Jump to content

On Being A Christian


Realspiritik
 Share

Recommended Posts

Let me start by migrating from another post re: Spong, which underlines the importance of the topic:

 

 

QUOTE

Where I have really diverged from Spong is not so much regarding his approach to the Bible, i.e. rejecting the literal/factual interpretation of creation, fall, virgin birth, resurrection, second coming, etc. (on that we agree for the most part). Rather it's that his interpretation gives him (and his readers) so little left to hang on to. Resurrection: Myth or Reality? and Liberating The Gospels do a great job of suggesting how the early Christians expressed their experience of the resurrected Christ in gospel form. But when he attempts to suggest what that experience might have been, the best he can possibly offer, haltingly, barely, is a psychological feeling of powerful love and self-acceptance. Life-changing love and self-acceptance, to be sure; of a sort never before seen, to be sure. All these superlatives and more about Jesus the man. But I personally think there's no way Christianity can possibly survive without Jesus, the Christ, the God-Man; and progressive Christianity has got to find a way to make this statement in a compelling way.

 

 

This topic includes, but is not limited to:

 

* Is it possible in a progressive context to affirm the divinity of Christ?

* If so, how? Metaphorically, mythically, allegorically, spiritually, literally?

* If not, what do we make of this claim? Can we do without it?

* How does Jesus relate to Christ?

 

As my quote above should make clear, I want to affirm that it is possible, and (in my opinion) crucial, to make the claim of the divinity of Christ strongly as progressive Christians. Furthermore, I think that it can be done without appealing to virgin births and empty tombs -- but at the same time, without reinterpreting it away, to the point that it ceases to mean what it clearly claims that it means.

 

Fire away!

 

 

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

 

Do you know the difference between who and what you are? -- Transatlantic

 

Jesus here. For those of you who missed my posts in January, you can backtrack and read them. My partner's on-line name is Canajan, eh? Her real name is Jen. Jen isn't too happy with me at the moment. There's been a bit of a tug of war going on in our home. She poured out a lot of her heart back in January 05, and was dismayed by the response. She and I both agreed that until such a time as there was a TCPC member interested in hearing the honest truth from the God Team, we would no longer post. I've prompted her many times over the past few months to take a look at the site and see what kinds of questions are being asked. The right question hasn't yet appeared in print, but I know (from my angelic viewpoint) that someone reading this site is asking the right questions inside her/his heart. That someone is the one for whom I write. I will not reveal the identity of this person. So don't ask. If you like, you can assume it's you. Hey, you never know.

 

You're probably wondering why, if no one has posted the right question yet, I would begin my discussion with FredP's quote. Well, that's because FredP has asked some good questions. Maybe not the perfect questions . . . yet. But good questions. Honest questions. Fair questions from the point of view of several billion exasperated guardian angels. Yes, Virginia, there really are guardian angels.

 

It's going to take me a while to work my way through FredP's questions. I have a lot of background to fill in for you. I propose to begin a teaching course right on-line. Right on this site. Day by day, I'll introduce you to the true wonder you're a part of. I intend to drag you kicking and screaming back to the state of angelic joy in which you were created -- not by God the Father alone, but by God the Father and his eternal and very equal beloved, God the Mother.

 

This is non-negotiable, folks. The truth about God is very much the truth about the romance of the Mother and the Father, the truth about why we, as angels and as humans, long for love, romance, relationship, and family ties in our lives. The truth about God is beathtakingly beautiful. That truth is what brought me to full realization of my Christ-like self 2,000 years ago. I prefer to say "Christ-like" to emphasize the fact that as a human, I was not the only Christ, but merely a Christ, one mortal man who achieved a state of divine remembrance and healing while still human. All human beings are born with Christ-like souls. The challenge for you in your human existence is to try as hard as you can to understand this, to remember, if you will, what it means to be desperately loved by your eternal Mother and Father.

 

This is a course on how to be a Concinnate Christian. "Concinnate" is the word I've chosen to help you distinguish my directly revealed 21st century teachings from anything that's been written about me before. This little-used word captures the essence of what it means to be Christ-like: to choose to blend the best of what it means to be an eternal angel (or soul) with the best of what it means to be a human being. A Concinnate Christian is one who lives and breathes according to this Creed:

 

Through the infinite wisdom and love of the Mother and Father, a place called Earth has been created, one place among many in the universe, where souls might choose to test the limits of their Trust, Courage, Devotion, and Gratitude through a temporary state of harshness. In a desert of pain, we, as souls-in-human-form, have the power to plant the seeds of compassion and forgiveness that are the true fruit of the divine garden we call love. We, as souls-in-human-form are invited to explore the perilous path once walked by the Mother and the Father, the path that began long, long ago in pain, power, and loneliness, and was forever transformed into divine love by the Courage, Trust, Devotion, and Gratitude they found in each other's hearts. Amen.

 

Love Jesus

April 14, 2005

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a course on how to be a Concinnate Christian. "Concinnate" is the word I've chosen to help you distinguish my directly revealed 21st century teachings from anything that's been written about me before. This little-used word captures the essence of what it means to be Christ-like: to choose to blend the best of what it means to be an eternal angel (or soul) with the best of what it means to be a human being. A Concinnate Christian is one who lives and breathes according to this Creed:

 

Through the infinite wisdom and love of the Mother and Father, a place called Earth has been created, one place among many in the universe, where souls might choose to test the limits of their Trust, Courage, Devotion, and Gratitude through a temporary state of harshness. In a desert of pain, we, as souls-in-human-form, have the power to plant the seeds of compassion and forgiveness that are the true fruit of the divine garden we call love. We, as souls-in-human-form are invited to explore the perilous path once walked by the Mother and the Father, the path that began long, long ago in pain, power, and loneliness, and was forever transformed into divine love by the Courage, Trust, Devotion, and Gratitude they found in each other's hearts. Amen.

 

The worldview suggested by this creed does not resonate with me. It suggests that we come into this world rather than out of it; that our origins are elsewhere. I am also not prepared to consider this life a "desert of pain" and human-kind as "souls-in-human-form". I also don't agree that we "plant" the seeds of compassion and forgiveness; I believe WE ARE the seeds of compassion and forgiveness, and that it is not as special emissaries, or angels from some distant star that we cultivate "Courage, Trust, Devotion, and Gratitude, but as human beings, fully fleshed, sentient, and creative.

 

I also don't believe that you are channeling Jesus.

 

That said, what do you mean by Father God; Mother God? Do you mean a dyadic God, a "masculofeminine" God? Or do you mean two distinct Gods, one male, one female? Is your creed influenced by aspects of Gnosticism? Much of what you say sounds of a gnostic tradition, much of which interests me very much...EXCEPT the strand of gnosticism which has us literally "fallen" into a miasmic world and awaiting our deliverance from the manifest creation itself. This I find revoltingly grim and immature, but that's me.

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Lily,

 

Jesus here. First, I am not a Gnostic. At the core of Gnostic belief lies a crippling, soul-destroying view of the universe as a place where Light and Dark vie for power. This is a view I cannot support.

