Jump to content

Life As A Channeller


Realspiritik
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've cut and pasted two posts from the "New Sunday School Curriculum" thread so I can continue this debate without further cluttering up AllInTheNameofProgress's thread.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by wayfarer2k on August 24, 2008 at 08:39 AM

QUOTE(canajan, eh? @ Aug 24 2008, 07:42 AM)

Jesus here, Bill.

To JEN: (I won't write to Jesus anymore because he would know what I am going to say anyway)

 

I had hoped that the tone and nature of my post was seen to be "tongue-in-cheek" -- humor. If it came across as cruelty, I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be cruel, just to bring up things that I'd talk to Jesus about if he were really here in my room with me.

 

See, Jen, I was raised in a very conservative vein of Christianity where what could be known about Jesus came ONLY through the bible -- sola scriptura. I have never experienced a "mystical" Jesus and, also coming out of Pentecostalism, I'm dubious about people that claim to speak for God and for Jesus. I always figured that if God were God and Jesus were really Jesus, they could speak to me directly. After all, that is what the bible claims they do, right?

 

I've seen, in my experiences, some pretty bad things happen to people as a result of someone saying "The Lord told me this..." or "The Lord told me that..." So I'm a skeptic when someone claims to be God's, or even Jesus', mouthpiece. None of this is meant to demean your experiences however. If you channel Jesus, then, for you, that is fine. But how would I, as a skeptic, know if it is truly Jesus you are channeling?

 

My background has taught me that I would need to compare the "Jesus" that you channel to the "Jesus" found in the bible. After all, while you and some progressive Christians may deny it, the bible does claim that Jesus never changes. I think history has documented pretty well that Jesus, whoever he is, did not have the power to keep his message pure down through the ages. Despite the claim of the biblical Jesus that his words would stand forever, I suppose you and I would agree that, yes, they're pretty messed up. And, again, if the "Jesus" that you are channeling has no correlation to "Jesus" as presented in the bible, then why even say that it is Jesus? To me, that would be analagous to saying that I am channeling Elvis and then to state that I never lived at Graceland, I never acheived star status, I never had any hit records, and that I died in a car accident. Who would believe that I was channeling Elvis? If the Elvis I'm claiming to channel bears little to no resemblance to the Elvis of history, why even make the link?

 

On the other hand, I know that some progressives say that God has not stopped speaking, that God continues to speak through people today as powerfully as the Jews felt that God spoke through Jesus in the first century. I'm sure that *I* will never be one of those people, but if I were, I wouldn't claim that it was Jesus speaking through me, I wouldn't try to claim his authority for my own. I just wouldn't be comfortable with it.

 

So, Jen, I hope you see where I am coming from. I assumed that you channeling Jesus was tongue-in-cheek. I guess I assumed wrong. I'm sorry. I'm not sure how to say that I reject that kind of thing without it seeming disrespectful to you. But because of my religious training, when someone claims to be Jesus, I would either have to take those claims VERY seriously or very tongue-in-cheek. I'm not ready to take them seriously. I'm sorry, but I guess I'm just not that "progressive" yet. I would expect the channeled Jesus to act like the biblical Jesus.

 

Finally, yes, I am a hypocrite. I come out of a faith tradition that claims to follow Jesus while producing "cookie-cutter" Christians that seldom act like Jesus as found in the bible. To me, they are a bunch of hypocrites. As Gandhi said about Christianity, "I like your Jesus, but I don't much like your Christians because they are not much like him." I am a hypocrite because I don't yet know what my REAL face is like. I am too busy trying to remove the old mask of religious peity that my upbringing put upon me. I don't know who I really am without all the religious mumbo-jumbo. So I am probably at the most unsure point of my life as far as my beliefs go. I'm learning to live with that "lack of faith". I think progressive Christianity has something to offer people like me, especially writers like Borg and Spong. When I finally, if I ever do, find out who I really am, I will no longer be a hypocrite. Until then, if my hypocrisy bothers you, you are, of course, welcome and probably justified to ignor my posts.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Posted by canajan, eh? on August 24, 2008, at 09:39 AM

QUOTE(wayfarer2k @ Aug 24 2008, 09:39 AM)

So, Jen, I hope you see where I am coming from. I assumed that you channeling Jesus was tongue-in-cheek. I guess I assumed wrong. I'm sorry. I'm not sure how to say that I reject that kind of thing without it seeming disrespectful to you. But because of my religious training, when someone claims to be Jesus, I would either have to take those claims VERY seriously or very tongue-in-cheek. I'm not ready to take them seriously. I'm sorry, but I guess I'm just not that "progressive" yet. I would expect the channeled Jesus to act like the biblical Jesus.

 

I appreciate your thoughtful comments in the post above, Wayfarer.

