Jump to content

Life As A Channeller


Realspiritik

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Finally? Jen is simply stating where science has been going in the last 15 years. If you are interested, I can give you dozens of peer reviewed scientific articles from my own database supporting every substantive claim Jen has made. I have an entire category on neural plasticity if you like. Now, if you wish to really get into it, neuroplasticity (the changing of dendrites, axons, etc.) is another word for ... LEARNING! THAT IS HOW LEARNING WORKS! It was observed in action for the first time in 2007 only 20 miles from where I live at the University of California, Irvine. You know, real science. Actually observing the changes in dendrites as learning occurs. Wow. What a concept! Physical, observable evidence!

 

Now, in the last 100 years, many learning theories have developed. The most recent delelopments of learning theory (and memory theory) have to do with learning (and memory) with (or without) consciousness. Learing (and memory) are heterogenous processes subject to a wide range of sitimuli and processeing variables. The same is true for emotions. The same is true for intuition. The conscious - unconscious dimension permeates all of these categories. And that is how I understand Jen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

There is no doubt that Jen uses the current scientific terms. The issue is how current science supports the channeling of the historical Jesus. Please give us everything you have on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that Jen uses the current scientific terms. The issue is how current science supports the channeling of the historical Jesus. Please give us everything you have on that.

 

Jung 101. Jesus spoke from the collective unconscious, our DNA if you would. Intuitive introverts are the closest to the collective unconscious and the most easily misunderstood in extraverted societies. We need a psycholgy, per Jung, that does justice to all types. Period. The egalitarianism of Jesus, and (perhaps) Paul. That's it.

 

How, in fact, do YOU practice substantive justice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great topics for discussion but you dodge what is important to Jen. Again you are showing what is important to you, not what is important to Jen.

 

Jen is saying that she speaks to a divine being that she claims has a fundamentally different nature than you and I. I do not see Jung supporting the existence of angels. Jen is attempting to support that argument by using scientific terms that can easily be found on the internet. The fact that things like the “God spot” are now “old” science tells us that her divine being is not a good scientist.

 

Again if you have science that supports what is important to Jen, please show it to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great topics for discussion but you dodge what is important to Jen. Again you are showing what is important to you, not what is important to Jen.

 

Jen is saying that she speaks to a divine being that she claims has a fundamentally different nature than you and I. I do not see Jung supporting the existence of angels. Jen is attempting to support that argument by using scientific terms that can easily be found on the internet. The fact that things like the “God spot” are now “old” science tells us that her divine being is not a good scientist.

 

Again if you have science that supports what is important to Jen, please show it to us.

 

Old German expession ... O for crying out loud. I never thought you were a captive of literalism. But, if you are, we cannot have any discussion in the same manner you and davidk could not.

 

Now, let me get the rules here.

 

There was a time I defended davidk. Result, rejection.

 

There was a time I defended David. Result, rejection.

 

There is now a time I defend Jen. Result, rejection.

 

Simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great topics for discussion but you dodge what is important to Jen. Again you are showing what is important to you, not what is important to Jen.

 

Jen is saying that she speaks to a divine being that she claims has a fundamentally different nature than you and I. I do not see Jung supporting the existence of angels. Jen is attempting to support that argument by using scientific terms that can easily be found on the internet. The fact that things like the “God spot” are now “old” science tells us that her divine being is not a good scientist.

 

Again if you have science that supports what is important to Jen, please show it to us.

 

See boldened. I really wish you and davidk would just shut up on the issue of talking for me. Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 guess I will just wait for the "more to follow".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :D

 

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

Hi Bill,

 

I had assumed you got mad and left. Glad to see you are still around.

 

I think your point is well taken. I think it is appropriate to compare Paul and Jen. There are obviously many claims to such revelation. The whole book of Mormon is based upon this claim. The Holy Qur’an is based upon this claim. I have noted that Pat Robertson makes similar claims. If you accept that such revelation is possible then you really do have a problem as you note. I would not underestimate the seriousness of this problem. Much of what is going on in the world can be traced to fights over "true" revelation.

 

I would suggest that there is no such revelation because the God I know does not work that way. That God does not provide “direct dictation”. On the other hand I certainly support the mystic. I think we can learn much from mystics. But one of my clues of whether one mystic is “true” or not is whether they claim communication with a super and separate divine being. I tend towards those who claim “oneness” with God and do not claim to be a secretary for a separate God.

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
I had assumed you got mad and left. Glad to see you are still around.

 

Yes, I'm very human. I get upset. I get frustrated. But I keep coming back because I need to grown. I can't go back to conservative fundamentalism...and yet, at the same time, I don't want to go down the paths of some here. But that doesn't mean that I can't listen and learn from their paths.

