigid, dogmatic set of rules for PC's to follow. But there is still a defined path, which, as far as I can tell, seems to have something to do with being in relationship with God. If God is removed from the equation, then, as I've said before, the PC movement is nothing more than a service club. And to reiterate, since I don't wish to be falsely accused once again of dismissing and undermining the importance of volunteerism and service clubs, I think service clubs are wonderful.

I appear to have misunderstood the path of Progressive Christianity, since I've just learned from your post that Jesus has been "demoted" and is no longer of primary relevance to the movement. Also, I will apologize to you and withdraw, as it seems from what you say that Progressive Christianity is no longer a movement about finding relationship with God, but is instead a non-theistic movement. It is my error in failing to see this reality. You may wish to consider removing the Fred Plumer video you posted, as this leads to a false impression of what the Progressive movement is really about. Best of luck to you.

I've said more than once that those without faith make a difference in the world, for example through service clubs. Also, through teaching, medical care, road repair, parenting, and on and on and on. I believe every individual is important.

Dear Joseph, I've read the comments that have been posted in the past couple of days on the Tears for the Soul thread. I note the negative rating attached to the last post I wrote. I note that I've been rebuked for raising valid rebuttal points with regard to Norm's 2 long rebuttals of my own posts. It was my understanding that the Forum where I posted the Tears for the Soul thread is to be considered a safe site for those who identify with the goals and beliefs of Progressive Christianity. I wish to state clearly to you, as Global Moderator, that I do not feel safe anywhere on the TCPC site. I understand that if I post on the Debate & Dialogue Forum, I have to take my chances. I accept this. Many of the regular posters on the Debate Forum have chosen to take a non-theistic stance or an atheistic stance with regard to God. You need to know, Joseph, that in your efforts to make a space for those who don't believe in God and those who even seem to hate the idea of God (I'm sorry, but this is an honest paraphrase of some of the posts on the Debate & Dialogue Forum), you have failed to create a safe space for those of us who actually believe in God and those of us who actually believe in the uplifting teachings of the man who lived as Jesus. I said nothing - nothing at all - to Romansh and never asked him withdraw. Nor did I even think to myself that he should withdraw. How could I? He'd made only one short reply at that point. I note that you're instantly ready to defend a slight perceived by Romansh, but you are not prepared, it seems, to defend my right to defend myself. Norm made several contradictory statements. Is it your policy as a Moderator that posters are no longer permitted to point out obvious contradictions that go to the heart of the subject being discussed? I tried to start a thread to talk about a subject that's of deep importance to many Christians today. It has not escaped my notice that none of the long-time posters and none of the Moderators are interested in this topic. I want to state clearly WHY I don't feel safe anywhere on the TCPC site. You may assume that my feelings arise from a personal sense of entitlement and a lack of willingness to be "wrong" in a debate. I've been wrong many times in my life, and I can handle being wrong. This isn't why I don't feel safe. I don't feel safe because I and others who are trying to find a way to express a simple, loving, honest faith in God are constantly being bullied by those who don't believe in God and don't want to believe in God. Even on the Progressive Christianity Forum, which is supposed to be a safe place for people who want to discuss the mysteries of faith in EXACTLY the way that Fred Plumer describes on the video you posted this week (which is EXACTLY what I was trying to do), people such as myself are not permitted to defend their belief in God or their belief in the historical Jesus for fear of offending those who choose not to believe. I refuse to stop speaking about God and faith and Divine Love and soul and mystery and healing and redemption because somebody might take offense. How can we ever bring healing or understanding to the church if we stop talking about the questions that matter most to us because somebody somewhere doesn't like the questions we're asking? Where is the line between being inclusive and being a person who lacks the courage of his/her faith in God? I'm not going to apologize for the post I wrote above that earned me "demerit points." I said something honest, without exaggerating and without twisting Norm's words. I wrote a precis of what Norm had already written. Yet for daring to point out the honest truth, I am chastized. I'm not the first to make these observations about the "rules" of posting on this message board. Perhaps at some point in the future, it will be possible for people of faith who believe in God and the soul to share their stories here, but that day is not today. Jen