 

Second, you have perhaps read my post too hastily. You make a number of assumptions about my meaning. Since I don't want other readers to assume your interpretations are correct, I must rebut them.

 

I honour the fact my creed doesn't resonate with you; each soul must find his or her way back to the truth. Please feel free to skip my postings in future. However, for those who are interested in hearing my channelled reply, I'll do my best to begin to convey more of the impossibly complex Truth that lies behind the world you currently live in.

 

I chose the phrase "desert of pain" carefully. Those who work in the nitty gritty world of mental health care, prisons, shelters for abused persons, addiction treatment, poverty, and so on already face the day to day reality that emotional pain is a constant challenge for them and their clients. The God Team knows there are enough "light and love" messages already on the planet to sink the Titanic a thousand times over. There's no point at all in telling people the Truth from the angels' point of view if we, the angels, lie to you and tell you everything is all right when your current reality tells you it's not.

 

So you won't be hearing a constant stream of "light and love" from me. My job, as a senior member of the angelic channelling team on the Other Side (Note: I use the phrase the Other Side metaphorically) is to help clear the very muddy waters of your understanding. I'm not going to pound you with the ol' sin and damnation b.s., but neither am I going to reassure you there's a quick way to find the core of your own Trust, Courage, Devotion, and Gratitude. Although you were born with these beautiful qualities, as all people are, you slowly lost track of what they meant as you grew up. If you disbelieve my statement, you need only turn on the evening news to see the stark reality of the desert of pain that's created when human beings make choices without understanding the depth and potential of their own divine Trust, Courage, Devotion, and Gratitude.

 

Next, Lily, please give me an opportunity to define the term "angel". I use the term angel because for most people it has positive, poetic connotations. However, at no time did I say or imply that angels are special emissaries, or that angels come from some distant star. In fact, all souls (or all angels, if you prefer) originate in what some quantum physicists such as David Bohm call the Implicate Order. Souls are quantum beings. They have a complex energy signature, an energy signature that doesn't currently show up on scientific instruments -- though I hope you'll concede the point this means very little. A few years ago, no one could have imagined the invisible network of wireless communication that now crisscrosses the planet and allows you to check your e-mail on your Blackberry as you're walking down a city street. A few decades ago, this would have looked like magic, yet today it's understood as simple science that everyone takes for granted. So to say to me that because my angelic energy signature can't yet be measured is proof that I don't exist is, well, an argument you're not likely to win.

 

Last, I certainly did mean to imply that "we come into this world rather than out of it, that our origins are elsewhere", as you wrote. That is exactly my point -- that as a soul, you were given birth by God the Mother AND God the Father within the implicate order that is best described by quantum physics. The implicate order implies a higher dimension, not a different star system. Mathematicians and physicists are already working out the scientific reality of higher dimensions, and this is what you must keep in mind when you're trying to imagine "where" heaven is. Heaven isn't "up". Heaven isn't somewhere on Betelgeuse. The metaphorical idea of heaven is an ancient attempt to try to express in conscious terms the divine love that filters through into your biological brain from the 4th dimensional aspect of your soul whether you want it to or not.

 

When I taught as Jesus, I called that state of awareness "the kingdom within".

 

Thank you.

 

Love Jesus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Lily,

 

 

I honour the fact my creed doesn't resonate with you; each soul must find his or her way back to the truth. Please feel free to skip my postings in future. However, for those who are interested in hearing my channelled reply, I'll do my best to begin to convey more of the impossibly complex Truth that lies behind the world you currently live in.

 

You've posted in the "debate and dialogue" area of the board. Why would I skip your posts? I welcome your rebuttals and responded as I did so as to better understand exactly what you do mean by the things you say.

 

I chose the phrase "desert of pain" carefully. Those who work in the nitty gritty world of mental health care, prisons, shelters for abused persons, addiction treatment, poverty, and so on already face the day to day reality that emotional pain is a constant challenge for them and their clients. The God Team knows there are enough "light and love" messages already on the planet to sink the Titanic a thousand times over. There's no point at all in telling people the Truth from the angels' point of view if we, the angels, lie to you and tell you everything is all right when your current reality tells you it's not.

 

But you should know that I have been an "abused person", an addicted person, and as poor as a church mouse. I'm not looking for a "light and love" message as you seem to mean it. I know that there is suffering and injustice in the world. Most anyone can take the attitude that this world is a "desert of pain" and many have and do, but as a worldview it seems lopsided to me, and does not reflect the glory and goodness of Gods creation.

 

So you won't be hearing a constant stream of "light and love" from me. My job, as a senior member of the angelic channelling team on the Other Side (Note: I use the phrase the Other Side metaphorically) is to help clear the very muddy waters of your understanding. I'm not going to pound you with the ol' sin and damnation b.s., but neither am I going to reassure you there's a quick way to find the core of your own Trust, Courage, Devotion, and Gratitude. Although you were born with these beautiful qualities, as all people are, you slowly lost track of what they meant as you grew up. If you disbelieve my statement, you need only turn on the evening news to see the stark reality of the desert of pain that's created when human beings make choices without understanding the depth and potential of their own divine Trust, Courage, Devotion, and Gratitude.

 

For one thing, I object to the pretense of channeling, as it cushions you from responsiblity for your own words and places you in a position of administering "truth" that must be "received" from the rest of us, and not questioned or challenged by us. You've set yourself up as the Concionator of this Concinnate Church and seem to expect us to accept whatever you say as non-negotiable. For another, you are not saying anything. Most of us here are past the "ol sin and damnation b.s." and all of us here know that there is no "quick and easy way" to fulfill our purpose in God.

 

Next, Lily, please give me an opportunity to define the term "angel". I use the term angel because for most people it has positive, poetic connotations. However, at no time did I say or imply that angels are special emissaries, or that angels come from some distant star. In fact, all souls (or all angels, if you prefer) originate in what some quantum physicists such as David Bohm call the Implicate Order. Souls are quantum beings. They have a complex energy signature, an energy signature that doesn't currently show up on scientific instruments -- though I hope you'll concede the point this means very little. A few years ago, no one could have imagined the invisible network of wireless communication that now crisscrosses the planet and allows you to check your e-mail on your Blackberry as you're walking down a city street. A few decades ago, this would have looked like magic, yet today it's understood as simple science that everyone takes for granted. So to say to me that because my angelic energy signature can't yet be measured is proof that I don't exist is, well, an argument you're not likely to win.

 

Last, I certainly did mean to imply that "we come into this world rather than out of it, that our origins are elsewhere", as you wrote. That is exactly my point -- that as a soul, you were given birth by God the Mother AND God the Father within the implicate order that is best described by quantum physics. The implicate order implies a higher dimension, not a different star system. Mathematicians and physicists are already working out the scientific reality of higher dimensions, and this is what you must keep in mind when you're trying to imagine "where" heaven is. Heaven isn't "up". Heaven isn't somewhere on Betelgeuse. The metaphorical idea of heaven is an ancient attempt to try to express in conscious terms the divine love that filters through into your biological brain from the 4th dimensional aspect of your soul whether you want it to or not.