 

I think your point is well taken. I think it is appropriate to compare Paul and Jen. There are obviously many claims to such revelation. The whole book of Mormon is based upon this claim. The Holy Qur’an is based upon this claim. I have noted that Pat Robertson makes similar claims. If you accept that such revelation is possible then you really do have a problem as you note. I would not underestimate the seriousness of this problem. Much of what is going on in the world can be traced to fights over "true" revelation.
There is a saying, I think it is amongst the United Church of Christ, "God is still speaking." I would imagine that many progressive feel that way, that the canonization of the Bible was not the end of God (not just Judeo-Christian God but GOD) speaking to humanity. But it does leave us in sort of a quandry as to how we discern if it is really God speaking to us or our ego or our conscience or social mores or...whatever. It doesn't happen often, but once in a while someone will claim that God told them to blow up a building or fly a plane into a tower or kill a child to cover some sin or some other what I would consider to be an evil act. Again, I don't put Jen in this category, not at all. But Jen's claims to open the door for others to make the same claim, that they are channeling Jesus or God, and I can't help but wonder if the benefits of having "private revelations" is worth the danger.

 

For instance, I believe that the apostle Paul did more to undermine Jesus' teachings and purpose than anyone else in "Christian history." I also believe that the apostle John's revelation on the Isle of Patmos is almost pure lunacy. Jesus returns to kill everybody? This is the Jesus of the gospels? I don't think so. But Paul and John both prove that private revelations can be canonized by the church and by Christians. And because they get canonized, they are seldom questioned and hardly ever critically critiqued against the historical Jesus.

 

I would suggest that there is no such revelation because the God I know does not work that way. That God does not provide “direct dictation”. On the other hand I certainly support the mystic. I think we can learn much from mystics. But one of my clues of whether one mystic is “true” or not is whether they claim communication with a super and separate divine being. I tend towards those who claim “oneness” with God and do not claim to be a secretary for a separate God.

 

I hear you. At the same time, Jesus himself stands in line of those who do indeed claim to be a secretary for God. If his claims in the gospels are true, he claimed to speak his Father's words and do his Father's works. That is a heavy-duty claim. But what I see in Jesus, IMO, is that his "private revelations" led him to serve humanity instead of calling humanity to serve him. And his revelations seemed to point to his two greatest commandments - love God and do that by loving each other. These commands, if followed, would, I think, make us and our world a better place.

 

So I don't know where "Progressive Christianity" falls on the subject of new revelation. Does God continue to send us new prophets and prophetesses? If indeed he does, do we make the same mistake of calling for their silence, sometimes leading, as it did with Jesus, to their execution? I don't know. My conservative roots say that Jesus is the final revelation. But my experiences tell me better. Dr. Martin Luther King was, I believe, a prophet of God. So was, IMO, Gandhi. So was Mother Theresa. I have my doubts about Billy Graham though. :D

 

But the bottom line for me is this, if God does raise up people, perhaps in every generation, to speak afresh for him, then whatever message and revelation is given should go back to a God that is for compassion and justice. Not to a God of vengeance. Not to a God who wants to kill sinners. Not to a God who wants the elite to have all the riches and power. But to the God of "the least of these."

 

Does Jen's Jesus encourage people to get back to that kind of God? I guess that this is a question that each of us must answer for ourselves.

 

bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your well thought out response.

 

I do not see Jesus as a secretary for God. There is much in the Bible that attempts to present him that way. But I think that is the early Church talking. I see Jesus as more in line with those mystics that claim a "oneness" with God. That was present before Jesus, with Jesus and since Jesus. Therefore I do not see Jesus as the "final" revelation although you could talk about a "complete" revelation.

 

I do think that we can use the word "revelation" to describe what I am talking about. It's just not the same thing Jen is talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wayfarer2k
Thank you for your well thought out response.

 

I do not see Jesus as a secretary for God. There is much in the Bible that attempts to present him that way. But I think that is the early Church talking. I see Jesus as more in line with those mystics that claim a "oneness" with God. That was present before Jesus, with Jesus and since Jesus. Therefore I do not see Jesus as the "final" revelation although you could talk about a "complete" revelation.

 

I do think that we can use the word "revelation" to describe what I am talking about. It's just not the same thing Jen is talking about.

 

Perhaps like you, David, I don't mind the word "revelation" when we speak of it in terms of the Deity's character being reflected in our lives. In Christianese, this is the glory of God shining through his people. This is people being able to see divinity in each other. I find that to be very believable for me because I have seen "Christ" in other people, in their actions and in their lifestyle.

 

But, yes, I do getting fidgetty when folks start into the "Thus saith the Lord..." motiff. And coming from a Pentecostal background, I saw this alot. What perplexed me about it is that some of these people's lives just didn't reflect that they were God's person to deliver his message. I'm not trying to be judgmental here, I know that God works through broken vessels. But when the message of, supposedly, "God's words" comes through somebody whose life doesn't reflect God's character, then I feel that there is something amiss. Personally, I am much more inclined to listen when someone speaks for themselves then when they claim to speak for God or Jesus.

 

I like what one Christian said once, "Witness always. If necessary, use words."

 

bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service