Hey, going back to this important question . . . I thought I should add one of the really obvious and really important ways of getting in touch with the soul -- uplifting music!!! Biblical exegesis is a thankless job most days . . . but put on a great tune with harmonies and bass and rockin' percussion, and the soul can't help grinning with joy. Timeless melodies have a way of cutting through all the crap. Best, Jen

Norm, I started this thread for people who believe in a theistic God (you say you don't), for people who believe in the historical Jesus (you say you're not really sure and don't care), and for people who believe the soul is perhaps part of the Divine mystery (I'm not clear what your thoughts are about the mystery of the soul). Norm, it's reasonable for a reader to believe you share Jefferson's Materialist beliefs, since you make no effort to refute them, and your own statements of belief seem to align with Materialist beliefs. If I'm mistaken in this regard, please clarify. Your quote above -- "Personally, I think that the Jesus of history was a student of Hillel" -- indicates clearly that you call this a personal theory. Please don't say you didn't say something when you clearly said it in print. Geez! Your points, when taken on an individual basis, make sense, but they don't add up to a unified understanding. (No worries if you haven't figured it out yet. We're all trying to figure it out. But be HONEST about your own thoughts and feelings. Don't hide behind thinly veiled excuses such as "Not as I put it -- as Thomas Jefferson put it." If you think you made a mistake, say so. If you think you could have made your point less ambiguously, clarify it!) Jesus can't be both "a composite of many such wandering magicians/healers around the turn of the Common Era" AND "a student of Hillel," who was presumably a real person and not a composite. You have to make a choice, Norm. You can't have it both ways. You either have to walk away from Jesus (if you think he's a composite or an unoriginal ho-hum teacher) OR you have to decide to try to work your way through his difficult teachings (or at least not dismiss that journey when chosen by others). My comment about crucifixion was not meant to undermine the brutal reality of crucifixion in the Roman Empire. I was thinking of one of the major criteria used by researchers of the historical Jesus (eg. the Jesus Seminar) to better understand why Jesus was attacked by everyone, not just the Romans who eventually crucified him (i.e. the "Rejection and Execution" criterion). I apologize for my lack of clarity. I'd like to see the play you describe about the book of Mark. For a long time now, I've been sure the author of Mark wrote his book as part parable and part play. It must be a play with a lot of action. Norm, if you want to start a thread about your own theories about the historical Jesus and other historical teachers of the time, that's great. But I'm going back to the purpose of this particular thread, which is to talk about the soul and what this means for people of faith today. Jen

Hi Joseph, Thanks for your thoughts. I like Mike's post, too. The point about inclusiveness possibly leading to a movement that "lacks bite" is a good one. Best, Jen

Hello, Joseph, Thanks for posting the Fred Plumer video. I found it very interesting. I don't recall hearing Mr. Plumer describe Progressive Christianity as "an adaptable art form." (I was taking notes as I watched the video, so maybe I missed his mention of this?) I don't find the phrase "adaptable art form" very helpful, to be honest. In my view, this leaves too much wiggle room for those who wish to make the Progressive Christian movement no more than an atheistic social movement or service club. Was it really the intent of the recent re-founders (or modern co-founders?) of the Progressive movement to get rid of anything that can't be explained by classical physics? I find Mr. Plumer's willingness to "examine the best scholarship [and] . . . be willing to make a change" WITHOUT throwing out all experience of relationship with the Divine very honest and refreshing. He notes a particular focus on scholarship in both theology and christology. He also mentions the role of scholarship in science. I concur. He's quite clear in this video that he thinks Jesus spoke of a path, a path which, if followed with "great intention," can help other people know an experience of the Divine as Jesus himself once experienced. This is also my view. It's my view that what Jesus learned is both teachable and learnable. It's not an experience reserved for a select chosen few (whether mystics or ministers). It's a "bottom-up" approach to theology and christology, rather than a "top-down" approach. Jesus' approach deserves to be examined carefully. In my view, if we're not prepared to reexamine Christian theology, Christology, and science in light of the best scholarship available to us, we may just as well pack up our pews and our hymn books and go join an admirable service club like the Lions or the Kiwanas or the Rotary Club. There is still a place for the ineffable mystery of the Divine in the 21st century church. Why do we have to be so darned afraid of this sense of mystery? As quantum weirdness shows us, there's plenty of room for both mystery AND science on the same page. No need to choose. They're both part of our reality. Jen

