Life As A Channeller

[davidk]

Comparing me to DavidK surely is not your “best shot” but if it is then go ahead and explain why that is so.

David,

Rest assured, your posts have been cogent and are not the problem on this thread.

 

(I have been flattered by the manner that has been attempted to discredit you. However, if it was someones best shot, they didn't have any ammunition to begin with.)

 

None of what you posted has warranted such vitriol as you have patiently tried to wade through simply by your asking a clinical question and hoping to get a clinical answer.

---

"Because it did get stuck." Hilarious! Your response was brilliant.

[David]

David,

Rest assured, your posts have been cogent and are not the problem on this thread.

 

(I have been flattered by the manner that has been attempted to discredit you. However, if it was someones best shot, they didn't have any ammunition to begin with.)

 

None of what you posted has warranted such vitriol as you have patiently tried to wade through simply by your asking a clinical question and hoping to get a clinical answer.

---

"Because it did get stuck." Hilarious! Your response was brilliant.

David,

 

I really do miss writing to myself. But we agreed early on that we used the same words with entirely different meanings. Yet that obviously is not completely true. I have used you as a “symbol” in a way that is very un-progressive with my main point being the attempt to recognize appropriate boundaries for Progressive Christianity. If you have been personally offended by this you have not reacted violently and personally I appreciate that.

 

That’s about as much “reconciliation” as I can do. But tell me which is your favorite baseball team. One of my best friends is an “evangelical Catholic” (you think that would be a communication problem?) who is also a Dodger fan. As a Giants fan obviously we have taken our theological problems onto the baseball field and have enjoyed many games together.

 

David

[minsocal]

I'm not really understanding the problem here. Jen is free to believe what she chooses to believe. I am free to choose to believe her or not believe her or whatever. I've no problem with her making posts and signing them "Jesus." That is her expression of her belief. If it were that much of an issue with me I'd simply put her on ignore. I don't have an issue and I don't need to make any demands of her. If she is breaking some TCPC posting rules, then alert the moderators! Otherwise, let it go! Let Jen post as Jesus, she certainly isn't hurting anyone...

 

Yes, please. That is the only point.

[minsocal]

A review of the early parts of this thread raises some very interesting issues concerning any individual mystical or religious experience. Clearly, it is a subject that science once avoided and is now re-engaging. This does not mean that the theory is all that new. As I understand it, Jen has proposed a theory somewhat similar to Jung and synchronicity. Jung worked closely with the Nobel Laureate Wolfgang Pauli in working out many of the details of the theory. Pauli, a physicist, was one of the few people who could sit down with Einstein and discuss the implications of the theory Jen refers to. The reason for this is that both Pauli and Einstein did not mentally process most of their ideas in the form of verbal propositions. This is recorded fact.

 

This last point, that people process information in very different ways, is generally accepted and part of any contemporary course in human development. It was Jung who noted that it would be some time before we would do "equal justice" to all forms.

 

If Jen is proposing a theory similar to synchronicity, the "rules" of epistemology have to be given a very careful review. Those rules, which I defended elsewhwere, include non-rational sources. What science is beginning to show, based on solid evidence, is that the division between the 'rational' and the 'non-rational' is pure illusion. This, of course upsets traditionalists and conservatives. But, if it is a fact, it is a fact. It is the tail of the beast that sometimes gets caught when the rest has eluded us.

[minsocal]

Repeating the question as the answer is sort of like answering your own question with your own answer which by the way I am glad you did since you evidently are now satisfied.

 

These kinds of questions are well know to epistemologists and often ... well ... simply rejected. They represent nothing more than the fact that language can be twisted many different ways. So what? It is nothing more than placing a 'proposition' before a value. And, that debate is very old.

[davidk]

David,

 

I really do miss writing to myself. But we agreed early on that we used the same words with entirely different meanings. Yet that obviously is not completely true. I have used you as a “symbol” in a way that is very un-progressive with my main point being the attempt to recognize appropriate boundaries for Progressive Christianity. If you have been personally offended by this you have not reacted violently and personally I appreciate that.

 

That’s about as much “reconciliation” as I can do. But tell me which is your favorite baseball team. One of my best friends is an “evangelical Catholic” (you think that would be a communication problem?) who is also a Dodger fan. As a Giants fan obviously we have taken our theological problems onto the baseball field and have enjoyed many games together.