 

I accept that you reject what I do. I won't lose any sleep over it. I don't ask you to take my word for what I do (nor have I ever asked anyone on this site to take what I say on faith alone). But I do what I do, and I do it well. I have no desire to stop reading your posts. You have meaningful things to say. I will take your body of writings as a whole, and on that basis decide whether or not there is common ground for discussion between you and me. I only ask the same from you. I am a channeller. I am also a scientist. I speak to Jesus on a regular basis. When Jesus wishes to speak for himself on this site, he always clearly identifies his posts. I can't do more that.

 

I am not claiming to be Jesus. I have not made this claim, nor will I make this claim. However, I know Jesus very well as the individual child of God that he is. To me, he is not part of the Trinity, nor the only divine son of God. But he's a kick-ass teacher, an amazing mentor and healer, a wonderful friend, and I could not be the person I am today if he didn't give his whole heart to help me every day.

 

I believe with my entire being that every person on Planet Earth is loved in this way. I don't claim that I'm receiving special treatment. The difference between me and many others is that I have stopped trying to reject the love and forgiveness that God (i.e. God the Mother and God the Father) make available to all their children. I live in a state of constant gratitude for God's love. Please note the distinction I draw between God and Jesus. To me, God is God (our eternal and divine Mother and Father), and Jesus is an angelic being to whom it is possible to communicate in accordance with known laws of neurophysiology, probability wave functions, and non-local effects.

 

There are several other points in your letter above that I would dispute on a factual basis. I will come back to them at another time.

 

Jen

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

New Posting

I appreciate, Wayfarer, that you were raised in a conservative vein of Christianity, and that you are coming out of Pentecostalism, but I have had different experiences from you in my life, and I have had a different spiritual journey than you have had, and I am not going to be cowed by you because you have not had a mystical experience of Jesus. You write very well, and you enjoy arguing your points. But I wonder how much attention you are paying to what others have written, as opposed to what you imagine or think they have written. In my case, I can attest to the fact that your position on what I, Jen, think and believe, does not reflect the reality of what I think and believe. I do not appreciate the fact that you are making sweeping assumptions about my work and my life without considering what I have actually said.

 

I have been writing on this site for 3 1/2 years about the dangers of people being mouthpieces for God. Like you, I have seen (as in your own words) "some pretty bad things happen to people as a result of someone saying 'The Lords told me this...' or 'The Lord told me that....'" Perhaps you see a great irony in the fact that that I, a channeller, would attempt to warn people about the dangers. I am not, however, telling other people to listen only to me, as if I alone have all the right answers. I am telling people that God can and does communicate with them, but that brain health and brain functioning is crucial to this process, and that they will have difficulty hearing and understanding what God is trying to say to them if they don't look after their own "spiritual Blackberry" (i.e. the nexus between biological brain and soul).

 

If I am to be put on trial by you, I should at least have the right to be represented by my own words, and not your misinterpretation (intentional, I'm beginning to suspect) of what I am trying to convey.

 

In 3 1/2 years, I have never claimed to be Jesus, although I claim to know Jesus very well as a soul person who is separate from me, a unique person in his own right who is currently molecularly challenged (i.e. dead). I have never made an unrealistic or damaging promise about God or heaven or Jesus to anyone on this site. I have never once claimed to be able to prophesy the future. I have never once claimed to be able to "save" anybody else. I have never once tried to persuade anyone to ignore scientific reality (quite the opposite, in fact). I do not blow with the wind, changing my position every time somebody disagrees with me. I am consistent. I am logical. I am also passionate in my faith.

 

Do not, therefore, lump me in with spiritual narcissists who are only interested in telling other people what God has said to them so they can feel special and important and better than other people. Believe me, Wayfarer, if I were posting on this site because I don't have enough dopamine and I need a hit of narcissistic glory and self-importance from all the readers who so frequently respond to my posts in a favourable way (I'm being facetious, of course), I would long since have starved to death for lack of narcissistic reinforcement, and I would have turned to cigarettes or alcohol or God-knows-what in order to boost my dopamine levels. Do you know that in the time I've been posting, I have mentioned my son's death on more than one previous occasion, and until this month not one single person has ever acknowledged my grief? Does that sound kind and compassionate to you?

 

I speak unrelentingly of love and forgiveness. I constantly challenge the ideas of original sin, the devil, hell, Judgment Day, blah, blah, blah. I constantly uphold and do my best to speak supportively about the ideals of empathy, personal responsibility, and forgiveness.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, Wayfarer, but I channelled through Jesus a series of essays on forgiveness. These essays are not my work. I am not smart enough on my own to have figured out how to express this level of complexity on the issue of forgiveness. I have not ever seen in print another attempt to convey to regular people what forgiveness is, and how to begin to think about it. If you have seen such an attempt to explain forgiveness elsewhere, please let me know, as I would love to talk to other people who are interested in this topic. If this series of essays fails to persuade you of my sincerity, of my genuine commitment to others, and of the barest possibility that I am doing something different from what other self-identified channellers are doing, then, indeed, you and I will not be able to find any common ground. Please note that I did not say that I require you to believe what I typed/channelled, but merely to be willing to see the effort as sincere (as opposed to manipulative and authoritarian).