Norm, you've raised a number of points here I have to disagree with. You seem to have built up a personal theory of who Jesus was and what his teachings actually were. Many others in the past have presented their own theories about who Jesus was. You can read about these diverse theories at http://www.earlychri..../theories.html and clicking on the link for "Theories of the Historical Jesus" at the bottom. You'll also find a treasure trove of non-canonical early Christian writings from the early centuries of the church. There is no agreement among scholars -- current or past -- as to who Jesus was and was his teachings were. However, one general approach that's been in vogue since the late 19th century or so (eg. Albert Schweitzer) is to start with the assumption that we must ignore all the "nonsense" of the "added miracles," as you put it. Another idea that's currently in vogue is the idea that Jesus was a knowledgeable Jewish teacher who didn't really say anything new and was simply repeating moral teachings spoken by earlier teachers such as Hillel. This, as I understand it, is your take on Jesus, Norm. In the context of the Golden Rule, it's important to bear in mind that Jewish teachers such as Hillel were no more "original" in this regard than teachers from other traditions. Greek poet Hesiod, who is believed to have written c. 700 BCE, wrote a version of the "Golden Rule," a moral principle that seems to arise universally among human beings. (Kenneth J. Atchity, Ed., Classical Greek Reader (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 28.) Indeed, one can find many close parallels between laws that appear in the Tanakh and laws that appear in earlier Ancient Near East texts such as the Code of Hammurabi. An excellent scholary compilation of these parallels can be found in Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East, Fully Revised and Expanded Third Edition, by Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin (New York: Paulist Press, 2006). Religion in the Ancient Near East, in the post-Alexandrian Hellenistic world, in the nascent Roman Empire of the early 1st CE, and in the early Christian world was syncretistic. People borrowed ideas from each other. Much as some individuals today would like to find a "pure" early Judaism or a "pure" early Christianity, there's no such thing. Theological doctrines in 1st century Judaisms showed significant diversity. There wasn't even an agreed-upon body of canonical Jewish texts. Agreement on a body of texts didn't come until a generation after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (possibly at the so-called Council of Jamnia (or Yavneh)) . Rabbinic Judaism in the form it's known today also didn't exist until the end of the 1st century CE. It's academically insupportable to try to place Jesus within a context that simply DID NOT EXIST at the time he was teaching, healing, and writing. I infer from your comment above -- "Hillel was a century too early for his teaching. He wasn't popular until he was well into his old age (The Talmud says that he lived over 100 years)." [actually, I believe the tradition states that Hillel lived to be 120 years old] -- that you would prefer to take Hillel out of his own historical context and place him in the most idealistic light possible as a reformer who was perhaps teaching an earlier version of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount. (Am I reading that right?) I don't disagree that there seem to be some similarities between the reputed teachings of Hillel and the teachings that were recorded in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount (I say reputed because we have to rely on much later written traditions to get a glimpse of Hillel's actual teachings, and I've learned to be wary of the accuracy of written accounts based on oral traditions). But the problem here lies in the assumption that Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is an accurate representation of the teachings of Jesus son of Joseph. I argue that the Gospel of Matthew is not a sincere attempt on the part of its author to expand upon the heretical teachings of Jesus, but was instead an attempt to move the teachings back in the direction of Pharisaic interpretations of Jewish law. (Note: I'm starting with the assumption that "Matthew" wrote his gospel before the eventual agreement on Jewish canon that seems to have taken place in Jamnia, but after the physical destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.) Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew was keen on the "jots and tittles" (Matt 5:17-20). If you want to try to prove that Jesus taught his followers about the "spirit" of the law instead of the "letter" of the law, Matthew won't help you much. Luke/Acts won't help you much, either. If you want to read a careful analysis of what "Luke" was actually trying to accomplish when he wrote his 2-part myth about Jesus and Paul, you can check out Barrie Wilson's How Jesus Became Christian (Toronto: Random House Canada, 2008). Dr. Wilson is a professor of Religious Studies at Canada's York University. Interestingly, during the course of his research and reflection, he chose to convert from Anglicanism to Judaism. The Gospel of Mark, however, says a lot about who Jesus was and what he taught without providing apologetics for either Pharisaic authority of a particular school that no longer exists (Matthew) or Pauline authority (Luke/Acts). When you read Mark from start to finish and let it speak for itself (without all the changes and inversions made to Mark's book by both Matthew and Luke) you see the story of a man who had deep faith and who didn't fit into any of the categories of religious understanding known from his time. The list of dissimilarities is long. One of the most striking (from the point of view of the Jesus-as-student-of-Hillel question) is the role of Jerusalem. You would agree, Norm, that Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Temple were central to Hillel's understanding of how Jews should be in relationship with God? The Gospel of Mark, in contrast, says that Jesus "did his best work" when he was far from Jerusalem and the Temple. Mark's book, which was written just a few years before the destruction of the Temple, is, in part, an anti-Temple statement. The Temple during the time Jesus lived and the time Mark wrote his book was a site of great corruption. Yet the Temple of Mount Zion was central to the religious claims made by Sadducees, Pharisees, and those of the Qumran community. The Temple was also central to Messianic claims made by earlier writers. So none of these groups were exactly rushing to dismantle its pivotal role. In the first two-thirds of the 1st century CE, Herod's lavish Temple complex was one of the features that set Judaism apart from other religious traditions. Do you believe in all honesty that Hillel himself willingly set aside the importance of this sacred site? Where is the evidence that he walked away not only from the corruption of individual leaders (which you'd expect him to say) but also from the longstanding belief that Jerusalem was a sacred, holy city chosen by God as the place where prophecy would be fulfilled (eg. the prophecies of Ezekiel 43 and Zechariah 12)? Matthew and Luke both work very hard to undermine Mark's claim that Jesus was a non-apocalyptic, non-Messianic, non-Covenantal man of faith who preached a thinking faith, a theistic faith, an uplifting faith where there are no chosen people and everyone is in equal relationship with God. Are you prepared to say that Hillel, a scholar steeped in the covenantal scriptures of early Judaism, had rejected those covenants in the way Jesus rejected those covenants? Are you prepared to say that Hillel "did an Albert Schweitzer" and walked away from his theological training to go to the boonies and serve as a "doctor without borders" (as Jesus seems to have done)? Hillel was a founding force in a religious tradition that has evolved over the centuries into different schools of Judaism that we recognize today. This is fine, and I have no quarrel with this. But I do have a quarrel with those who want to insist on unfounded grounds that Jesus himself was a devout follower of any well known school of Judaism that existed in the early 1st century CE. You really have to piss off a lot of people to get yourself crucified for preaching healing, forgiveness, and redemption. The Jesus portrayed by Mark would have pissed off just about everybody, regardless of religious tradition, because he held such radical notions about God and the soul. Jesus was a theist. He was not an atheist. Please note, as well, that Mark's Jesus is so heretical (in comparison with his Jewish peers) that he dares to add to the Shema. The shock value of this in 1st century Roman Palestine would be akin to somebody adding an extra verse to the Lord's Prayer in 16th century CE Calvinist churches. Did Hillel dare change the meaning of the Shema?

