JR59: News of the World: "New Lamps For Old"

A: I see a lot of similarity between the current phone hacking scandal in the U.K. and the behaviour of the apostle Paul and his cronies in the first century CE. In both situations, a very powerful man does whatever he wants regardless of how unethical, corrupt, manipulative, and cruel it is. The only difference between then and now is that Rupert Murdoch's employees have received a public shaming. Without the huge public outcry that accompanied the recent re-revelation about phone hacking at the News of the World, the authorities wouldn't have reopened the investigation or arrested more people. The authorities -- or rather I should say certain individuals in senior positions of authority in the police and government -- knew about the accusations of unethical conduct and did nothing much about them until regular people started yelling and putting their foot down.

“But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; for they look at their image and, on going away, immediately forget what they look like. But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act — they will be blessed in their doing” (James 1:22-25). Replicas of Ancient Greek vessels. Photo credit JAT 2014.

J: The parallels are uncanny. If people today are having trouble imagining what it felt like for my followers soon after my death, they can read about the phone hacking scandal and put themselves in the shoes of the families of the murder victims who were psychologically assaulted by the News of the World reporters, editors, and decision makers.

A: I think most people would be shocked to learn how unethical Paul really was. How cold and calculating he really was.

J: He was a business man. Very practical, very logical. He was like the editor at the News of the World who approved the phone hacking strategies. Anything was okay as long as it got the job done. "The end justifies the means" and all that crap. Success at any price. Just the way his bosses in Alexandria wanted it.

A: Yet you've said in previous discussions that Paul truly believed in what he was doing.

J: Sure. A successful psychopath is an ideologue. It's what separates the successful psychopaths -- "snakes in suits," as researcher Robert Hare calls them -- from the garden variety criminals who get caught and thrown in jail for reckless, impulsive crimes. An ideologue, on the other hand -- and Paul was a religio-political ideologue -- uses "The Big Idea" as a crutch to hold up his dysfunctional brain. It's a coping mechanism. It's an external framework of ideas that the psychopath clings to because he's lost his own internal compass. He can't hear the voice of his own soul telling him what's right and wrong. But he's still very logical, very goal-oriented, and he's addicted to status. So if he can "attach" himself to an external Big Idea, and apply his logic and ambition to it, he can acquire status and not end up in prison.

A: Why won't he end up in prison? Aren't psychopaths inherently impulsive? Prone to risk-taking behaviours and uninterested in consequences? Doesn't this make him more likely to do something criminal?

J: Yes. It's part of the package for psychopaths. But if you put a psychopath in a structured organization where there are very strict rules, very clear punishments, and rigid ladders of governance, he'll be so busy trying to claw his way up "the ladder of success" he won't bother going out to rob banks or gas stations. The buzz he gets from plotting his long-term strategy for "success" is much better than the temporary high of terrorizing a gas station attendant.

This is not to say the snakes-in-suits are "nicer" psychopaths. They're not nice people at all. But no one can question their ability to promote "The Big Idea" (whatever their Big Idea happens to be) with charismatic passion. Regular people are easily sucked in by this passion.

A: So Paul was a snake-in-a-suit. I kinda like the way this ties in with the conversations we've had about the Book of Genesis.

J: Paul was promoting the Big Idea of salvation. Escape from a life without status. Escape from a death without status. He and his followers built a humongous empire on the "4 S's" -- sin, separation, sacraments, and salvation. But Paul's Big Idea was just that -- an idea. A belief system. A theory without proof. A theory that's never had proof. Its very lack of provableness is what makes it so attractive to psychopaths. Why? Because there's nothing in the Big Idea that can act as a mirror for a psychopath's true intent. There's nothing to make him look at himself honestly. There's nothing to challenge him to be his best self. The Big Idea gives him 1,001 excuses to brush his abusive behaviour under the carpet. Unfortunately, until the psychopath sees himself as he really is, he has no incentive to change.

A: I think we've just spiralled back to your analogy between a psychopath and the Greek monster Medusa. Medusa's hideous face turned everyone into stone until Perseus held up a mirror-like shield and forced her to look at herself.

J: Part of the problem here is that regular people don't understand what makes a psychopath tick. Regular people look at a "successful psychopath" -- the guy who has the drive and ambition to work 16 hour days -- and they think he must really know who he is and what he wants. They think they should try to be like him. They think they themselves are failures if they want to go home to their families after working an 8 hour day. But the honest truth is the successful psychopath has no idea who he really is. All he has inside himself is a score card. A score card instead of a heart. His soul is all heart, of course, but he long ago stopped listening to this core part of himself. This is why he has no conscience and no empathy. His soul isn't defective, but his biological brain is seriously out of balance. He's so used to living this way that it's normal for him. Even worse, he likes living this way. He likes hurting other people. He likes to make regular people feel small and useless. And he's not going to change until he recognizes the honest truth that he's not a nice person.

A: It took me years to understand this lesson. I misunderstood what compassion was. I thought compassion meant you should never intentionally make another person feel bad about themselves. That's before I learned (the hard way) that a lot of people out there want to hurt other people and consciously choose to hurt other people and get a high out of psychologically abusing other people and won't decide to stop this behaviour until they're forced to look in the mirror. I also learned the hard way that the more dysfunctional a person is, the more insulted and offended she'll be when you tell her she isn't being a nice person.

J: You're thinking of someone in particular when you say that.