 

I ask to be treated on the basis on what I am saying. I am not making stupid promises to vulnerable people who are desperate for reconciliation with God. Neither am I making false and stupid claims about "the law of attraction," as other self-identified channellers have done.

 

As far as Pentecostalism goes, I cringe every time I hear the phrase "speaking in tongues." I fear for the damage done to people's biological brains when they are encouraged to engage in stream-of-consciousness babble with God. I do not speak in tongues. I do not speak in Aramaic with Jesus (nice try, Wayfarer). I speak in English. It's not fancy, but it works.

 

I do not engage in trance channelling. I am fully conscious and alert at all times when I am communicating with Jesus. I do not use mind-altering drugs. I do not use alcohol. The communication process is 100% voluntary on my part. I can and do choose the time and place of my communications. I have no medical history of major mental illness. I have experience working in the mental health field, and I am conscious (as you should be able to tell from what I've written) of the overlap between mental illness issues and religious experiences. I am responsible in my dealings with other people. I went to the trouble of having my brain scanned using SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) while I was channelling so that I could show some sort of scientific evidence for the reality of channelling to my secular humanist family. What else do you want me to do? Pretend I'm a superhero? Pretend that I, myself, can carry out miracles when I know with my entire being that only God and God's angels can create quantum events?

 

I will not apologize because I channel Jesus. My life would be a lot simpler -- and I would certainly upset my family less -- if I refused to pass on what I've learned, or who I've learned it from. I'm sorry if you think I'm putting words in Jesus' mouth such as inclusiveness, non-Chosenness, joy, gratitude, courage, trust, devotion, and empathy. Yeah . . . it's a terrible, terrible thing I'm doing to claim that Jesus wants to talk about forgiveness. That's a shootin' crime if there ever was one.

 

You are welcome to your skepticism, Wayfarer. Perhaps if I were in your conservative shoes, I would be as dismissive as you about the nature of the soul and miracles. But I'm not. I am not at all embarrassed or abashed about the intensity of my experience of God's love. I believe in angels (but not in demons), and you know what? I don't care if that embarrasses you. I believe in God's all-embracing love, and -- again -- I don't care if that makes you feel awkward and uncomfortable because I'm talking about messy emotions and feelings. I believe in miracles -- not only in the form of quantum events, which happen all the time in this world, and are no big deal -- but in the really big miracle of Divine Love and the feeling of personal redemption that comes when you start to notice God's presence beside you. And I don't care if that upsets you. I will not apologize to you or anyone else because I live a mystical life. If you want to live a mystical life of joy and companionship with God, you're going to have to do what other mystics have learned to do: you're going to have to do the work.

 

One of my favourite hymns is "Amazing Grace" because I so totally get what John Henry Newton meant when he wrote, "I once was lost, but now am found." Until I was 40, I didn't even know I was lost. But after 10 years of work, I now know that I am "found" in the wonder of God's heart.

 

Heavenly Mother and Father, you rock!

 

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jen,

I am only an infrequent visitor to this site, and I totally missed about your son. Can you direct me to where you talked about that? I'm so sorry for your loss!! How are you doing?

 

I found this post fascinating! Thanks for explaining more. I'll admit I was taken aback at first that you claimed to be channeling Jesus, but this clears quite a bit up for me!

 

I'm sorry you found the need to defend yourself, but in reality, it was a good thing, because I learned something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to the trouble of having my brain scanned using SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) while I was channelling so that I could show some sort of scientific evidence for the reality of channelling to my secular humanist family.

 

Out of curiousity, and if you don't mind sharing, what was the result of the SPECT scan? What exactly were they scanning for/did anything out of the ordinary appear? Did whoever did the scan (a doctor?) have any explanation for it?