 

Again, you are not saying anything new and you are assuming a great deal. Understand that its not in the least important to me that you do say anything new. It's just that you seem to assume that none of us are on a par with your superior understanding and that everything you speak is a revelation. Most of us realize that "heaven is not up" or "somewhere on Betelgeuse", I mean c'mon. I also agree that we are "born of God" but I also believe that we come out of this earth and return to this earth when we die. I don't believe that we go anywhere because there isn't "anywhere" to go. Perhaps we are saying the same thing in a different language? I would still be interested in hearing how you conceive "Father God" and "Mother God" if you are willing.

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chose the phrase "desert of pain" carefully.  Those who work in the nitty gritty world of mental health care, prisons, shelters for abused persons, addiction treatment, poverty, and so on

You seem to have made a great case for "the ol' sin b.s".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lily,

 

Thanks for having the courage to do what I couldn't! Frankly I find the whole "Conversations With God" schtick nauseating, and I don't feel the least bit honored that my questions were chosen as the launching pad for another round of it. Personally I'm going with the "Please feel free to skip my postings in the future" option. I have too little time to post here as it is.

 

Respectfully,

Fred, the Not Quite Perfect Questioner

Edited by FredP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole area of channeling anything/anybody is obviously rife with controversy & quite rightly it's been pointed out re to that that it's very easy for the ego of the "channel" to end up being the true messager. While no one can definitively state where another's "messages" derive, I do think it's interesting to remember that the OT seemed chock full of "God's prophets" having conversations with God, (before there was a book series by that name). In fact, why does it seem in the NT that once Jesus was born folks stopped having direct conversations with God & had to start "going through the Jesus switchboard?" But I digress. Remember that adage: when we talk with God, it's considered prayer; when God talks with us, it's considered mental illness. In the broadest sense, I think that anytime someone preaches Jesus' gospel of love and fearlessness, they're channeling the wisdom of God through however many layers of ego that might be there-though here I'm with (was it Assissi) who said "preach the gospel always, using words only if you have to?" The greatest preaching and ministry we can do with one another is to be the gospel with one another; to be the Word made flesh. I have no problem, though, with the basic assumption of the originator of this thread: that our "soul," our deepest most essence transcends the material reality of space-time both in its origins and as to its departure when our time is up here. In fact, at another forum recently where someone posted the question, "how would your life be different if you truly believed there was no hell?" I responded that as I don't believe there's a hell, that's not an issue for me, but that it prompted a better question for me that relates to this thread: "how would your life be different if you truly believed that your ultimate origin and destination was "eternal" and that life here is but a waystation?" Never hurts to spread encouraging words of love and light in whatever form, but we have to find within ourselves our own essence of light and love if we are to reliably live it out into this world and others' encouraging words can do no more than remind us to find it. Have a good one, Earl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you are not saying anything new and you are assuming a great deal. Understand that its not in the least important to me that you do say anything new. It's just that you seem to assume that none of us are on a par with your superior understanding and that everything you speak is a revelation. Most of us realize that "heaven is not up" or "somewhere on Betelgeuse", I mean c'mon. I also agree that we are "born of God" but I also believe that we come out of this earth and return to this earth when we die. I don't believe that we go anywhere because there isn't "anywhere" to go. Perhaps we are saying the same thing in a different language? I would still be interested in hearing how you conceive "Father God" and "Mother God" if you are willing.

 

Lily, I would ask for a small measure of patience. I understand I've upset you (and several others), and I know you don't understand why this strange person is insisting on posting these messages. But please. Take a moment, and think with all the Trust and Courage that's your birthright as a soul. Did I really say or imply in my posts that you must "receive" my teachings without questioning or challenging them? Or is it possible you're assuming that my channel is like most other channellers out there who do refuse to take responsibility for what they say? Is it possible that you are the one who has made the assumptions, not I?

 

Lily, the quantum process of channelling is difficult, complex, and very emotionally demanding. One thing Jen learned the hard way (and I really mean the hard way) is that she cannot channel information for which she has no existing mental framework. She knows that if she tries, she's likely to make false assumptions, and bring through information that doesn't fit the facts. She's very careful to stick with the framework I've taught her. The truth is, Lily, that Jen has no mental framework for knowing what you already know and what you don't. But she knows you made the incorrect assumptions that I implied angels are special emissaries and angels are from distant stars. She doesn't know what you know. She only knows what you say. I can only answer through her mind if her mind is able to understand my message. I know what you know, Lily, but Jen doesn't, so please don't ask for shows of spectacular psychic prowess from her along the lines of, "Well, if she's so smart, and she's talking to Jesus, she should know where I left my car keys." Channelling doesn't work that way. It never has, and never will. The people who make false claims about knowing things they can't possibly know do a lot of harm. They make life very difficult for the few legitimate channellers who understand the science and have the experience necessary to carry out their work ethically.

 

Perhaps I confused you with my statement, "This is non-negotiable, folks." Fair enough. What did I mean? Did I mean you can't challenge me or question me? No. I mean that I have a Truth to tell, and I can't change some of the parts or all of the parts to prevent you or anyone else from experiencing emotional upset. I mean you can believe me or not believe me as you will, you can ask questions as often as you like and I'll do my best to answer in a way that will benefit as many readers as possible, but I will not lie to you. I will not do what other so-called spiritual teachers have done, and tell you what you want to hear merely so you'll like me. I don't need you to like me, Lily. But I'll confess that as an angel with a heart wide open (the natural state for all quantum beings) I'm certainly feeling the emotional pain that comes from being raked over the coals emotionally, not only by you, but by other readers.

 

You've asked twice now how I conceive of God the Mother and God the Father. I'll gladly answer your question, if you'll bear with me and be just a little patient. I can't answer this question in one short post. Knowing the Mother and the Father is a deeply emotional experience, one born of the heart. Please let me answer in the way I feel is best. You can take that statement in a harsh, judgmental way if you choose, or you can give me the benefit of the doubt for a while and wait to see whether I can put my money where my mouth is. If I really am Jesus, I ought to be able to do that.

 

Love Jesus

April 15, 2005

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Lily, I would ask for a small measure of patience. I understand I've upset you (and several others), and I know you don't understand why this strange person is insisting on posting these messages. But please. Take a moment, and think with all the Trust and Courage that's your birthright as a soul. Did I really say or imply in my posts that you must "receive" my teachings without questioning or challenging them? Or is it possible you're assuming that my channel is like most other channellers out there who do refuse to take responsibility for what they say? Is it possible that you are the one who has made the assumptions, not I?

 

Okay. Fair enough. I shall endeavor to be more patient. Please understand one thing Jen...you have not upset me and I am quite interested in what you have to say, apart from the whole "channeling" thang. It's just that I find it difficult to dialog with you on equal footing if you insist that you are channeling "jesus". I work at a metaphysical bookstore and have "channelers" and "psychics" walk in all the time...so, this is not new to me or alien. I also am a student of the Tarot and read the cards for others from time to time, so my objection is not doctrinal or prejudicial in the way you may think. I believe in the gifts of the Spirit: prophecy, words of wisdom, discernment, healing and all, and I believe that "God" does speak and act through us all the time, but I must admit to never having met a "channel" that I've discerned as authentic...but hey...theres always a first time.