A: Yes. I'm thinking of Grace, the modern day "spiritual leader" (a.k.a. apocalyptic prophet) I hung out with for several years before I came to my senses.

J: These are the people who are quickest to say, "You have no right to say such things about me."

A: Hey, don't forget the other favourite response of the psychopath who insists she's a nice person: "Oh, my dear, tut tut, how can you say such things about me? Why, everyone knows what a good person I am and how hard I work on behalf of the community. I'm so concerned for you, you poor thing. You really need to get some help."

J: A psychopath has extremely strong defences against hearing the truth about his or her own behaviour. It's scary how strong these defences are. The doctrines of orthodox Western Christianity have served as excellent body armour for its successful psychopaths. Pauline Christians are not called upon to look honestly at themselves and make changes to live up to their true potential. Instead they're encouraged to stoop to the level of a psychopath's dysfunctional mind so the psychopath doesn't have to feel bad about himself.

A: You said pretty much the same thing in James 1:22-25.

J: I'm a consistent fellow. But it's not hard to be consistent when you're trying to speak the truth. Truth has an annoying habit of being consistent and provable and open to new and unfolding sources of knowledge. Even if it takes a couple of thousand years for the truth to be recognized, for the facts to be identified, remembered, understood, and acted upon.

A: I'm glad there's finally a solid and widespread foundation of research in place so the truth about Paul's "News of the World" can finally come out.

JR51: Fifth Step: Keep Christmas, Toss Easter

A: So far we've talked about rescuing the soul, restoring the mystery of divine love, inviting our Mother to the table, and insisting on balance as four ways to help heal the church. What else do you have in that angelic bag of surprises you carry around?  

Christmas tree. Photo credit JAT 2012.

J: The liturgical calendar of the Church must be changed.  

A: You mean the calendar of religious events and themes and holy days that tells people what they're supposed to be celebrating when.  

J: Calendars are very important to the healthy functioning of the brain. So the Church still needs a calendar to help focus events for the year. I'm not recommending that the Church do away entirely with the idea of having a yearly cycle of events. Far from it. I'm suggesting that the Church revise the calendar and bring it into alignment with the needs of the soul.  

A: What would that mean in practical terms? 

J: It would mean you'd get to keep Christmas but you'd have to put Easter in the garbage bin.

A: Get rid of Easter? I can see the steam coming off the heads of conservative Christians already.  

J: It would be kinder, in the eyes of many Christians, for me to suggest that Holy Week be "reformed" rather than axed altogether. But Holy Week is a celebration of Pauline Christianity at its worst. The overriding theme of Holy Week is salvation -- escape -- not healing or redemption. Every year it sends the wrong message to Christians. It sends the message that the focus of their relationship with God should be the Saviour -- his death and resurrection and coming again. This was never the message I taught during my ministry as Jesus. Nor is the meaning of my time on the cross being properly taught and represented by the Church. There's no way that Holy Week can be fixed. It would be the same as asking people to celebrate "the joy" of an S.S. death camp like Auschwitz. (I say this as facetiously as possible.) There is no joy to be found in the traditional teachings of Holy Week. 

A: I've noticed a tendency among more liberal ministers to treat the "events" of Holy Week in a more symbolic way -- to de-emphasize the crucifixion and instead emphasize the themes of renewal and rebirth and regrowth in the spring.  

J: It's very helpful and hopeful to talk about the themes of renewal and rebirth. I have no problem with that per se. I have a problem with a continuing effort among theologians to attach those themes to me. I am one man, one angel, one child of God. I'm not the Fisher King. I'm not Horus. I'm not the dead and rising Sol Invictus. I'm not the resurrected Christ. I'm just a stubborn s.o.b. who won't shut up. I wasn't even crucified in the springtime. I was crucified in the fall. The early church's efforts to place the time of my crucifixion in the spring were largely centred on John's writings. John had his own reasons for wanting to place the time of my crucifixion at Passover. But John wasn't a man who cared about historicity or facts. He wrote what he wanted to write about me. It helped him sleep better at night.  

A: A minute ago you mentioned joy as if it's somehow significant or important to the healing of the church.  

J: Joy is crucial to the experience of faith.  

A: How do you define "joy"?  

J: I use the word "joy" to express the gratitude and devotion and trust that all angels feel in their relationship with God the Mother and God the Father. I don't use it as a synonym for worship or praise. I don't use it as a synonym for the excitement of being part of a large crowd (which is more like hysteria). For me, joy is a word that conveys the happiness and deep contentment we feel as angels. It's the feeling you get when you feel really, really grateful and really, really SAFE at the same time. It makes you smile from the inside out. 

A: Christians have long believed that the purpose of angels is to offer praise and worship to God. Do angels worship God?  

J: Noooooooo. You never see angels down on their knees with their heads bowed in humility. What you see is angels living their purpose of love in everything they do. As angels, we show our never-ending love and appreciation of our parents by choosing thoughts and words and actions that bring more love into Creation. We live in imitation of our parents' courage. We're not carbon copies of our divine mother and father -- that is, we all have our own unique temperaments and personalities and talents and interests -- but we're all alike in that we all choose love. There are many different minds and many different bodies in Creation, but it can be said in all truthfulness that there's only One Heart. It's the feeling of joy that comes from our choice to share One Heart that makes us feel like a big family. We all belong to one family.   