 

Thanks :) Just wondering!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Speaking in tongues" does no damage to the brain. When I was involved in a pentecostal church as a child/teen I spoke in tongues from about the age of 10 to the age of 18-20. As I understand it now it is a form of hysteria. Not to be confused with hysterical. I was calm and quiet. Not all people who wish to a speak in tongues will speak in tongues. The explanation at the time was that it was not a gift of the holy spirit to all people. In reality, the same people who can be hypnotized are going to be the ones who can do this it has more to do with the brain and how it works differently in different people. I can't speak for others but from my own experience I can tell you it was not fake. I can also tell you it was very comforting. I think I would equate it with a form of meditation. In my mixed up confused sad world it was very helpful to me. As I began to develop a more mature adult mind and began to better understand the depression I was suffering I no longer needed it. But I believe that it may well have saved my life at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Speaking in tongues" does no damage to the brain. When I was involved in a pentecostal church as a child/teen I spoke in tongues from about the age of 10 to the age of 18-20. As I understand it now it is a form of hysteria. Not to be confused with hysterical. I was calm and quiet. Not all people who wish to a speak in tongues will speak in tongues. The explanation at the time was that it was not a gift of the holy spirit to all people. In reality, the same people who can be hypnotized are going to be the ones who can do this it has more to do with the brain and how it works differently in different people. I can't speak for others but from my own experience I can tell you it was not fake. I can also tell you it was very comforting. I think I would equate it with a form of meditation. In my mixed up confused sad world it was very helpful to me. As I began to develop a more mature adult mind and began to better understand the depression I was suffering I no longer needed it. But I believe that it may well have saved my life at the time.

 

Hi OA,

 

I agree "speaking in tongues" does no damage to the brain and also is very comforting as you said. To me it seems to be coming from beyond the mind (from Spirit) and is initiated by an act of faith. Using it as a prayer language edifies oneself and builds up ones faith because it is an exercise in faith. It also seems to be a comfort to be used as a tool or vessel to pray when we know not how to pray as we ought. The Spirit makes intercession for us as we allow it by an act of will. It seems to me also that it is a gift and in my experience is available to all who seek it without disbelief. It also seems at times there is understanding as one speaks and at other times not, depending on ones level of focus at the time. Perhaps it is what one could consider meditation as you have indicated.

 

Love in Christ,

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like many before me, I know this is not a a safe place for progressives. I bid you all farewell.

 

Sorry about that. I was on two different message boards using this software. Both have forums for progressives. This post was intended for the other message board. I hope I did not offend anyone here.

 

The other board is a political forum where things get ugly at times.

 

Minsocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about that. I was on two different message boards using this software. Both have forums for progressives. This post was intended for the other message board. I hope I did not offend anyone here.

 

The other board is a political forum where things get ugly at times.

 

Minsocal

 

Not a problem. I was just very confused and sad. *Was* being the key word! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry about that. I was on two different message boards using this software. Both have forums for progressives. This post was intended for the other message board. I hope I did not offend anyone here.

 

The other board is a political forum where things get ugly at times.

 

Minsocal

 

*phew*

 

You had me worried for a moment there! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jen, is not the only person I know who channels an angel. It is a special gift and a special skill. I understand that most will be incredulous of her claims. I'm sure she is used to that.

 

It is also a ministry. Jen has ministered to me over the years with her channelled writings.

 

Scripture: Matthew 7:15-20

 

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

 

Jen is a sound tree...judging by her fruits. When she offers her gifts, either take them or leave them, but please be respectful. She's a person, not a subject to be debated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k

Jen, I've really debated with myself as to whether or not I should respond to your thread here, especially seeing as I have apologized for not taking your channelling seriously, and as I have "left the board". But I think a few things need to be said.

 

It seems that you and others here feel the need to castigate me because I don't blindly accept it when someone corresponds to me as if they were Jesus. Let me say that I take the person of Jesus and his teachings seriously. This is one of the reasons I don't care for Christian fundamentalism, it claims to worship the person of Jesus but often disregards his teachings. You have stated: "I am not claiming to be Jesus." Indeed you are if you are logged into this board as Jen (or canajan, eh?) and then write posts as if you are Jesus. You are claiming to write for Jesus or that Jesus is writing through you. So my first question, when confronted with such a claim, is: Is it authentic? Is it the Jesus of the bible? Is it a different "Jesus"?

 

>>Jesus is an angelic being to whom it is possible to communicate in accordance with known laws of neurophysiology, probability wave functions, and non-local effects.

 

Fine. For you. But this is not the Jesus of the bible. This is Jen's jesus. There is no objective proof whatsoever that you are channelling the same Jesus that lived and died 2000 years ago.

 

>>I am not going to be cowed by you because you have not had a mystical experience of Jesus.

 

Nor will I be cowed by you because I will not bow to your jesus. Yes, Christianity needs to progress. But it is rooted in the historical Jesus, not in each and everyone's "mystical jesus". Constantine's "jesus" told him to go kill the Muslims. The Catholic Church's "jesus" told it to burn Tyndale and Wycliffe for translating the bible into English.

 

So, unless told otherwise by the owners/moderators of this forum, I will continue to post my thoughts on *my* journey and what I think of progressive Christianity, it's strengths and weaknesses. And I won't give up the historical Jesus to someone's personal, mystical experiences. If someone wants any credibility with me, let them write to me as who they are without trying to usurp the authority of Someone whom I also claim to know (although not fully).