 

Lily, the quantum process of channelling is difficult, complex, and very emotionally demanding.

 

I can only imagine.

 

 

Perhaps I confused you with my statement, "This is non-negotiable, folks." Fair enough. What did I mean? Did I mean you can't challenge me or question me? No. I mean that I have a Truth to tell, and I can't change some of the parts or all of the parts to prevent you or anyone else from experiencing emotional upset. I mean you can believe me or not believe me as you will, you can ask questions as often as you like and I'll do my best to answer in a way that will benefit as many readers as possible, but I will not lie to you. I will not do what other so-called spiritual teachers have done, and tell you what you want to hear merely so you'll like me. I don't need you to like me, Lily. But I'll confess that as an angel with a heart wide open (the natural state for all quantum beings) I'm certainly feeling the emotional pain that comes from being raked over the coals emotionally, not only by you, but by other readers.

 

My apologies for my part in that as it was not my intent to hurt you. And if the truth be known you/Jen have been on my heart and mind since I read your first post, and these thoughts and feelings are not ill toward you.

 

You've asked twice now how I conceive of God the Mother and God the Father. I'll gladly answer your question, if you'll bear with me and be just a little patient. I can't answer this question in one short post. Knowing the Mother and the Father is a deeply emotional experience, one born of the heart. Please let me answer in the way I feel is best. You can take that statement in a harsh, judgmental way if you choose, or you can give me the benefit of the doubt for a while and wait to see whether I can put my money where my mouth is. If I really am Jesus, I ought to be able to do that.

 

I don't expect you to post your thoughts on God the Mother and God the Father perfectly. Heck, I'm never sure I'm making any sense at all when I post. I'm genuinely interested in the subject itself and not as an opportunity to challenge you (or not only as an opportunity to challenge you ;)

 

So, if you like, we shall start again on a new footing.

 

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus here.

 

A couple of days ago, I suggested to Jen that she go to see the film Sin City, currently playing in theatres. You might think this an odd suggestion from a guardian angel, since, if you've seen the trailers for this film, you know it's almost unrelenting in its dark vision. (Great cinematography and artistic direction, in my humble opinion, but that's just me.) And yet . . . this film is not about violence, for all that it's chock-a-block full of pedophilia, murder, vengeance, prostitution, and corruption. It's about one true hero, the police detective Hartigan, played by Bruce Willis. (I'm cutting out two thirds of the plotline here, but the part I want to talk about is the Hartigan character.)

 

Hartigan is a cop with a conscience. That's pretty much it. That's the part that interests me as a guardian angel. Hartigan demonstrates continued and inspiring dedication to what is right, despite the personal cost to him. He simply refuses to be less than the man he's capable of being.

 

There you have it. New revealed teachings from Jesus. Be the best self you can be.

 

If I'm lucky, you're rolling your eyes, and saying to yourself, "Yeah, well, that's a no-brainer. Of course God expects me to be my best self and have a noble conscience. Of course it's all about doing the right thing. This isn't new. This isn't revealed. This is, well, just plain old common sense." And you would be right. So congratulations if you can watch a brutally violent film like Sin City and find hidden kernels of Truth that remind you that when you get right down to it, the spiritual path is only about being the best self you can be, despite hardships, difficult choices, and one hell of a lot of pain.

 

If you can walk out of a movie like Sin Citywithout being filled with anger, a visceral desire to "get back" at the people who are causing incalculable harm, or a feeling that you've been personally violated by the images in the film, then you're doing exceedingly well. Congratulations. There's not much more that I or any other guardian angel can teach you. You're already in the zone. You're already walking around on Planet Earth doing the best you can to understand your own emotions and keep the love flowing throughout your mind and body despite the emotional pain around you. You're already in touch with the Kingdom within -- your own soul.

 

Bear in mind one crucial fact: if you can watch a movie like Sin City and not feel the pain, if you can watch it and feel detached, if you can watch it and not really care, there's something very wrong. A state of detachment and emotional unconcern is not what I mean by being in the zone. Being in the zone means you're able to deal in a courageous manner with the pain, and turn to the power of forgiveness and divine love to help you cope. It means you're unflinchingly realistic about the painful realities of the world you live in, but at the same time you're infinitely compassionate. It means you know how to deal with intense emotional stress in a mature and self respecting fashion. It means you don't deny the emotional stress. You acknowledge the emotional stress, and deal with it wisely.

 

You'll like the next part, too. What do I, as a quantum being/guardian angel recommend to you to help you deal wisely with your emotional stress? Am I about to suggest you abandon your life and run away to a mountain top to meditate for the next 20 years? Am I about to suggest you give away all your possessions and cultivate the self-denying ascetic lifestyle of some religious adherents, who follow strict dietary rules, engage in hours and hours of prayer each day, and, conditions permitting, stand under frigid waterfalls each time they think a "bad" thought?

 

How about a game of Scrabble with your friends, instead of that half bowl of rice? How about a walk in the sun with someone you care deeply about? How about some great music -- rock music, pop music, who cares as long as the songs get you humming and tapping your foot? How about making love with the partner you've given your whole heart to? How about life?

 

This is the non-negotiable Truth I want to talk to you about from the point of view of the angels. I don't want to talk philosophy -- pantheism, panentheism, who cares? I don't. I'm an angel, and I couldn't care less how you describe God. I only care that you get the core message right, that you believe in the beauty and integrity of the soul you were created with by God the Mother and God the Father. I only care that you try as hard as you can to be the best person you can be.

 

Yes, I know it doesn't sound new. Baby, that's the whole point. That's what the God Team has been trying so very hard to tell you. God isn't in the rules. God is in the trying. You are in the trying. You are the most beautiful being this universe has ever seen, each and every one of you all at the same time, and by God it's time for you to believe in yourself.

 

And in each other.

 

Be the person of Courage, Trust, Gratitude, and Devotion your angelic friends know you to be. Now and always. Believe in yourself, as God does, and you'll find the wings of an angel are already pinned to your heart. Let yourself fly, baby. Let yourself fly.

 

Love Jesus

April 15, 2005

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I would say God is in the details and each moment of our lives-if we can't find God in a good scrabble game, ain't gonna find him/her in a church likely either. ;) As Thomas Moore said in "Soul's Religion:" "I sense a religious sensibility in all open minds and hearts." An open-hearted condition is a reliable indicator of being on the right track. anything done whole-heartedly is likely to have a "touch of God" to it. Letting go to let God is a big part of such a path & too much thinking/philosophizing is more likely to "close the hand of thought" around that heart of wisdom, (to recoin a zen phrase), than to open it. In fact, i dare say that the best theologizing is that which supports the open-hearted condition as the fruit of the spiritual path seems to ultimately come down to the open heart a'la ICor13:2 Let go, let God, and love. sounds simple doesn't it? But oh all the ways we humans can complicate that. Take care, Earl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, back to this thread's orginal poster and his or her's question:

 

Let me start by migrating from another post re: Spong, which underlines the importance of the topic:

 

 

QUOTE

 

"Where I have really diverged from Spong is not so much regarding his approach to the Bible, i.e. rejecting the literal/factual interpretation of creation, fall, virgin birth, resurrection, second coming, etc. (on that we agree for the most part). Rather it's that his interpretation gives him (and his readers) so little left to hang on to. Resurrection: Myth or Reality?"