 

David

I appreciate your being civil. It reflects well on your Mom and Dad. There's nothing to be ashamed about by being somehow "un-progressive". It's honest to say being all inclusive cannot be intellectually sustained. By any admission, that undertanding is a good thing. If I could be used to demonstate that point to the others, that's even better. How much sense does it make for anyone to pat themselves on the back for their tendency to include everyone, when it's impracticality is the more evident?

---

An evangelical Catholic Dodger fan?

 

Growing up it was always the Yankees. Maris, Mantle and the like. In the late 80's and early 90's we could go see the Braves in Atlanta on the cheap. Then they began to win, that was pretty exciting and the passion for a "home town team" took over for several years. I have friends still fanatics. Me? Not so much as I used to be. Still ocacasionally try to slip away for a game.

---

A reasonable, personal, infinite God created all else. How could anyone think anything we know could be considered unreasonable, or irrational? If the difference between "the 'rational' and the 'non-rational' is pure illusion", then that must make everything rational. Otherwise one could not use rationality in their arguiment.

[minsocal]

A 'deal' is between two parties with mutual and equal understanding and respect. Coercion takes place when the egalitarian element is eliminated. Radical Paulinism speaks here, coherent with the teachings of Jesus.

[David]

An evangelical Catholic Dodger fan?

 

Growing up it was always the Yankees. Maris, Mantle and the like.

Well New York has a place in my baseball theology. You see New York was once the Garden of Eden where Dodgers and Giants lived together in peace. Then there was the great Fall when both were kicked out of the Garden and were sent to California. The Dodgers went South to Hell. The Giants went North to Heaven. It’s been a constant battle ever since. My friend for some reason has never been able to see this even though the theology is much more consistent with his general thinking than mine.

(I tend to ignore facts that are not consistent with my baseball theology so don't bother pointing out those errors to me)

[minsocal]

Mock

 

–verb (used with object)

 

1. to attack or treat with ridicule, contempt, or derision.

2. to ridicule by mimicry of action or speech; mimic derisively.

3. to mimic, imitate, or counterfeit.

4. to challenge; defy: His actions mock convention.

5. to deceive, delude, or disappoint.

 

–verb (used without object)

 

6. to use ridicule or derision; scoff; jeer (often fol. by at).

 

–noun

 

7. a contemptuous or derisive imitative action or speech; mockery or derision.

8. something mocked or derided; an object of derision.

9. an imitation; counterfeit; fake.

10. Shipbuilding. a. a hard pattern representing the surface of a plate with a warped form, upon which the plate is beaten to shape after furnacing.

b. bed (def. 23).

 

–adjective

 

11. feigned; not real; sham: a mock battle.

 

—Verb phrase

 

12. mock up, to build a mock-up of.

 

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

 

Synonyms:

 

1. deride; taunt, flout, gibe; chaff, tease. See ridicule. 5. cheat, dupe, fool, mislead.

[David]

Of course my friend has a different version of baseball theology. He claims (and I hesitate to repeat this because I don’t want others to become Dodger fans) that the Giants are so named because of their giant liberal San Francisco egos that prevent them from seeing the “true blue” and that the “blue” of Dodger blue refers to being loyal to the faith. So the very act of baseball is the Dodger attempt to convert Giant fans. We try to watch the game while having these discussions (there is a whole bunch more like the “meaning of going home”, “losing as really winning”,etc., but I can see that some are not interested in this).

 

Minsocal, I am sorry if you are mocked by this. Certainly comments about Monty Hall and Monty Python are attempts at seriousness and not mockery.

[minsocal]

Of course my friend has a different version of baseball theology. He claims (and I hesitate to repeat this because I don’t want others to become Dodger fans) that the Giants are so named because of their giant liberal San Francisco egos that prevent them from seeing the “true blue” and that the “blue” of Dodger blue refers to being loyal to the faith. So the very act of baseball is the Dodger attempt to convert Giant fans. We try to watch the game while having these discussions (there is a whole bunch more like the “meaning of going home”, “losing as really winning”,etc., but I can see that some are not interested in this).

 

Minsocal, I am sorry if you are mocked by this. Certainly comments about Monty Hall and Monty Python are attempts at seriousness and not mockery.

 

The difference is between what is first a fan of baseball and then (whatever). I cannot make a lick of sense out of your argument. Sorry. Religion is a baseball game? Nope.

 

I didn't feel mocked, I reacted to the mockery of others by others. You seemed to mock Jen without any defense of your own authority other than (what, I do not know). And, of course you are now mocking davidk, IMO.