 

>>If I am to be put on trial by you.

 

I had no intention of putting you on trial. But I do find that though my original post was to your "jesus", it was you, Jen, who took offense. Something doesn't quite add up there. I could care less if you think you are channelling Jesus or not. But when you tell me that I should believe you are, you've crossed the line.

 

>>[Jen's jesus] a unique person in his own right who is currently molecularly challenged (i.e. dead).

 

Again, another view that certainly doesn't line up with traditional or orthodox Christianity. That's fine. I'm not that traditional or orthodox myself. But I don't claim to be channelling the traditional Jesus either.

 

>>Please note that I did not say that I require you to believe what I typed/channelled, but merely to be willing to see the effort as sincere (as opposed to manipulative and authoritarian).

 

Indeed you are, Jen, when you play the martyr as you as doing in this thread.

 

>>What else do you want me to do?

 

Correspond with me as Jen. If you aren't sure enough of yourself and your beliefs that you can't do that, then there is no need to correspond with me. I don't need your jesus.

 

>>I will not apologize because I channel Jesus.

 

And I won't apologize for not worshipping your jesus.

 

>>You are welcome to your skepticism, Wayfarer.

 

Thank you.

 

>>I don't care if that embarrasses you. And I don't care if that upsets you. I will not apologize to you or anyone else because I live a mystical life. If you want to live a mystical life...

 

I'm not embarrassed by your claims. They are *your* claims. And I'm not upset by your experiences. But I am concerned that your posts on this board are "Jesus' thoughts and words", thereby relegated every else's posts and views to mere human thoughts and words.

 

In my understanding, Progressive Christianity is open to everyone's opinions. But when certain people insist that their opinons are the opinions of Jesus Christ Himself, then, IMO, it's no longer Christianity, it is self-delusion.

 

Wayfarer (real name -- Bill)

Edited by wayfarer2k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that you and others here feel the need to castigate me because I don't blindly accept it when someone corresponds to me as if they were Jesus. Let me say that I take the person of Jesus and his teachings seriously. This is one of the reasons I don't care for Christian fundamentalism, it claims to worship the person of Jesus but often disregards his teachings. You have stated: "I am not claiming to be Jesus." Indeed you are if you are logged into this board as Jen (or canajan, eh?) and then write posts as if you are Jesus. You are claiming to write for Jesus or that Jesus is writing through you. So my first question, when confronted with such a claim, is: Is it authentic? Is it the Jesus of the bible? Is it a different "Jesus"?

 

Coming from the same background as you do, Bill. I very much appreciate your caution and I share it. I've had too much of people claiming to hear God's voice that was obviously not God.

 

>>I am not going to be cowed by you because you have not had a mystical experience of Jesus.

 

Nor will I be cowed by you because I will not bow to your jesus. Yes, Christianity needs to progress. But it is rooted in the historical Jesus, not in each and everyone's "mystical jesus". Constantine's "jesus" told him to go kill the Muslims. The Catholic Church's "jesus" told it to burn Tyndale and Wycliffe for translating the bible into English.

 

So, unless told otherwise by the owners/moderators of this forum, I will continue to post my thoughts on *my* journey and what I think of progressive Christianity, it's strengths and weaknesses. And I won't give up the historical Jesus to someone's personal, mystical experiences. If someone wants any credibility with me, let them write to me as who they are without trying to usurp the authority of Someone whom I also claim to know (although not fully).

I don't believe anyone can or should be asked to give up their own experience with God or Jesus in favor of someone else's regardless of what that person is claiming. I would not give up mine for Jen's, for Bill's, or anyone else's. Nor would I ask Jen or Bill or anyone else to give up theirs for mine.

 

>>I will not apologize because I channel Jesus.

 

And I won't apologize for not worshipping your jesus.

 

Nor should either of you have to. Both of you are "allowed" to have your own beliefs as I am allowed to have mine and everyone else is allowed to have theirs. Thus is the beauty of being progressive. I wouldn't take away Jen's experience from her or Bill's experience from him. But I also wouldn't take away the part of Bill's experience that has made him a skeptic.

 

In my understanding, Progressive Christianity is open to everyone's opinions. But when certain people insist that their opinions are the opinions of Jesus Christ Himself, then, IMO, it's no longer Christianity, it is self-delusion.

 

When that happens, it just ends up being Fundamentalism in different clothes, imo.