 

I also concure with this...so if anyone else does then might I sugest another Progressive christian book for your consideration? "Ten Wrong Things I learned From A Conserative church."

 

 

"and Liberating The Gospels do a great job of suggesting how the early Christians expressed their experience of the resurrected Christ in gospel form. But when he attempts to suggest what that experience might have been, the best he can possibly offer, haltingly, barely, is a psychological feeling of powerful love and self-acceptance. Life-changing love and self-acceptance, to be sure; of a sort never before seen, to be sure. All these superlatives and more about Jesus the man. But I personally think there's no way Christianity can possibly survive without Jesus, the Christ, the God-Man; and progressive Christianity has got to find a way to make this statement in a compelling way."

 

Ok, here's what I see, presently the religious majority, both left and right is claiming that there is 'ONLY' '2' views of Jesus to choose from...

 

1. The far right=trinitatian=Jesus was Savior and God...or...

 

2. Far Left Liberal=unitarian=Jesus was neither god nor Savior, nor even divine in anyway. He was merely a good teacher who died and inpsires us to follow his example to better relationship and understanding of God.

 

Might there be a '3' option? What 'if' There was a Progressive concept which I have come to name Divinitarian?

 

3. Divinitarian= Jesus is NOT God but God's Son. He is Savior to everyone, whether they know his name or not. You do NOT have to know his name to accpet him as Savior as the far right claims. Jesus is less than God but greater than just a nice teacher who died long ago. Jesus is divine in nature..in that fact that he perfectly reflects God's personality, rose from the grave and came to sit at the right hand of God?

 

 

This topic includes, but is not limited to:

 

* Is it possible in a progressive context to affirm the divinity of Christ?

* If so, how? Metaphorically, mythically, allegorically, spiritually, literally?

* If not, what do we make of this claim? Can we do without it?

* How does Jesus relate to Christ?

 

As my quote above should make clear, I want to affirm that it is possible, and (in my opinion) crucial, to make the claim of the divinity of Christ strongly as progressive Christians. Furthermore, I think that it can be done without appealing to virgin births and empty tombs -- but at the same time, without reinterpreting it away, to the point that it ceases to mean what it clearly claims that it means.

 

Here's another question: Can one be Progressive AND hold a belief that Christ really rose from the grave withOUT attatching a "Or else!" /"Members-ONLY" mentality? I believe yes. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Here's another question: Can one be Progressive AND hold a belief that Christ really rose from the grave withOUT attatching a "Or else!" /"Members-ONLY" mentality? I believe yes. What do you think?

 

Yes, I don't believe there is some kind of litmus test as to who is progressive and who is not. I think if someone is not they won't want to be called one, that's about as good a definition as I can come up with.

 

Of course, I think there are some so-called progressives who might not really want to encourage social justice issues as rocking the boat. So maybe that would be the litmus test.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is the non-negotiable Truth I want to talk to you about from the point of view of the angels. I don't want to talk philosophy -- pantheism, panentheism, who cares? I don't. I'm an angel, and I couldn't care less how you describe God. I only care that you get the core message right, that you believe in the beauty and integrity of the soul you were created with by God the Mother and God the Father. I only care that you try as hard as you can to be the best person you can be.

 

Except Jen, you just DID "describe" God in the same breath that you stated you don't care how "we" describe God. You describe God as God the Mother and God the Father. This description seems to inform your "core beliefs", as it would necessarily, and IS strictly speaking, a philosophical position.

 

I only care that you try as hard as you can to be the best person you can be

 

You know? How can one argue with that? I'll tell ya how. It's not a core Christian message. Any secular humanist can "try as hard as he/she can to be the best person "they" can be". And I support this. I have no argument with that at all. But I don't believe that it's what Christians are called to. I don't recall that Jesus was ever reported as saying, ever, anywhere, that all that is required is that "we be the best person we can be". In fact, I seem to remember that he objected when someone called him "Good Master", by stating that there is "none good but God". "Being the best person you can be" is an exercise of the ego, the very "thing" we are called as Christians to "die to". "Trying to be the best person you can be" is a work of the flesh, to use old Christian language, and this effort will accomplish only one thing, which is to wear you out, up one day and down the next. Christians are called to something much greater, much more difficult and yet more simple than this. We are called to be the sons of God; transparent vessels who mediate the Will of God to the whole of creation, and we accomplish this, at least in part, through the Awareness of who and what we are in God. This may or may not make you a "better person" in the eyes of the world; it depends on the point of view of the person looking.

 

Yes, I know it doesn't sound new. Baby, that's the whole point. That's what the God Team has been trying so very hard to tell you. God isn't in the rules. God is in the trying. You are in the trying. You are the most beautiful being this universe has ever seen, each and every one of you all at the same time, and by God it's time for you to believe in yourself.

 

And who, pray tell, is the "God Team"?

 

God is as much in the rules as in the trying. Both are *designed* to bring you to the end of yourself and into a state of Grace.

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Lily and friends,

 

Jesus here.

 

Lily, you wrote this:

I only care that you try as hard as you can to be the best person you can be

 

You know? How can one argue with that? I'll tell ya how. It's not a core Christian message.

 

Hmmmm . . . I suspect, Lily, that you didn't think this out as clearly as you might have before you posted this. That's okay. We have all days when our head gets a bit ahead of our heart. Lily, I don't think we're as far apart as you might believe. Do you think it's possible you and I (and hopefully others) can agree on one basic idea -- the idea that somehow, if only one can figure out how, the route to God is through the heart? Can we use that as a starting point, a place of mutual understanding? Using written language, as we're all trying to do on this site, is full of pitfalls that all of us have to be specially wary of. All of us use words in slightly different ways to mean slightly different things. I think, and I hope you'll agree, that we'll all learn much more from each other if we try to keep that reality in mind. If there's a phrase or idea a reader doesn't understand, maybe it's more beneficial if the reader asks without judgment or pre-assumptions. Clear communication between individuals, whether human or angel, takes time, patience, and a willingness to not jump to conclusions.

 

Love Jesus

April 16, 2005

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus here.

 

God is as much in the rules as in the trying. Both are *designed* to bring you to the end of yourself and into a state of Grace.

 

Lily has suggested that God is as much in the rules as in the trying.

 

Okay. Let's test that supposition.

 

I, as an angel, together with my human partner, Jen, whom I've taken through an extensive educational program involving quantum physics, neurophysiology, philosophy, and history, are quite capable of giving you a list of God's "rules" to follow. I have ready at hand a detailed list of all the things a person "should" and "should not" do so you can find out what it means to combine the best of your 4-D angelic soul self with the best of your 3-D human self. I, together with Jen, am quite capable of giving you long, tedious lectures on the functioning of your biological brain and the way in which it intersects with your 4th dimensional soul energy. For instance, if you really insist, I can give you a list of TV shows that actually impair the ability of your human brain to function at its best. I can also give you long, boring lectures on food, substance use, sex, blah, blah, blah. I can painstakingly rip apart your false beliefs with a big, long, bulleted list of what is factually true about God, Jesus, and the angels, and what is not.