A: Where you feel safe, despite your differences in talent and temperament.  

J: Yes. This is the underlying intent of divine love. It's the choice to see another soul as, in fact, another soul -- as someone who's not you, who's not a mere extension of you. It's the choice to respect differences between individual souls, while at the same time choosing to help other souls be their best selves.  

A: Can you explain what you mean by that last statement?  

J: Here's the thing. No one soul can "do" all things or "be" all things. Every soul has unique strengths. But every soul also has unique absences of strength. Angels are always giving and receiving help within the family. An angel with a particular strength will offer that strength to help brothers and sisters who need assistance with something they're not very good at themselves. The same angel who offers a strength to another will in turn be very grateful to receive help from another soul in an area where he or she needs some help. There's no sense of shame or guilt or inadequacy among angels when they have an absence of strength. They accept who they are. They don't judge themselves or feel sorry for themselves or describe themselves as flawed or imperfect or unworthy. They gratefully and humbly ask for -- and receive -- help when there's something they don't understand or something they want to do but don't have the skills for. It's all about education, mentorship, and personal responsibility, even among God's angels. As above, so below.  

A: At the start of this conversation you said that Christians could keep the celebration of Christmas. Why? Why keep Christmas and not Easter? 

J: December 25th is a day marked by all angels in Creation. It is the day when Divine Love was born. 

 A: I thought you said we have to get rid of all the invented myths about your ministry. Isn't this one of them?  

J: I wasn't born on December 25th. I was born in the month of November. When I refer to the day when Divine Love was born, I'm talking about God the Mother and God the Father. I'm talking about the day when their Divine Love for each other first emerged in Creation. It was the day when everything -- absolutely everything -- changed. It was the day -- the actual day in the far, far distant past (before the time of the "Big Bang") -- when they made the choice to live for each other. It's the day when the Christ was born -- NOT, I'd like to reiterate, the day when I, Jesus, was born, but the day when Mother-and-Father-Together-As-Christ were born. When their new reality was born. When their new relationship was born. None of us would be here today if they hadn't made that choice.  

A: So you're saying that God the Mother and God the Father have an actual calendar of the kind we would recognize here on Planet Earth, and that the day of December 25th is marked on this calendar? This seems like too much of a coincidence. 

J: God isn't using a human calendar. Humans are using a divine calendar. God the Mother and God the Father are pretty good at math, you could say. It wasn't difficult for them to set up indications of their calendar system all over the known baryonic universe. Planet Earth runs on the same calendar system that angels use. More or less. There are cycles that can't be argued with, cycles that are fixed by astronomical and mathematical realities. Solar and lunar and galactic cycles dictate the calendar, not the other way around. Humans didn't "invent" this calendar. They simply noted its existence.  

A: Ah. The Preexistent Calendar. I'd love to see what the theologians will do with this theory!  

J: The cycles are real and meaningful to all souls. The Church liturgical calendar needs to honour and respect these cycles. Obviously there can't be too many "fixed liturgical days" because there has to be room for change in patterns depending on latitude and longitude. The time of regeneration, rebirth, and regrowth changes depending on where you live. The Church has to make allowances for these scientific realities.  

A: Any other suggestions?  

J: Yes. The Church should get rid of Holy Week entirely, including all the bells and whistles such as Lent. In its place, they should institute at a different time of year a brand new 3-day Festival of Redemption. Like Christmas, it would be a "fixed" celebration, celebrated by all Christians at the same time each year. 

A: This is an entirely new idea. What would the purpose be?  

J: The Festival of Redemption would be a time for Christians to stop their busy everyday lives and get together for workshops, seminars, and conferences on the theme of helping each other heal. Workshops could be held locally in the homes of individuals. Or they could be held in larger venues, such as university campuses. Not everyone would want to experience this festival in the same way -- and this is as it should be because souls have different needs and different learning styles. In fact, there should NOT be one particular fixed geographical location or "pilgrimage" site for this Festival. Having "special sites" would undermine the purpose of the Festival. The idea that only some sites are "sacred" or "specially blessed by God" is a human idea. Every square inch of Creation is sacred and blessed by God as far as the angels are concerned.  

A: Something tells me the Biblical idea of specific sites sanctified by God is another idea that's going to be going into the garbage can along with the Easter eggs.  

J: Hey. Don't throw out the chocolate bunnies. They're one of the only parts of Easter worth keeping. That and the big family dinners. 

A: Amen to that.

JR49: Third Step: Invite Our Mother to the Table

A: Last time we spoke, the idea of the "scandal of particularity" sort of popped onto the page. I've been thinking about it for the past few days, and I'd like to return to that idea if it's okay with you. 

J: Fine by me.  

A: You said -- and I quote -- "There IS a 'scandal of particularity,' but it applies to God the Mother and God the Father, not to me." Can you elaborate on this?  

J: Orthodox Western Christianity -- the religious structure built on the teachings of Paul and Paul's orthodox successors -- has worked very hard in the last few centuries to "reposition" me, Jesus son of Joseph, in the marketplace of world opinion. Many critics of Christianity have pointed out how damaging and abusive it is to claim that God "became" one particular man in one particular place at one particular point in time. No end of systemic abuse has been voluntarily created by Church representatives because of this claim. Claims about me have been used to justify maltreatment of women and children, unrepentant selling of human beings, violence against Jews, and attacks on the "inferiority" of all other religious traditions. 