[David]

The discussion concerning Jen is very serious. The discussion with DavidK obviously is not serious (DavidK: do you feel mocked?). I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference. But on the other hand I can’t tell the difference between “good” mockery and “bad” mockery. You evidently do “good” mockery. Keep up the good work.

[minsocal]

The discussion concerning Jen is very serious. The discussion with DavidK obviously is not serious (DavidK: do you feel mocked?). I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference. But on the other hand I can’t tell the difference between “good” mockery and “bad” mockery. You evidently do “good” mockery. Keep up the good work.

 

david,

 

The deal maker plays parties against each other. Why, exactly, is the discusssion concerning Jen very serious and the narrowness of davidk not? You spell DavidK differently from davidk, why is that?

 

Minsocal

[minsocal]

Well New York has a place in my baseball theology. You see New York was once the Garden of Eden where Dodgers and Giants lived together in peace. Then there was the great Fall when both were kicked out of the Garden and were sent to California. The Dodgers went South to Hell. The Giants went North to Heaven. It’s been a constant battle ever since. My friend for some reason has never been able to see this even though the theology is much more consistent with his general thinking than mine.

(I tend to ignore facts that are not consistent with my baseball theology so don't bother pointing out those errors to me)

 

The Dodgers and the Giants once lived together in peace ? Baseball theology ? I will not bother to point out any errors to you. You, as they say, are on your own. Peace, but get off my case. Sports is the domain of competition, just one domain of human existence. You and (or) davidk do not seem to recognize the stages in development that elevate beyond 'the animal that is beyond the animal'. that which is called progress. Let us follow the old tradition and when a Dodger defeats a Giant ... lop off their head.

 

Give progress a name, or ... do whatever.

[Guest wayfarer2k]

Ask Jen to ask Jesus all of those important questions. What part of the Bible is correct? Did or did not Paul have an actual vision of Jesus and how different in Paul's Jesus from the historical Jesus.

 

Now, THERE is a subject that would interest me greatly, David. I would love to hear from Jesus about whether he is the actual incarnation of Yahweh (to me, Israel''s god-of-war) and why the apostle Paul presents a different method of justification (faith) than Jesus did (good works). Actually, I've got a ton of questions for him and if it was really Jesus, he would most like answer my questios in true rabbinical style -- with another question.

 

Though my post to Jen was reactive and somewhat strong, I would like to think that I am open to further revelation. I just don't know how I would guage if it was true or not, especially considering that I am not completely convinced that everything found in the Bible is true revelation. It's very possible that Paul believed he was channelling Jesus, so I suppose there is scriptural precedent for it.

 

I'm just not sure how to keep one foot rooted in the past (Christianity) while having the other in the future (Progressive). Christianity seems so superstitious and mystical to me, in spite of the fact that I admire most of Jesus' teachings. So I would certainly enjoy hearing how Jesus himself would admonish us to go forward. Maybe that is what the 8 Points are about.

 

bill

[minsocal]

Since the issue has been raised. How did Jesus relate to the analogy of competition?

 

Does competition teach exclusion or inclusion? My point has been clear, competion teaches inclusion (huh?, just think about it for a while), and, well that is what I was taught.

 

To put it simply ... we compete to make us better, and not to destroy each other.

[davidk]

Of course my friend has a different version of baseball theology. He claims (and I hesitate to repeat this because I don’t want others to become Dodger fans) that the Giants are so named because of their giant liberal San Francisco egos that prevent them from seeing the “true blue” and that the “blue” of Dodger blue refers to being loyal to the faith. So the very act of baseball is the Dodger attempt to convert Giant fans. We try to watch the game while having these discussions (there is a whole bunch more like the “meaning of going home”, “losing as really winning”,etc., but I can see that some are not interested in this).

 

Minsocal, I am sorry if you are mocked by this. Certainly comments about Monty Hall and Monty Python are attempts at seriousness and not mockery.

David,

I have a vague recollection of both teams being in New York. I think they both moved west at about the same time (late 50's?). My recollection about their being peacefull toward one another, even in New York, is a little sketchy.

---

I don't feel mocked! Am I being mocked? Sometimes my blood pressure goes up from some comments, but I realize my response is my responsibility. If I get angry, it's my own dang fault. There can be those who become a little emotional and hyper-sensitive about discussing their reasonings; and any comment or question about them suddenly becomes a thinly veiled mockery. I am not one of those. I hope.

---

note to Minsocal: David spells my name the same as I. Are you mocking him, or me? If it offends you that he capitalizes my moniker, it is probably because it is an unfamiliar sign of respect. Or I could just be wearing him down!