 

But how would that make you feel? Would you feel encouraged to try harder, or would you feel discouraged at the prospect of so many new rules to keep track of? Would you feel loved, or would you feel controlled? Do you really want more tiresome rules from God? You already have the Bible. You can open it up almost anywhere and find rules, rules, rules.

 

How do those rules make you, or anyone else, feel? There are people on this site who were raised in fundamentalist churches where everything was about the rules. How do those people feel? Suffocated? Anxious? Confused? Fearful of making their own wise choices? Maybe even afraid of a God who does nothing but lay down rules?

 

Do you want a God who truly loves you, or do you want a God who controls you? You can't have it both ways. There is no such thing as unconditional love filled with conditions. This is the obvious truth.

 

Do you want to be encouraged in learning how to be your best self, or is it just plain easier for you to follow a whole bunch of rules written thousands of years ago that make life temporarily easier, but which remove from you a real sense of personal responsibility for the choices you make?

 

Do you want a Jesus who's bigger than you, better than you, more divine than you, who will take charge of your life so you don't have to? Or do you want a Jesus who will tell you the truth about how courageous you really are, how trusting you really are, how devoted you really are, how grateful you can really be? Because, again, you can't have it both ways. Someone -- anyone -- whether that someone be human or angel, either believes in you right to the core, in which case that someone believes in unconditional divine love, OR that someone places so many conditions on your suitability to be accepted by God that you always feel awful inside, no matter what you do.

 

Do you want a loving God and a loving Jesus, or do you want a judgmental God and a judgmental Jesus?

 

You will have to make that choice for yourself. As for me, I, the angel Jesus, am only capable of loving you as you really are as a soul. I am only capable of loving you unconditionally. Do not ask me to judge you, compare you to others (since comparison is the antithesis of unconditional love), and do not ever expect me to tell you that you or anyone else is "chosen", "called", or "special". God has no chosen people. Never did, never will.

 

God the Mother, God the Father, and God the Choir of Angels love all souls equally. (P.S. - that's what I mean by the God Team.)

 

Thank you.

 

Love Jesus,

April 16, 2005

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Do you want a God who truly loves you, or do you want a God who controls you? You can't have it both ways. There is no such thing as unconditional love filled with conditions. This is the obvious truth."

 

 

Well, can we not compare God to our human mother and father? Just because our mother and father are our perents does this oddamtically and inescapably mean they willcontroll freaks?

 

"Do you want to be encouraged in learning how to be your best self, or is it just plain easier for you to follow a whole bunch of rules written thousands of years ago that make life temporarily easier, but which remove from you a real sense of personal responsibility for the choices you make?"

 

First, we must define what these "rules' are. I mean, are we talking about like Holy Pentecostals forbidding women from wearing make-up and having to wear long dresses or like how Southern Baptist forbid women to be preachers? These are all added man-made intepretations and are NOT really about Christianity or the Bible. And by this comment, "from you a real sense of personal responsibility for the choices you make," I assume you mean how the fundies just pre-occupie their minds with thoughts of flying away to heaven while saying to hell with the earth? I understand this, but Progressive Christian is obviously all onto helping the earth+animals, and social justice..so I don;t think simply believing in Jesus as a Savior for ALL erases this..and if it does for the fundies it is because they ARE fundies not because they simply believe in jesus as Savior...besides, contrary to what the fundies 'claim' they really don not believe Jesus is the Savior for ALL..but instead only them..and that IS a major difference.

 

"Do you want a Jesus who's bigger than you, better than you, more divine than you, who will take charge of your life so you don't have to?"

 

When we were all children ovbiously our mother and father were physically biiger than us...does this fact mean they MUST be controll freaks?

 

As far as Jesus being divine in that he is the highest refelction of God and thus we view as the relm to God...why is this threatening to us?

 

'Or do you want a Jesus who will tell you the truth about how courageous you really are, how trusting you really are, how devoted you really are, how grateful you can really be? Because, again, you can't have it both ways. "

 

Why not? Shall Progressives and Liberals be the flip side of the fundies on the right and concure with them in saying that one can not be Progressive AND Christian?

 

"Someone -- anyone -- whether that someone be human or angel, either believes in you right to the core, in which case that someone believes in unconditional divine love, OR that someone places so many conditions on your suitability to be accepted by God that you always feel awful inside, no matter what you do."

 

But what does this have to do with the concept of Jesus being a Savior for all and the highest reflection of God?

 

"Do you want a loving God and a loving Jesus, or do you want a judgmental God and a judgmental Jesus?"

 

I don;t see the judging coming from neither Jesus or God..I see it coming from the fundamental right that claims to have all the orthodox interpretations of them.

 

"You will have to make that choice for yourself. As for me, I, the angel Jesus, am only capable of loving you as you really are as a soul. I am only capable of loving you unconditionally."

 

I don't really understand all this..but as for myself I do not claim to be an angel or prophet. I am just one of your fellow human beings trying to be a Progressive Christian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Lily and friends,

 

Jesus here.

 

I only care that you try as hard as you can to be the best person you can be

 

lily wrote:You know? How can one argue with that? I'll tell ya how. It's not a core Christian message.

 

Hmmmm . . . I suspect, Lily, that you didn't think this out as clearly as you might have before you posted this. That's okay. We have all days when our head gets a bit ahead of our heart.

 

Why do you say this? I stand by what I wrote here. The only thing that I will concede is that its not my place to speak for all Christians. Some may find this a perfectly acceptable and inspiring message, Christian or not. To me it sounds like something on a high school gym bulletin board, and it does not inspire me, nor do I suspect that it has much power to inspire very many. Why? Because most people DO try to be the best they can be already, or haven't you noticed?

 

Just honestly Jen? If I went to a church and this is the best the preacher could do? I'd still be looking for a church. I don't mean to insult you and I wouldn't be taking this tack at all if you were writing as Jen. But there is something in your tone, the troubling fact that you insist that you are "channeling" information and not speaking your own heart and mind, that makes dialog with you draining and more frustrating than anything else.

 

I'm going to have to bow out.

 

lily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that's the unfortunate thing re this whole J-J (Jen-Jesus) thing; that what might be worthwhile notions to ponder contained with the postings aren't going to perhaps get the pondering they deserve simply because the poster chooses to post as "Jesus." Frankly, "Jesus" if your were a "big guy upstairs" I'd have assumed you'd have known that if you wanted your message to get considered, you'd know that starting out by immediately raising others' intense skepticism re the author wouldn't be the way to go. :) However, some of the discussion in this thread=the meat of it which I related to and to which I think it is worth responding is the whole notion of "spiritual authority." What leads us down the right spiritual path for each of us, (and I do believe "God" intends it to be different strokes for different folks)? I've said here before that we cannot rely only on our thinking process to assist us in this regard. Rather, i think it is largely a "heart" thing-an intuitive thing-whereby we get a sense however inchoate resounding from deep within us that a particular view or direction is "right" for us. to the degree that JJ is saying "listen to your heart," then i think she/he has a point worth pondering. Have a good one, Earl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus here.