Christians who think that I, Jesus, am happy about their claims should check out the current song by Christina Perri called "Jar of Hearts."* "Jar of Hearts" is a song about a person who has finally figured out how abusive her former partner is. "Who do you think you are?" she asks with no holds barred, "running' 'round leaving scars, collecting your jar of hearts, and tearing love apart." This song reflects quite accurately how I feel about "Mother Church." I want no part of the traditional teachings about Jesus the Saviour. If they want to keep their Saviour, they'll have to find a new candidate, because this particular angel has resigned. Quit. Left the building. I'm tired of being their whipping boy.  

A: Not quite the answer I was expecting.  

J: People think that angels have no feelings. Well, I have plenty of feelings about the way the Church has abused me and those I love. I forgive individual church leaders -- those who have perpetrated great harm in the name of God and Jesus -- but I feel the pain intensely. Forgiveness isn't the same thing as sweeping great harms under the carpet. Forgiveness is first and foremost a state of honesty -- honesty about the intent and the injury inflicted by the intent. The intent of the Church's teachings about me (Jesus) and about sin, separation from God, sacraments, and salvation is selfish and narcissistic. These teachings promote physiological addiction disorders. They harm lives. They harm relationships. They harm the understanding of humanity's role in Creation. I do not respect these teachings, and I do not support the right of the Church to teach abusive spirituality to desperate people. Abuse is abuse. Western society as a whole no longer supports or condones spousal abuse or child abuse or corporate abuse. Yet Western society continues to condone spiritual abuse. This must stop.  

A: Many Christians have noticed the problem of abuse in the Church and have decided to walk away from the Church. They don't see how it can be fixed.  

J: People want and need to be in relationship with God. They need faith in their lives. Unfortunately, the Church has taken terrible advantage of this need. 

A: I haven't seen much willingness among Christians I know to ask tough questions about Church doctrine. They're trying to change the window dressings while the basement foundation is full of rot. No wonder people are leaving the mainstream churches in droves! At least in Canada they are. Can't comment on the experience in other countries.  

J: In Canada there's a widespread ethos of inclusiveness, access to public health services and public schooling, government accountability, gender equality, and prevention of child abuse, but individual Canadians aren't seeing their day-to-day ethos reflected in the core teachings of the orthodox Church.  

A: Because it's not there. The words are there, but not the underlying ethos.  

J: No. The ethos isn't there. The Church can talk till it's blue in the face about the importance of service work and mission, but regular people can still sense there's "something wrong with the picture." They can sense there's rot in the foundations. And they don't want to be a part of that. Some of them decide to leave the church. Others stay and do their best to try to fix it from within. But there's mass confusion. And people are starving -- literally starving -- for a faith experience that makes sense to them at the deepest possible level of the heart.  

“A woman in the crowd said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that fed you. He said to her: Blessed are they who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, ‘Blessed is the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk'” (Gospel of Thomas 79 a-b). The Gospel of Thomas follows a minority voice in Judaism that speaks of women in a positive light and shows them as being equal to men in God’s community (rather than inferior knock-offs). This particular saying in Thomas goes even further and talks about God the Mother as one who shouldn’t be understood in terms of ordinary human motherhood. As Co-Creator of everything in the universe, our blessed Divine Mother is beyond our simple conceptions of what it means to be a mother. When compared to Hellenistic cult images of the Divine Mother (for example, the multi-breasted Artemis figure from Ephesus), it’s easy to see why Jesus faced an uphill battle in changing people’s perception of God. Photo credit JAT 2025.

 

A: For 2,000 years now we've been saddled with a religion that absolutely insists in no uncertain terms how ludicrous it is to even consider the remote possibility that possibly -- just possibly -- God might not be a "he" but might instead be a "he and a she." It's okay, of course, for us to bust our brains on the question of the Trinity and all the other "mysteries" that go with traditional Christianity. But it's not okay for us to suppose that God is two people united forever in divine marriage with each other.** 

J: Such a portrayal of God brings with it all sorts of implications the Church doesn't want to deal with. For one thing, they'd have to explain how and why they "kidnapped" our Divine Mother, why they eradicated her from the message. They'd have to explain -- at least in the Roman Catholic Church -- why they allowed a cult to flourish around the fictional character of Mary, Mother of God. 

A: You did have a mother. And her name was Miriam.  

J: Yes. But she was no more the Mother of God than I was God incarnate. She was a normal human mother. That's it.  

A: Two flesh and blood people -- you and your human mother -- who've been turned into myths, lies, and symbols. 

J: Meanwhile, there's a very real and very particular Mother in Creation. God the Mother. This is the scandal of particularity I was referring to -- the scandal of God the Mother and God the Father being two particular, definable, real, knowable people. Real people who have existed and continue to exist in real time and real space and real history. Real people who refuse to be moulded by the grandiose lies made by assorted religious mystics over the centuries. Real people who belong to each other -- not to their children -- in marital love. Real people who are our PARENTS. Real people who get hurt when their dysfunctional human children try to cross the boundaries of safety and trust between parents and children by engaging in occult practices -- especially occult sexual practices.  

A: Mystics have often described their "union with God" as a mystical marriage, with God as the bridegroom and the mystic or the church as the bride.  

J: Yeah. And for the record, that's another doctrine that's gotta go. It's highly dysfunctional and abusive for children to want to have sex with their own parents. This should go without saying. But for too long the Church has condoned mystical practices that lead in this direction. 