Edited by October's Autumn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was unique and very thought provoking for Jen to write as if she were Channeling for Jesus. I remember on one post I disagreed with her concepts very strongly and posted my arguments. If I was fortunate to have lived and walked with Christ, I am sure he would also want me to debate and express my feelings and ideas to clear things up. She responded as I suspect Jesus would have responded to the ideas and didn't pull and an authoritarian trip on me. I like to talk about Christ consciousness, Jen likes to talk as if she is channeling, I would love to see others let Christ express his love through us. When we get in the way, which is human then it is time for all of us to point out that Christ is being blocked from true expression. I see Christ talking to me in many of the post on this forum and would like to thank you all for letting Christ consciousness flow through you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Jen,

I am only an infrequent visitor to this site, and I totally missed about your son. Can you direct me to where you talked about that? I'm so sorry for your loss!! How are you doing?

 

I found this post fascinating! Thanks for explaining more. I'll admit I was taken aback at first that you claimed to be channeling Jesus, but this clears quite a bit up for me!

 

I'm sorry you found the need to defend yourself, but in reality, it was a good thing, because I learned something.

 

 

Hi AllInTheNameOfProgress,

 

My response to your post is pretty tardy, to say the least, but I want to thank you for your expression of concern at my loss. I'm doing about the same as I've doing for a long time now -- grieving quietly, but getting on with my life, and keeping my son's memory close to me always.

 

Until yesterday, I'd taken a hiatus from posting because I'm doing graduate studies, and, at age 50, I need to let some things go while courses are in full swing so I can manage the workload.

 

Anyway, thanks for your support.

 

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiousity, and if you don't mind sharing, what was the result of the SPECT scan? What exactly were they scanning for/did anything out of the ordinary appear? Did whoever did the scan (a doctor?) have any explanation for it?

 

Thanks :) Just wondering!

 

Hi McKenna,

 

I've haven't been on the Board this fall, so if you've posted something about your first semester at college, I missed it. I hope you've been enjoying your program, and are enjoying your Christmas break. (I assume you have a Christmas break!)

 

Sorry to be so long in getting back to you about your question about the SPECT scan. The scan was undertaken as part of a research study. The study was on the physiology of "the normal brain." I responded to a call for research subjects, and in my initial inquiry to the research director, I was very clear that I am a channeller. The research director wasn't phased. The clinic had already done SPECT scans on other mystics, including Buddhist meditators. To be part of the study, however, I had to go through the same screening process as all other candidates, plus they threw in some extra preliminary screening tests because I claimed to be a channeller. Most subjects accepted into the study had two SPECT scans done -- one a base-line scan, and one a focussed concentration scan. I had both those scans, plus a third scan: a scan while I was channelling. The data bar imprinted by the computer on the third scan even says "channel." It was an intentional and above-board scientific investigation.

 

After the researchers saw the results of my three scans, they said my data would be included in the research study of "normal brains" and they gave me a small honorarium for participating (a normal research study practice).

 

So the result of the scanning process showed that my brain physiology falls within the range of "normal," as opposed to dysfunctional. There were some characteristic patterns on the "channelling scan" that the researchers said they have seen in the brain scans of other mystics. One of these changes is extra bloodflow to the right temporal lobe in the so-called "God Spot." One surprise to me was that the right and left occipital lobes of the brain were highly active while I was channelling. The brain processes visual information in the occipital lobes, and I'm not much of a visual channeller. I'm an auditory and kinesthetic channeller (which means I have he-says-she-says conversations, and I get turn-right-turn-left kinesthetic information while I'm walking or driving). So go figure!

 

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi McKenna,

 

I've haven't been on the Board this fall, so if you've posted something about your first semester at college, I missed it. I hope you've been enjoying your program, and are enjoying your Christmas break. (I assume you have a Christmas break!)

 

Hi again Jen! Good to see you back! I haven't been on the Board much myself, I've been so busy. Thanks for the kind wishes! I am actually loving college quite a bit - more than I thought I would! The transition was also much easier than I thought it would be, and the fact that I don't drink hasn't held me back from making friends or enjoying myself. And I think I've more or less decided that I will double-major in Religious Studies and something else (not sure what the other thing will be yet :lol: ). I took a course on the early history of the Church this semester and found it very interesting; I already knew much of the very early stuff, but once we got to the third century and beyond, it was quite new to me. So, anyway, I'm very much enjoying it :) I hope your fall has been good as well! And yes, I am on Christmas break, haha. A whole month...college is crazy. Merry Christmas!

 

Sorry to be so long in getting back to you about your question about the SPECT scan. The scan was undertaken as part of a research study. The study was on the physiology of "the normal brain." I responded to a call for research subjects, and in my initial inquiry to the research director, I was very clear that I am a channeller. The research director wasn't phased. The clinic had already done SPECT scans on other mystics, including Buddhist meditators. To be part of the study, however, I had to go through the same screening process as all other candidates, plus they threw in some extra preliminary screening tests because I claimed to be a channeller. Most subjects accepted into the study had two SPECT scans done -- one a base-line scan, and one a focussed concentration scan. I had both those scans, plus a third scan: a scan while I was channelling. The data bar imprinted by the computer on the third scan even says "channel." It was an intentional and above-board scientific investigation.