 

I'm picking up the pace here, and moving on to something fresh and new for those of you who are interested. First, I have to apologize up front, because yesterday I told you I didn't want to give you a long, boring lecture about brain function, and that still holds true -- but there's one piece of information I absolutely must share with you, because it really is "revealed", and I hope you'll find it helpful. In other words, unlike the other topics I mentioned yesterday (like history and quantum physics), which you can look up for yourself, this is one topic you can't look up for yourself because nobody else has written it yet. This is the God Team's freebie to researchers out there. Take this ball and run with it if you see merit in it, as I hope you will. This is the missing puzzle piece, as it were. The caveat is this: the God Team would greatly appreciate it if you would try to remember where this information originally came from -- straight from the God Team.

 

Okay. For those of you who already have a lot of background in psychology and neurophysiology, please be patient. I'm trying to simplify.

 

In 1970, the psychologist Abraham Maslow, who has been called the spiritual father of humanistic psychology, proposed two basic pyramids to try to describe basic human needs. The first pyramid has five distinct tiers. At the bottom lies the tier of physiological needs. Next, safety needs. Third, belonging and love needs. Fourth, self-esteem. And last, at the peak, what Maslow called the self-actualized state, which he felt could only be achieved if all the other needs had first been met. Maslow's research showed that few people achieve the self-actualized state.

 

Maslow also recognized a second but equally important pyramid of human needs that consists of two tiers: first, the need for knowledge. Second, the need for understanding.

 

Okay. This is pretty pivotal research as far as the God Team is concerned. Although Maslow was an aetheist himself, at least he had a positive, optimistic outlook on human nature, and believed it was possible for a person to find the courage to seek self-actualization. At least he understood that human beings really do need all the things he put in his two pyramids.

 

Here's what he didn't know. Here's what no scientific researchers have been able to pin down. (Perhaps this will soon change?)

 

There are two completely different but deeply intertwined neural circuits in your biological brain. One circuit is what I will call the Darwinian circuit. The other circuit is what I will call the soul circuit.

 

Yup. Two completely different circuits, one relying on 3-D cues (that would be the Darwinian circuit) and the other relying on 4-D cues (that's the soul circuit). These two circuits are meant to complement each other, to mutually benefit each other, so that you might have the chance to find out, in your temporary human existence, what it feels like to combine the best of your 3-D human self with the best of your 4-D angelic self.

 

The Darwinian circuit is what gives you the power to taste chocolate and enjoy it, since cacao trees don't grow in the 4th dimension (though don't despair if you're a chocaholic -- there are many things even better than chocolate on the Other Side).

 

The soul circuit, on the other hand, is the place from which you draw the powerful emotion of gratitude, gratitude for the chance to have and enjoy the chocolate as a human.

 

The Darwinian circuit is God's gift to you as a soul-in-human-form. The Darwinian circuit is the stuff in your DNA that gives your brain and body the tools to physically survive, the tools to meet what Maslow calls your "physiological needs" and your "safety needs". This is all very straightforward and increasingly well researched. The Darwinian circuit is the gift from God that allows your biological brain to remember the fact that if you put your hand in a fire, it will hurt. The Darwinian circuit is the gift from God that gives you physical senses so you can try to understand the environment you live in. The Darwinian circuit can be likened to an extremely sophisticated computer program that learns from its mistakes, and builds a body of logical, intellectual knowledge to help you meet your physiological needs and your safety needs. The Darwinian circuit (if it's operating the way God intends) reminds you to wear a coat when it's really cold, reminds you to eat when your brain and body need an input of protein, fats, and carbs. But that's all it's designed to do. It's not designed to even attempt to meet your other needs -- your need for "belonging and love", and your need for "self-esteem". Those needs are governed by the soul circuit in your biological brain.

 

The soul circuit is the part of your brain that helps you monitor and improve your relationships, both your relationship with yourself and your relationships with others (including the God Team). The soul circuit helps you get to know other people, helps you care about other people, makes you cry when you see a Hallmark commercial. The soul circuit is a pared down version of your true 4-D self. (If we were talking in terms of electronics, the soul circuit is like a step-down transformer. It takes complex 4-D emotional energy, and translates it into 3-D biochemical energy, such as the neurotransmitter called oxytocin. Also, as a truly big hint to researchers out there, I'd took a much closer look at those glial cells that are holding the brain together. The cerebellum has a lot more in it than you realize, too. Plus the role of dopamine as a mediator between the two circuits needs to be examined. Guess at heart I'm a neurophysiologist.)

 

Okay. I think you'll like the next part. Take a piece of paper, and draw a Celtic cross. (If you're not sure what this is, a Celtic cross is a cross with a large circle in the middle that cuts through all four arms of the cross.) Take the left-to-right axis of the Celtic cross, and label it the "Darwinian circuit". Now, label the top-to-bottom axis the "soul circuit". So what does that give you? It gives you a circle in the centre that combines the "energy", if you will, of both the Darwinian circuit and the soul circuit. This circle of combined energy is the Christ Zone.

 

Your task, as a soul-in-human-form is to try to live your life somewhere inside the Christ Zone. You don't have to try to live on the eensie-teensie one-dimensional point that's dead-centre on the cross. Nobody can do that -- it just isn't possible in human form. You merely have to try to be in the Christ Zone, to try as hard as you can every day to understand what that means.

 

If, however, you choose to live your life on the extremes of either circuit, either totally ignoring your legitimate soul needs for "belonging and love" as well as "self esteem", or totally ignoring the legitimate biological needs of your physical body, you will be both unhealthy and unhappy.

 

I know. It sounds so simple, somebody must have figured out this precise equation long, long ago. Well, okay. You're not totally wrong there. I figured this out with a lot of angelic help when I lived as Jesus. Other thinkers have found it, too, but they're not as well remembered.

 

So where does God fit into this picture? What's in this model for you as a spiritual person who longs to feel God's love deep in your heart, so deep that you always feel God's presence? This model is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. This model is the only certain route to a life filled with balanced joys, balanced pleasures, courageous service, beautiful and sustaining friendships with others, and ultimate trust that God the Mother and God the Father bless you every day, now and always.

 

If you want to learn the basics of how to live in the Christ Zone, I look forward to teaching you with all the love and devotion you deserve.

 

Thank you.

 

Love Jesus

April 17, 2005

 

P.S. I know I didn't get back to Maslow's second pyramid of "knowledge" and "understanding". But you've probably already figured out where I'm going to go with that.

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

Jesus here.

 

I'm picking up the pace here, and moving on to something fresh and new for those of you who are interested.  First, I have to apologize up front, because yesterday I told you I didn't want to give you a long, boring lecture about brain function, and that still holds true -- but there's one piece of information I absolutely must share with you, because it really is "revealed", and I hope you'll find it helpful.  In other words, unlike the other topics I mentioned yesterday (like history and quantum physics), which you can look up for yourself, this is one topic you can't look up for yourself because nobody else has written it yet.  This is the God Team's freebie to researchers out there.  Take this ball and run with it if you see merit in it, as I hope you will.  This is the missing puzzle piece, as it were.  The caveat is this:  the God Team would greatly appreciate it if you would try to remember where this information originally came from -- straight from the God Team.