A: Who can forget Bernini's sculpture of St. Teresa of Avila with her mouth agape and her toes curled in orgasmic ecstasy?  

J: Here's a thought. Maybe we should butt out of the personal relationship between God the Mother and God the Father -- their private life -- and get on with the important job of being their children. For starters, human beings of faith could be nice to our Mother for a change. You know, talk to her. Include her. Invite her to the table of faith. Look to her for guidance and inspiration. Say thank you to her. Look her in the eye and say, "Thank you for loving me."  

A: It's amazing how effective the Church's strategy has been. They've managed to put blinders on people's eyes so they literally can't see God the Mother. She's the Invisible Woman in Western theology. She's standing right in front of us, waving her arms and jumping up and down, and people of faith still don't see her.  

J: If that isn't gender abuse, I don't know what is. 

 

* "Jar of Hearts" was written by Drew C. Lawrence, Christina J. Perri, and Barrett N. Yeretsian. 

** See also http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/02/divine-love-story.html and http://concinnatechristianity.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-my-experience-as-chemist-has.html

JR47: "Knowledge" Versus "Truth"

A: Tell me how you would explain the difference between "knowledge" and "truth." There seem to be a lot of different theories floating around. 

J: Here's one of the problems with relying too heavily on words. One person's "knowledge" is another person's "truth." One person's "knowledge" is another person's "wisdom." One person's "knowledge" is another person's "fact." Words can be very messy, very sloppy. It's important for individuals to be clear about their use of abstract words like these.  

A: Okay. How do you, as a soul-in-angel-form and speaker of the English language, use the word "knowledge"?  

J: I use the word "knowledge" to mean an accumulation of facts. Lots of raw facts. These facts may or may not be connected to each other. But there are lots of them. Lots of different facts that can be accessed from memory or from sources such as books or computers to answer specific questions of fact. 

A: Like the question and answer pairs on Jeopardy. 

J: Exactly. These question and answer pairs rely on logic and reason. But there's usually little emotional content. And there's no need for "insight" or "understanding" or "truth." The facts speak for themselves. Of course, as human Jeopardy contenders recently discovered, a honkin' big computer can access raw facts -- "knowledge" -- faster than most human brains can.

 

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear(respect) the Lord, and turn away from evil. It will be a healing for your flesh and a refreshment for your body" (Proverbs 3:5-8). If you really want to heal your relationship with God, try humbly accepting you probably have a lot of old beliefs that are messing up the way your brain works. Certain beliefs about God can "freeze up" your neural networks and prevent your brain from being able to process Divine guidance. Without easy access to your Divine guidance, you're limited to the ideas inside your own brain. And let's face it, some of those ideas are probably pretty stupid (like Young Earth Creationism). The Truth about you and God (a wonderful Truth!) is already deep within you, but first you have to melt the ice that's keeping you from feeling your Soul pathways. Photo credit JAT 2022.

J (Cont): Having said that, I want to make it clear that I'm not dissing the importance of "knowledge." It's important to be able to remember and access facts. Facts give information about things that are already known, already certain -- things that are "a done deal." Facts help ground the learning process. In fact, learning can't take place at all in the absence of facts. This is true even in fields such as philosophy and theology. The universe isn't reinventing itself every few seconds like some big relativistic, existential "symbol" in the sky (as some religious philosophers would have you believe). There are fixed facts, fixed historical realities that guide all choices made by God and God's angels. The universe has a history -- a factual history -- that can't be changed. The universe's past has a measurable effect on its present. The past matters. And the past is fact -- not fiction. The past can't be altered. Time is linear. Even for God.  

A: This will come as a great disappointment to fans of time travel stories. And to theologians who insist that All Time has been known to God since the very beginning. God's foreknowledge of all that will happen in the future is the basis of Christian "predestination" -- the doctrine that says God already knows ahead of time who will be saved in the End Times.  

J: Another example of old lies begetting new lies, as you put it. The first lie, of course, was the lie that souls desperately need to be saved from hell and judgment and damnation. But souls don't need to be saved. Why would God create billions of defective souls that need to be saved by . . . televangelists? Salvation-of-the-soul is a goofy idea from start to finish. 

A: But a very profitable one.

J: It's an interesting fact of neurophysiology that certain forms of serious psychological dysfunction in human beings are accompanied by damage to the parietal lobes of the brain -- parts of the brain which are crucial to a person's ability to relate to time and space. When the volume of the parietal lobes is reduced, and when the density of glial cells is diminished in the parietal-temporal regions, an individual will experience problems understanding boundaries (i.e. his or her location in space) and problems with empathy (i.e his or her location in both time and space -- also called boundary issues). These are the individuals who can't learn from their own mistakes, who can't empathize with other people's feelings, who constantly invade other people's "time and space."  

A: The narcissists. 

J: Yes. A narcissist is someone who's become inwardly focussed to the point of selfishness and self-absorption because he or she has no "brain health" in the areas of time and space -- no ability to accurately identify the factual boundaries that surround each soul. She literally can't see where she ends and another person begins. She can't see that she's a separate entity -- a separate consciousness -- from her neighbour. The boundaries between her and her neighbour exist and are real and are factual. But she can't see them. It's all blurry to her. The boundaries exist, but she behaves as if they don't exist. She behaves as if she and her neighbour "are all one," as if the neighbour is merely an extension of her own core consciousness. The neighbour, of course, is expected to "behave" -- to obey her needs and wishes without question and to reinforce her image of herself as a wonderful person. There's a perfect analogy for this mindset in the realm of science fiction: Star Trek's hive queen of the Borg.  