 

After the researchers saw the results of my three scans, they said my data would be included in the research study of "normal brains" and they gave me a small honorarium for participating (a normal research study practice).

 

So the result of the scanning process showed that my brain physiology falls within the range of "normal," as opposed to dysfunctional. There were some characteristic patterns on the "channelling scan" that the researchers said they have seen in the brain scans of other mystics. One of these changes is extra bloodflow to the right temporal lobe in the so-called "God Spot." One surprise to me was that the right and left occipital lobes of the brain were highly active while I was channelling. The brain processes visual information in the occipital lobes, and I'm not much of a visual channeller. I'm an auditory and kinesthetic channeller (which means I have he-says-she-says conversations, and I get turn-right-turn-left kinesthetic information while I'm walking or driving). So go figure!

 

Jen

 

That's pretty interesting! I have to admit that I am fairly skeptical, but I try to be open-minded as well and admit that I don't know everything (anything, really). So, while I'm not sure I buy into the whole channelling thing, I hope you realize that I mean that in a respectful way, and I really appreciate your honesty describing the scan! I do think that's fascinating. I took a course on biological psychology this past semester and we didn't really talk about religion or religious experience and how that relates to brain physiology; I wish we had. Maybe I will try to find a course that focuses on that type of thing in the future. Do you know of any good resources that describe research in this area?

 

Thanks again for sharing! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi McKenna,

 

I've haven't been on the Board this fall, so if you've posted something about your first semester at college, I missed it. I hope you've been enjoying your program, and are enjoying your Christmas break. (I assume you have a Christmas break!)

 

Sorry to be so long in getting back to you about your question about the SPECT scan. The scan was undertaken as part of a research study. The study was on the physiology of "the normal brain." I responded to a call for research subjects, and in my initial inquiry to the research director, I was very clear that I am a channeller. The research director wasn't phased. The clinic had already done SPECT scans on other mystics, including Buddhist meditators. To be part of the study, however, I had to go through the same screening process as all other candidates, plus they threw in some extra preliminary screening tests because I claimed to be a channeller. Most subjects accepted into the study had two SPECT scans done -- one a base-line scan, and one a focussed concentration scan. I had both those scans, plus a third scan: a scan while I was channelling. The data bar imprinted by the computer on the third scan even says "channel." It was an intentional and above-board scientific investigation.

 

After the researchers saw the results of my three scans, they said my data would be included in the research study of "normal brains" and they gave me a small honorarium for participating (a normal research study practice).

 

So the result of the scanning process showed that my brain physiology falls within the range of "normal," as opposed to dysfunctional. There were some characteristic patterns on the "channelling scan" that the researchers said they have seen in the brain scans of other mystics. One of these changes is extra bloodflow to the right temporal lobe in the so-called "God Spot." One surprise to me was that the right and left occipital lobes of the brain were highly active while I was channelling. The brain processes visual information in the occipital lobes, and I'm not much of a visual channeller. I'm an auditory and kinesthetic channeller (which means I have he-says-she-says conversations, and I get turn-right-turn-left kinesthetic information while I'm walking or driving). So go figure!

 

Jen

 

Hi Jen,

I would be interested in the details. Please provide the name of the clinic and the date the scan was done. Please provide the names of the researchers and any name associated with the study or research they were doing. Do you know whether they published? If so, please provide the details.

Thanks,

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Hi Jen,

I would be interested in the details. Please provide the name of the clinic and the date the scan was done. Please provide the names of the researchers and any name associated with the study or research they were doing. Do you know whether they published? If so, please provide the details.

Thanks,

David

 

Hello, David. You'll have to forgive me if I say I don't think you're at all interested in the details of my life or my experience, which is okay with me, as your journey is your journey, and my journey is my journey. You've made it clear in the past that you don't believe or accept what I say. But, you know, I have to draw the line at your plain ol' fashioned rudeness. Where do you get off demanding the names and details of my private medical information? Would you like it if I demanded the name of your doctor and the results of your latest checkup? Maybe you think this is okay. But I don't. I think the questions you've posed here are intrusive. Furthermore, I am not stupid. I'm aware that you have made up your mind about me, and that no information I provide to you will change your mind about me. Therefore, I must view your questions as being intentionally aggressive.

 

I've read the discussion you started about davidk in the "TCPC Cafe." Your complaint there seems to be that davidk doesn't share the beliefs of Progressive Christians, and you're tired of listening to him.