 

Okay.  For those of you who already have a lot of background in psychology and neurophysiology, please be patient.  I'm trying to simplify. 

 

In 1970, the psychologist Abraham Maslow, who has been called the spiritual father of humanistic psychology, proposed two basic pyramids to try to describe basic human needs.  The first pyramid has five distinct tiers.  At the bottom lies the tier of physiological needs.  Next, safety needs.  Third, belonging and love needs.  Fourth, self-esteem.  And last, at the peak, what Maslow called the self-actualized state, which he felt could only be achieved if all the other needs had first been met.  Maslow's research showed that few people achieve the self-actualized state.

 

Maslow also recognized a second but equally important pyramid of human needs that consists of two tiers: first, the need for knowledge.  Second, the need for understanding.

 

Okay.  This is pretty pivotal research as far as the God Team is concerned.  Although Maslow was an aetheist himself, at least he had a positive, optimistic outlook on human nature, and believed it was possible for a person to find the courage to seek self-actualization.  At least he understood that human beings really do need all the things he put in his two pyramids.

 

Here's what he didn't know.  Here's what no scientific researchers have been able to pin down.  (Perhaps this will soon change?)

 

There are two completely different but deeply intertwined neural circuits in your biological brain.  One circuit is what I will call the Darwinian circuit.  The other circuit is what I will call the soul circuit.

 

Yup.  Two completely different circuits, one relying on 3-D cues (that would be the Darwinian circuit) and the other relying on 4-D cues (that's the soul circuit).  These two circuits are meant to complement each other, to mutually benefit each other, so that you might have the chance to find out, in your temporary human existence, what it feels like to combine the best of your 3-D human self with the best of your 4-D angelic self.

 

The Darwinian circuit is what gives you the power to taste chocolate and enjoy it, since cacao trees don't grow in the 4th dimension (though don't despair if you're a chocaholic -- there are many things even better than chocolate on the Other Side).

 

The soul circuit, on the other hand, is the place from which you draw the powerful emotion of gratitude, gratitude for the chance to have and enjoy the chocolate as a human.

 

The Darwinian circuit is God's gift to you as a soul-in-human-form.  The Darwinian circuit is the stuff in your DNA that gives your brain and body the tools to physically survive, the tools to meet what Maslow calls your "physiological needs" and your "safety needs".  This is all very straightforward and increasingly well researched.  The Darwinian circuit is the gift from God that allows your biological brain to remember the fact that if you put your hand in a fire, it will hurt.  The Darwinian circuit is the gift from God that gives you physical senses so you can try to understand the environment you live in.  The Darwinian circuit can be likened to an extremely sophisticated computer program that learns from its mistakes, and builds a body of logical, intellectual knowledge to help you meet your physiological needs and your safety needs.  The Darwinian circuit (if it's operating the way God intends) reminds you to wear a coat when it's really cold, reminds you to eat when your brain and body need an input of protein, fats, and carbs.  But that's all it's designed to do.  It's not designed to even attempt to meet your other needs -- your need for "belonging and love", and your need for "self-esteem".  Those needs are governed by the soul circuit in your biological brain.

 

The soul circuit is the part of your brain that helps you monitor and improve your relationships, both your relationship with yourself and your relationships with others (including the God Team).  The soul circuit helps you get to know other people, helps you care about other people, makes you cry when you see a Hallmark commercial.  The soul circuit is a pared down version of your true 4-D self.  (If we were talking in terms of electronics, the soul circuit is like a step-down transformer.  It takes complex 4-D emotional energy, and translates it into 3-D biochemical energy, such as the neurotransmitter called oxytocin.  Also, as a truly big hint to researchers out there, I'd took a much closer look at those glial cells that are holding the brain together.  The cerebellum has a lot more in it than you realize, too.  Plus the role of dopamine as a mediator between the two circuits needs to be examined.  Guess at heart I'm a neurophysiologist.)

 

Okay.  I think you'll like the next part.  Take a piece of paper, and draw a Celtic cross.  (If you're not sure what this is, a Celtic cross is a cross with a large circle in the middle that cuts through all four arms of the cross.)  Take the left-to-right axis of the Celtic cross, and label it the "Darwinian circuit".  Now, label the top-to-bottom axis the "soul circuit".  So what does that give you?  It gives you a circle in the centre that combines the "energy", if you will, of both the Darwinian circuit and the soul circuit.  This circle of combined energy is the Christ Zone.

 

Your task, as a soul-in-human-form is to try to live your life somewhere inside the Christ Zone.  You don't have to try to live on the eensie-teensie one-dimensional point that's dead-centre on the cross.  Nobody can do that -- it just isn't possible in human form.  You merely have to try to be in the Christ Zone, to try as hard as you can every day to understand what that means.

 

If, however, you choose to live your life on the extremes of either circuit, either totally ignoring your legitimate soul needs for "belonging and love" as well as "self esteem", or totally ignoring the legitimate biological needs of your physical body, you will be both unhealthy and unhappy.

 

I know.  It sounds so simple, somebody must have figured out this precise equation long, long ago.  Well, okay.  You're not totally wrong there.  I figured this out with a lot of angelic help when I lived as Jesus.  Other thinkers have found it, too, but they're not as well remembered. 

 

So where does God fit into this picture?  What's in this model for you as a spiritual person who longs to feel God's love deep in your heart, so deep that you always feel God's presence?  This model is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  This model is the only certain route to a life filled with balanced joys, balanced pleasures, courageous service, beautiful and sustaining friendships with others, and ultimate trust that God the Mother and God the Father bless you every day, now and always.

 

If you want to learn the basics of how to live in the Christ Zone, I look forward to teaching you with all the love and devotion you deserve.

 

Thank you.

 

Love Jesus

April 17, 2005

 

P.S. I know I didn't get back to Maslow's second pyramid of "knowledge" and "understanding".  But you've probably already figured out where I'm going to go with that.

In terms of engaging the ideas presented, the business re the neurotransmitters & "God" has actually interested some researchers resulting in an area of study referred to as "neurotheology," (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology). While such stuff is somewhat interesting to me, don't really see the practical applications to a spirituality of daily living, unless, like the pharmaceutical industry, we hope via such research to come up with God pills that help us find God ;) I don't hold out much hope for that, though. I do suspect though that none of us here are such materialistic reductionists that we assume consciousness is simply a by-product of the brain. So, obviously if we assume some sort of brain-mind interface, it allows for the possibilities of "interfaces" of many levels or aspects of our being. Have a good one, Earl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SmithKlineBeechum was advertising Paxil (antidepressant) as a God pill - briefly. I only saw the ad once before they pulled it... something along the lines of "never be alone again"... very sad statement.

 

Strikes me a lot like the movies Lost in Translation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - empty, meaningless, existence.... it seems to be rampant in our "christian country" :(

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