Yeah, that's exactly it. To paraphrase what Norm said above about God's Good Creation, God don't make no junk. Even the bad guys are goodness when you get past all the anger and self-pity and BS. Even Hitler was a good guy somewhere way down deep. The connection you've raised between soul and emotion is an excellent point. This is something that's HUGE. At one point on my journey (in the early stages) I concluded on the basis of traditional spiritual teachings that all emotions are bad and are somehow "corrupt" and "unenlightened." I tried to detach myself from my emotions because I believed I could only get closer to my soul's elevated wisdom if I got rid of all those pesky passions. I can't emphasize how wrong I was to try to do this! Eventually I realized that emotions are like everything else that goes through the human brain for processing -- there's stuff you want to keep and there's stuff you want to throw in the garbage bin. Am I going to voluntarily give up my emotions of love and trust and friendship and laughter with my son? Like, no way, Jose. Am I going to voluntarily give up my anger at the way my boss is treating us at work? Yeah, I'm going to learn as quickly as I can from the experience of anger, and then I'm gonna let it go, because hanging onto anger (instead of healing it and learning from it) seems very harmful to human biology. There are these crazy moments in life -- these turning points -- where the situation suddenly forces us to choose. The example you've given about the Dad who uses all his strength -- all his courage and love -- to protect his son is a powerful example. It's powerful because it's true. It's true that individuals can choose this kind of courage. What's even weirder is that when individuals act on their soul's immense courage, there's a ripple effect. The effects of their choice seem to spread outwards, like waves spreading out from a rock thrown into a still pool, and the waves seem to help others act upon their own inner courage. So being your true self involves thinking and feeling, but also action. All three in balance. The soul is about all three. Getting in touch with your soul is about balancing input from your mind (logic, reason) with input from your heart (positive emotions like love and trust) and input from your body (actions, movement, change). It's not fancy, but it works. Best, Jen