 

I share all the beliefs stated in Points 1,2,4,5,6,7, and 8 on the main page. (I'm a bit shaky on 3, unless the bread and wine are being presented solely as a remembrance of gratitude to God for the gifts of food and drink on our kitchen tables.) I have repeatedly expressed my support for these ideas. This is not good enough for you and many others. I must not only express my support of the Points, but I must also apparently agree to give up my faith, my belief in a God who is active every day in our lives, my willingness to ask new questions, my willingness to open up the doors of Christianity to the fields of neuroscience and quantum physics, and my intense joy.

 

Ashes to ashes and dust to dust is what I see in a mechanistic faith based on logic, rules, polity, and deism.

 

The sun is shining. The moon has just set. The Saturday morning paper and my second cup of Fair Trade coffee are calling to me. I'm going to go enjoy my day.

 

Jen

Edited by canajan, eh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right that I have no right to inquire about any personal medical issues. However you posted that the “the scan was undertaken as part of a research study. The study was on the physiology of "the normal brain." I responded to a call for research subjects, and in my initial inquiry to the research director, I was very clear that I am a channeller. The research director wasn't phased. The clinic had already done SPECT scans on other mystics, including Buddhist meditators. To be part of the study, however, I had to go through the same screening process as all other candidates, plus they threw in some extra preliminary screening tests because I claimed to be a channeller. Most subjects accepted into the study had two SPECT scans done -- one a base-line scan, and one a focussed concentration scan. I had both those scans, plus a third scan: a scan while I was channelling. The data bar imprinted by the computer on the third scan even says "channel." It was an intentional and above-board scientific investigation.”

 

This post does not describe personal medical issues. This post describes scientific research. It is that research that I am interested in and I would again ask that you share with us what you know about that research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post does not describe personal medical issues. This post describes scientific research. It is that research that I am interested in and I would again ask that you share with us what you know about that research.

David, I must disagree. "Scientific research" is what I have done in the past in a lab with beakers and pipettes. "Personal medical issues" deal with a person's "guts" (metaphorically speaking) and a person's relationships with medical staff. My brain is not a glass beaker. And the psychological testing I had to go through to get into the study was highly personal, as it explored all aspects of my mental health. Perhaps you have never been included in a medical testing procedure that was later included in a medical research study. If you had, you would not be cavalier about the personal aspects of the process.

 

If you are genuinely interested in learning more about this kind of research, it is already in the public domain. You can find it if you're interested.

 

One book I highly recommend is The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary (New York: HarperOne, 2007). It seems to be selling well in Canada. A trade paperback version is now available. I'm sure you can order it. It summarizes recent scientific findings, but is written for a lay audience. The researcher, Mario Beauregard, has published his own findings on Carmelite nuns in a peer-reviewed journal. The book does not include "quack" research, only peer-reviewed research.

 

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It is still a long way from Harneroff's hypothetical (and experimentally unproven) quantum neurons to a sentient, conscious human brain. But many human experiences, Harneroff says, from dreams to subconscious emotions to fuzzy memory, seem closer to the Alice in Wonderland rules governing the quantum world than to the cut-and-dried reality that classical physics suggests. Discovering a quantum portal within every neuron in your head might be the ultimate trip through the looking glass."

 

So where is this quote from?

 

Is it from a science fiction novel?

 

Or a TV show about the paranormal?

 

It is the concluding paragraph of an article printed in the February 2009 edition of the science magazine Discover. The article is entitled "Entangled Life," and the author is Mark Anderson.

 

And you thought the Bible was mystical . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I must disagree. "Scientific research" is what I have done in the past in a lab with beakers and pipettes. "Personal medical issues" deal with a person's "guts" (metaphorically speaking) and a person's relationships with medical staff. My brain is not a glass beaker. And the psychological testing I had to go through to get into the study was highly personal, as it explored all aspects of my mental health. Perhaps you have never been included in a medical testing procedure that was later included in a medical research study. If you had, you would not be cavalier about the personal aspects of the process.

 

If you are genuinely interested in learning more about this kind of research, it is already in the public domain. You can find it if you're interested.

 

One book I highly recommend is The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary (New York: HarperOne, 2007). It seems to be selling well in Canada. A trade paperback version is now available. I'm sure you can order it. It summarizes recent scientific findings, but is written for a lay audience. The researcher, Mario Beauregard, has published his own findings on Carmelite nuns in a peer-reviewed journal. The book does not include "quack" research, only peer-reviewed research.

 

Jen

I am familiar with this work. This work is an example of what I am trying to learn from you. Certainly there were real persons involved in the work that led to this book. Yet the purpose of the work was for the information to become public. You have described a process where the purpose of the work was to become public. I am sure that this was explained to you and I am surprised that you now feel that it is a private matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service