A: See, I knew there was good reason for me to be watching the Space Channel.  

J: The great thing about the way the Borg Queen character is written is her calm, serene, elevated disposition. She believes her own propaganda about making life better for all the individuals she incorporates into her collective. She goes around telling everyone "we're all one, we're all equal." But what she actually means is, "I'm the only one who really exists, and all you drones are merely inferior beings who were put here to serve me" . . . which brings us to the question of "truth." 

A: The way you've just described the Borg Queen reminds me -- none too pleasantly -- of the modern apocalyptic prophet I spent too much time with a few years ago: Grace. She was always speaking "the truth" that "we're all one, we're all equal." She had the same calm, serene detachment as the Borg Queen. It gave her such an air of believability -- even wisdom. She seemed to have let go of all her worries about the past. Very appealing to somebody like me who was dogged by feelings of guilt and shame.  

She seemed so believable -- until you challenged her. When you challenged Grace's superiority, her infallibility, it was like a switch went off in her brain. She switched instantly from calm, affable charm to vicious, vengeful violence. The smallest thing could set her off. I still remember the murderous look in her eye one day when I told her that she herself had caused an electrical short in a lighting fixture by twisting the fan/light combo while it was still attached on one side to the ceiling. I could see that she wanted to throw me down the stairs because I'd pointed out her obvious error. The mistake was entirely hers. But she didn't want to hear about it. She couldn't handle responsibility for her own mistakes.  

J: Good example -- though painful. Grace was a person with significant impairment of her biological brain function, as you know. She was able to process "knowledge" -- facts -- well enough to function in society. She could remember that gas needed to be put in the car, that food had to be bought and prepared. But as for "truth" . . . "truth" was beyond her capacity to grasp because of damage to her biological brain from early, unhealed, profound childhood abuse. Physical, emotional, sexual, and psychological abuse. As a result of the abuse, and the biological damage caused by it, Grace couldn't read "intent." She couldn't understand or be honest about her own inner intent. Her intent was to prove to other people that she was better than they were. That's the honest truth. The truth is that everything Grace did -- all her choices -- were shaped by her narcissistic intent. Her words about "oneness" and "equality" meant nothing because her actual intent said something different.  

A: So you're drawing a strong link between "intent" and "truth."  

J: Very much so. Facts by themselves are not "truth," though "truth" is not "truth" without a foundation of facts. Truth -- as I'm defining it -- is an observation or insight about the way in which seemingly random facts are linked together by underlying strands of intent. The intent is like the subfloor of the factual foundation. The facts lie on top of the intent. The truth builds on both the intent and the facts. For something to be "true" in a philosophical way, it must objectively assess both a collection of facts AND the underlying intent underneath those facts.

A: Are you saying that a person's "intent" and his/her "starting assumptions" are the same thing? 

J (shaking his head): No. A person's inner intent is more like his inner "purpose" or "goal." Your intent speaks to the principle of time -- where you were in the past, where you are now, and where you want to go. It's more like conscious motivation. It's the motivation that gets you out of bed in the morning and keeps you going, even when things aren't going well. 

A: So it's teleology? 

J: Again, no. Teleology implies there's a finite, definable end goal or a purpose shaped by the Law of Cause and Effect. "Intent" is not as simple as teleological purpose. "Intent" goes to the very heart of consciousness -- what it means to exist as a living consciousness who is separate from (though connected to) other living consciousnesses. Intent can be thought of as a cohesive set of interconnected choices -- a series of small choices that, when put together, create one big "meta-choice." That "meta-choice" is your intent. At a quantum level, "meta-choices" shape the way in which certain energies can and will flow.  

A: Can you give us an analogy for that?  

J: Sure. I'll use an analogy I've used before -- the sower of seeds. 

A: I think I see where this is headed . . .  

J: In the parable of the sower [Thomas 9; Mark 4], the person -- the soul -- is the sower of seeds. The seeds represent the person's potential, the person's ability to learn, grow, change, and create. But the sower doesn't create out of thin air. He must plant the seeds -- the seeds of potential -- in the right place if he wants them to grow. His decision on where to sow the seeds is his intent -- his "meta-choice." The meta-choice is what determines which seeds can and will grow. The seeds don't grow equally well in all intents. Where seeds fall on a "ground" or "subfloor" of rock, they fail to root and they produce no harvest. Where seeds fall on patches of thorny weeds, they don't grow and they're eaten by grubs and caterpillars. There's nothing wrong with the seeds themselves. The problem lies in the choice of where to plant them. The problem lies with the intent. 

A: So a narcissist's true intent is like the choice to sow seeds on rocky ground or in thorny patches.  

J: Or in a bed of fire, as the church likes to recommend.

Seeds don’t grow easily on this rocky ground. “Jesus said: Look, there was a man who came out to sow seed. He filled his hand with seed and threw it about. Some fell onto the road, and birds ate it. Some fell onto rocks and could not root and produced no grain. Some fell into patches of thorny weeds that kept it from growing, and grubs ate it. Some seed fell upon good soil and grew and produced good grain. It was 60 units per measure and 120 units per measure (Gospel of Thomas 9).” Photo credit JAT 2023.