I use the lower case because I typed it in the profile and hit enter before I realized I didn't capitalize it. I was just too lazy to go back and edit it.

 

The issue with Jen is very important- to Jen. I will not try to take anything away from her as she learns and struggles with those issues and feelings. .

What David has come forth and asked is, by all reasonable accounts, proper. She should find no conflict with just telling him where he can find the research study.

I could tell you what I think of her "channeling" Jesus, but that is not the topic that needs to be addressed here.

 

I mean, it's really too bad you can't see theology in baseball.

---

Hey Bill! Jesus said one only needs to believe He is the way, the truth, and the life; and that no one comes to the Father but by way of Him. Sorry to disagree, Paul and Jesus said, not works, but faith. Both taught grace. You can't have Grace if justification depends on works.

[minsocal]

David,

I have a vague recollection of both teams being in New York. I think they both moved west at about the same time (late 50's?). My recollection about their being peacefull toward one another, even in New York, is a little sketchy.

---

I don't feel mocked! Am I being mocked? Sometimes my blood pressure goes up from some comments, but I realize my response is my responsibility. If I get angry, it's my own dang fault. There can be those who become a little emotional and hyper-sensitive about discussing their reasonings; and any comment or question about them suddenly becomes a thinly veiled mockery. I am not one of those. I hope.

---

note to Minsocal: David spells my name the same as I. Are you mocking him, or me? If it offends you that he capitalizes my moniker, it is probably because it is an unfamiliar sign of respect. Or I could just be wearing him down!

I use the lower case because I typed it in the profile and hit enter before I realized I didn't capitalize it. I was just too lazy to go back and edit it.

 

The issue with Jen is very important- to Jen. I will not try to take anything away from her as she learns and struggles with those issues and feelings. .

What David has come forth and asked is, by all reasonable accounts, proper. She should find no conflict with just telling him where he can find the research study.

I could tell you what I think of her "channeling" Jesus, but that is not the topic that needs to be addressed here.

 

I mean, it's really too bad you can't see theology in baseball.

---

Hey Bill! Jesus said one only needs to believe He is the way, the truth, and the life; and that no one comes to the Father but by way of Him. Sorry to disagree, Paul and Jesus said, not works, but faith. Both taught grace. You can't have Grace if justification depends on works.

 

You are alter egoes!

[davidk]

Bill,

There's no need for you to think your comments toward Jen and her "channeling" were anything less than honest in their presentation, nor were they in any way offensive in their content. Jen obviously struggles with being offended. She appears to be demonstrating herself incapable of understanding questions that were posited with sympathetic regard to the issues she is facing while presenting them in an open forum, without, for some reason, manufacturing some offense, responding with her own accusations, and not just keeping these things to herself. She seems to be seeking adulation while feigning humility. She's asking that you not take her word for what she does; and when you don't, accuses you are 'putting her on trial" and purposefully misrepresenting her, all the while claiming she speaks "unrelentingly of love and forgiveness."

 

She addresses a "research study" as her evidence, but either won't, or can't, document the study.

I think by now you realize I am no clinician, but how can one not help but to consider Jen's posts bullying, narcissistic behavior? Please, that is a question looking for alternative answers, not an accusation.

 

You have been generous to her with your sympathies.

Dk

[minsocal]

 

She addresses a "research study" as her evidence, but either won't, or can't, document the study.

I think by now you realize I am no clinician, but how can one not help but to consider Jen's posts bullying, narcissistic behavior? Please, that is a question looking for alternative answers, not an accusation.

 

 

True, you are no clinician and you yourself stand accused of bullying, narcissistic behavior by many on this board. I have NEVER found Jen a bully or even narcissistic, but then ... I was trained as a clinician to know the difference. That is where I will stop and I encourage you to stop messing in progressive dialoques you do not understand.

[davidk]

True, you are no clinician and you yourself stand accused of bullying, narcissistic behavior by many on this board. I have NEVER found Jen a bully or even narcissistic, but then ... I was trained as a clinician to know the difference. That is where I will stop and I encourage you to stop messing in progressive dialoques you do not understand.

I'm not certain that she is either, that is the reason I had asked. She is a very bright person, but her posts in response to David had made it appear that she could be having some difficulty with making accurate personal assessments of others and being overly defensive. See posts: 21, 23, 24, & 33.

 

If you see otherwise, I have no reason to argue with you or anyone else about it. I had hoped for a little more detailed explanation as to why you would not. If you wish not, that's understandable.