Hi Paul, Well, to answer your question in a nutshell, I'm going to use the quote you're using as your footer, since Dr. Seuss is one of my heroes of spiritual leadership: "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." I also really admire film as another form of "truth-hiding-behind-fiction." I've seen more truth about how to get in touch with the soul in uplifting films than in all the theological essays I've read. One of my all-time favourite spiritual films is Groundhog Day, with Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell. Bill Murray's grumpy, sneering, condescending, angry, self-pitying, and not-all-that-bright weatherman is strong-armed by the universe into finding who he really is, saying his feelings out loud (not only to other people but to himself) and working hard to build relationships that matter. He doesn't lose himself. He finds himself. And in finding himself, he's able to make a lasting difference in the lives of other people. This film is two hours of pure spiritual wisdom! What are your thoughts on this question? Any stories you'd like to share about this journey of rediscovery? Favourite films or plays or books that talk about the soul? Best, Jen

I took one semester of Biblical Hebrew, and from the first week of the course, the professor launched us into a translation of the first three chapters of Genesis. Our translations were pretty crappy, of course, but it was easier to grasp the "basics" of the grammar and vocab by working with material we were already familiar with. Never mastered the vowel points. My Bibical Greek is much better than my Hebrew. What I really want to emphasize on this thread, though, is not how individuals may perceive the soul today in a progressive context (Norm, is your congregation a Reform congregation?) I want to emphasize the historical reality of Jesus' own teachings on the soul. This is a site that's dedicated to discussions about how we might better understand and follow the teachings of Jesus. In this context, I'm suggesting that although there's been tons of helpful discussion among progressive Christians about social justice and compassion and equality and inclusiveness (all of which I support), there's been much less discussion about Jesus' original teachings on the nature of the soul. Social justice is wonderful and important, but, as many committed atheistic and agnostic social justice advocates have shown, you don't have to have faith in God to make a difference in the world. So while it's clear that Jesus was committed to the core themes of social justice, it's also clear that he believed deeply in God. He wasn't an atheist. So it would be difficult to truly follow the path Jesus walked -- the whole Yeshuan path, rather than parts of the path -- and be an atheist at the same time. If one prefers to follow the path of atheism (which is up to each individual) it would be more honest to walk that path in its entirety, and not pretend it's the path that Jesus himself once walked. There are many positive role models who can teach us about atheistic social justice advocacy, but Jesus isn't one of them. It's clear Jesus had a novel understanding of both God and the soul in comparison with others who lived within the same socio-religio-political context of early first century CE Roman/Jewish/Hellenistic Palestine. He saw something different in the way we, as human beings, can be in relationship with God. Today, his ideas may seem less novel, less revolutionary to us. But in the context of his time, he wasn't a pious religious follower. He was a religious innovator. Maybe this doesn't seem important to those who believe they don't need an understanding of the soul. But it was important to Jesus. And it remains important to many Christians today. So it's worth looking at in honest, thorough, academically supported ways. In 1988, Elaine Pagels produced a wonderful work of historical scholarship on the evolution of Christian ideas about the Fall of Adam called Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. It's time for a scholar of this stature to tackle a history of doctrines of the soul in the same objective way. I think the evidence would be very helpful and healing for progressive and liberal Christians in the third millennium. Jen

Hi Pete! Don't have much to add except to say I agree. Biblical literalists already have so much on their plates, what with all the bibilical contradictions and discrepancies and multiple Covenants they have to explain away, so maybe they just don't have the time to learn about biology and history and geology and stuff. Jen