JR46: First Step in Healing the Church: Restore the Soul

“Jesus said: If your leaders say to you ‘Look! The Kingdom is in the sky!’ then the birds will be there before you are. If they say that the Kingdom is in the sea, then the fish will be there before you are. Rather the Kingdom is within you and it is outside of you. When you understand yourselves you will be understood. And you will realize that you are Children of the living Father. If you do not know yourselves, then you exist in poverty and you are that poverty” (Gospel of Thomas 3a and 3b). Photo credit JAT.

A: Jesus, what would you say to those who are asking how we can heal the church of the third millennium?

J: That's an easy one. First you have to rescue the soul. Not save it. Rescue it. Restore it to the place of sanity it deserves. Give it some credit. Give it some trust. Be kind to it. Rescue it the way you'd rescue a dog who's been shut out of the house without food or water. Bring it in from the cold.

A: Or in from the fiery pits of hell.

J: There's a trend at the moment among Progressive Christians who want to try to rescue me. They want to rescue me from the clutches of the evangelical, charismatic, and fundamentalist Christians. While I appreciate the effort, the Progressive movement won't solve anything by trying to rescue me. I'm not the problem. And I'm not the solution.

A: In the Christology course I took, we studied a book by Wayne Meeks called Christ Is the Question (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). At the beginning of the book, Meeks identifies this issue. He says, "As a brand of shampoo promises the answer to frizzy hair, a detergent brand the answer to unbright laundry, a new model car the answer to loneliness and (by innuendo) sexual longing, so Jesus is the answer to -- what? Whatever you wish. Indeed [mainly in the context of American Protestantism] Jesus has become whatever you wish, an all-purpose brand, the answer to all needs, desires, fantasies, and speculations" (page 2).

J: It's true. But it's not really a new development in Christianity. It's exactly the outcome the apostle Paul desired. From the beginning, Paul's intention was to convert me -- a real flesh and blood person -- into the new face of the well-known Saviour brand. Sort of like redoing the label on a familiar brand of soap. You want your target audience to believe your "new and improved" brand of soap can clean away absolutely anything. You know you're lying, but you hope your audience won't catch on -- at least not until you have their money in your pocket.

A: Old lies beget new lies.

J: There's nothing to stop people from taking Paul's imaginary Saviour figure and adding their own imagination to the story. Who's to say they're wrong? It happens all the time in story-telling traditions. Somebody comes up with a captivating (but purely fictional) hero or heroine. The character and the plot catch on. Other people start dreaming up their own chapters in the hero's saga. Some of these catch on, too, and enter the myth. King Arthur is a good example of this. People are still writing their own versions of this story. Five hundred years from now the fanzine additions to favourite comic book heroes will blur together and create one giant new myth about Superman. Traditions evolve. Stories evolve. But story-telling traditions aren't selling fact. They're selling story. Fantasy. Speculation.

A: You're saying that there's too much story in Christianity and not enough fact. 

J: Yes. There's too much story. On the other hand, there's not nearly enough mystery. When I say mystery, I mean there's not enough room for individuals to have a transformative experience of redemption. Redemption and divine love and divine forgiveness are emotional experiences that lie well outside the boundaries of pure logic. Words like "wonder" and "gratitude" and "humbleness" spring to mind. But redemption doesn't just change your thinking. It changes everything -- everything in your whole being. It changes the way your physical body works. It changes the way you see colours. It changes the way you see patterns. It changes the way you learn. It changes the way you remember. The way you smell things. The way you feel rain on your skin. The way you eat your food. The way you sleep. The way you dream at night. The way you dream while you're awake. It changes absolutely everything about your relationship with yourself and with all Creation. Where once you crawled and chewed endlessly as a caterpillar, now you fly with beauty and grace as a winged butterfly and sip from the nectar of flowers. It may sound cliched, but it's true. The experience of transformation is that profound. You were "you" when you were a caterpillar, and you're still "you" as a butterfly. But the way in which you relate to the world has been completely altered. Your whole life is completely changed. The change is so sweet. So kind. So mysterious. It takes your breath away.

A (nodding): Even while you're still living here as a somewhat confused and baffled human being. You don't have to die to feel the mystery. You have to live.

J: The process of redemption -- the experience of mystery -- begins for a human being with the soul. The soul is not fictional. The soul is real. The soul -- the true core self of each consciousness within Creation -- is your laughter. Your empathy. Your conscience. Your curiosity. Your sense of wonder. In other words, all the least explainable, most mysterious parts of being human.

The soul is not one substance, but many substances -- many substances of a quantum nature. Its complexity and sophistication at a quantum level lie outside the bounds of current scientific investigation. But this has no bearing one way or the other on the soul's scientific reality. Scientific researchers have failed to detect many things in nature: the soul is just one of many things on a long list of "undiscovered countries."

A: How would a renewed understanding of the soul help heal the church today?

J: At the moment the Progressive movement has concluded -- based on erroneous starting assumptions -- that the past errors of the church include a belief in the eternal soul, a belief in miracles, and (for some) a belief that a guy named Jesus ever existed. They assume that if these "errors" are swept out of the church, and replaced with teachings based on pure logic and pure praxis, or, on the other end of the scale, replaced with teachings based on pure symbolism and hidden truth, then the church can be restored to a state of health and balance. This is not so.