[minsocal]

I'm not certain that she is either, that is the reason I had asked. She is a very bright person, but her posts in response to David had made it appear that she could be having some difficulty with making accurate personal assessments of others and being overly defensive. See posts: 21, 23, 24, & 33.

 

If you see otherwise, I have no reason to argue with you or anyone else about it. I had hoped for a little more detailed explanation as to why you would not. If you wish not, that's understandable.

 

Before 1920, the nebulous ground between the terms 'normal' and 'abnormal' began to be broken down by a group of theorists exemplified in Jung, Janet, Whitehead, Bergson. etc. In recent decades, Micheal Foucault and Abraham Maslow took up the philosophical/psychological thrust and moved it it into a context understandable in today's language.

 

As I told David, I read the whole thread and anyone could reverse your view to say it is YOU who are defensive. That fact should give you pause.

 

In the end, my statement stands, I kinda like Jen. Poked you and David in a soft spot, huh?

[minsocal]

Now, I'm going to check this out and determine for myself whether people here responded to the content of what Jen has to say or only the format. This, should be interesting. More to follow.

[davidk]

In the end, my statement stands, I kinda like Jen. Poked you and David in a soft spot, huh?

Minsocal,

I can't speak for David here, but I love all of you, and I guess that's my soft spot. You can poke around all you want.

---

Jen,

It's good that you have found a forum where you can write what you will. To claim what you write is directly from Jesus was bound to be controversial. How could you have possibly considered it to be otherwise?

How do you think we are supposed to decide? If we compare what you say is from Jesus with the only words we have to compare them with, you have a great deal more to explain.

I have no reason to doubt your sincerity, but I do retain the right to think you may need to seek counseling, while encouraging you to continue to seek out the truth. We should be praying for each other about all the personal struggles we will have while on this planet.

 

I hope to see you in Heaven when this all is no longer anything but in the past.

 

God's Grace to you,

davidk

[David]

Now, I'm going to check this out and determine for myself whether people here responded to the content of what Jen has to say or only the format. This, should be interesting. More to follow.

I’m glad that you are finally going to do this. Up until now your responses to Jen has been much more about you than Jen. That’s ok. What you have to say is often times important (although some times it is not important). But I think you have been too quick to bring in all sorts of stuff into this that I do not see Jen supporting yet. For instance, I would be interested in a discussion of Jung’s synchronicity and how that supports channeling the historical Jesus. It seems to me however that the support Jen attempts to show us is more along the lines of traditional “cause and effect” arguments (i.e. “what you put in your brain matters”). By the way, if you truly believe that channeling is supported by this and other things that you accept then you should take Jen up on her repeated offers to communicate with the historical Jesus.

 

Jen has not been shy about her attempt to support her channeling claim with science. As noted within this thread she attempts to use the “God spot” research that you evidently were not aware of. That “God spot” research has also been used by various people in various attempts to support their own experiences as being somehow related to God. However, those people fall in the familiar trap of depending too much on the current state of the scientific discussion. When that current science is replaced by a more comprehensive view or a better explanation then the associated religion is left in the dust. In your internet search you evidently did not find the most current research that shows that there is no specific “God spot”. The same electrical circuits in the brain are used by religious people and non religious people but with religious persons evidently their religious beliefs become involved.

 

Besides the “God spot” Jen attempts to support the channeling claim based upon alpha and gamma brain waves. Again these brain waves are often used by persons with various religious beliefs as evidence to support their religious beliefs. In Jen’s case she says “if your brain operates on a regular basis in the gamma brainwave frequency, you will regularly be able to pick up intuitive messages from God and/or your own guardian angel.”

 

Jen’s states that the mind has four dimensions and that when you die you leave your brain behind but take your mind with you as a soul. Obviously many others make similar claims but the attempt to relate this to the discussion of “the quantum world” seems to me again another instance of trying to relate religious beliefs too securely on to the current state of the scientific discussion.

 

In addition, Jen believes that “our conscious will power and our daily disciplines can override our DNA”. She thinks that this can be done by a regimen of persuading your brain to “literally chew up the dendrites, axons, neurotransmitters, etc.”. Her view of DNA is that it “originates in the soul”. It is not clear to me where she gets these DNA concepts. However, it is clear that much of this is coming in her mind from her Jesus who in her mind is a scientist. Unfortunately the science from her Jesus is moving on and leaving her Jesus in the dust.

 

I had suggested to Jen before that when a person attempts to speak the “words of God” eventually they get caught by their own voice. This remains my position and I will be interested in whether your review of Jen’s postings shows a different conclusion.