A: They're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

J: Yes. They've failed to realize that the problem with the church is that church leaders long ago put a lien on people's souls, as you and I discussed last time.

A: I was pretty indignant, wasn't I?

J: For good reason. The problem for Christianity is not a belief in the existence of the soul. The problem for Christianity (or rather, one of the problems) is the body of lies being taught about the soul. Over the centuries, Christian orthodoxy has done everything in its power to preserve the lien on the soul so it can preserve its power. The lien has to go. Church leaders are going to have to stand up and be honest about the fact that their teachings on the soul have damaged people's confidence and trust in God. They need to start from square one on the question of the soul -- no resorting to "tradition," no rooting around in the writings of early Church Fathers for justification. This will be a terrifying prospect for most theologians. But it must be done. The answers to their questions are already there -- not in the pages of the Bible, and not in the pages of Plato and Aristotle and Augustine and Aquinas and Wesley, but in the pages of God's scientific reality. Theological inquiry must stop clinging to tradition. You're in the third millennium now. Start acting like it.

JR45: Lien or No Lien on Your Soul?

A: Last week, I bought a 2007 Pontiac to replace my 1998 Nissan, which was close to death. The Carproof report found a lien against the Pontiac -- a financing lien held by Chrysler. At first I wasn't worried. I figured the paperwork for the clearance of the lien hadn't yet made it into the computer system at the proper government ministry. But being a thorough person, I decided to phone the ministry yesterday morning to make sure the lien had been cleared. Imagine my surprise when I discovered the lien was still attached to my car! I quickly got the problem straightened out with the dealer I bought the car from. But in the meantime I had a chance to reflect on my feelings about the lien. In Ontario, as in many other jurisdictions, a person who unwittingly buys a car or house that has a lien against it can lose the property they bought. It can be legally seized by the lien holder if the debt hasn't been paid by the original debtor. The car you think you own outright can be towed away in the blink of an eye by the original lender. It's a scary thought. 

“His disciples said to him: When will the resurrection of the dead take place and when will the new world come? He said to them: What you look for has come, but you do not know it” (Gospel of Thomas 51). In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus talks often about “life” and “beginnings,” yet his sayings involving “death” are not what we typically find in eschatological or apocalyptic teachings. Rather, the sayings about “life” and “death” in Thomas seem closely related to parts of the first century CE text known as The Didache, in which “the way of life” and “the way of death” are used as metaphors for how to live a moral life in full relationship with God. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus spends quite a bit of time and energy trying to persuade the disciples to let go of the eschatological doctrines held by the Pharisees and the Essenes at that time.  Photo of my red car. Photo credit JAT 2015.

Anyway, I was thinking about my feelings around the lien on my car. I was noticing how upset I was at the thought that somebody could -- theoretically -- swoop down on my little Pontiac and take it away with no say on my part. I was thinking how I'd paid for the car in full, how I could lose all the money I'd invested (unless I were inclined to sue, which would cost me even more money). I was thinking how unfair it would be for such a thing to happen. I'd bought the car in good faith. Why should I be punished for somebody else's mistake? Or somebody else's willful fraud?

So I'm standing in the bathroom and I'm drying my hair so I can get ready for work and it suddenly dawns on me that the feelings I'm expressing to myself about the lien on the car are the same feelings I have about orthodox Western Christianity's teachings on the soul. The Church teaches us there's a lien on our souls!

J (grinning): Yes. Not a nice feeling, is it?

A: No! It totally sucks. I never noticed till yesterday how deeply, deeply unfair the church's claims are. I knew their claims about the soul were based on the writings of Paul, Tertullian, Augustine, and so on. I knew their claims were self-serving. I knew their claims were just plain wrong in light of God's loving and forgiving nature. But I never felt the unfairness of it before at such a deep level -- at a gut level, a visceral level. It's just wrong to tell people their soul can be taken away from them by lien-holders. It's so . . . so . . . unfair. And cruel. It's cruel to tell people they have to invest themselves wholly in their faith while at any time the great big tow truck in the sky could show up to haul them or their loved ones away to the fiery pits of hell. Not to pay their own debts, but to pay somebody else's debts! Namely Adam and Eve's debts!

J: Ah, the wages of sin.

A: Very funny. This God-and-Devil-as-lien-holders thing means that devout Christians are always looking over their shoulder, waiting for the cosmic tow truck they can't do anything about. It makes people feel helpless. It makes them feel like slaves-in-waiting. Their soul isn't their own. Their time isn't their own. Their life and their choices and their free will aren't really their own. They're always on tenterhooks because they think they don't fully own their own soul. This is abusive.

J: That's why it works. From the perspective of certain members of the church hierarchy -- stretching all the way back to the time of Paul and his backers -- it's an excellent strategy for gaining control of the populace. People who feel helpless and hopeless tend to cause less trouble. They ask fewer questions. They tend to do what they're told because they're frightened. Frightened people turn to strong leaders -- in this case, church leaders. The Church is using a psychological control strategy that other groups in other cultures have used to similar effect. Paul's teachings have been particularly successful in this regard. 

The teachings of myself and other like-minded spiritual teachers are useless for this kind of psychological strategy. Totally useless. You can't frighten people into submission if you're actually giving them real hope. Real hope doesn't come from words. Real hope comes from actions -- from people's ongoing choices to help their neighbours. Real hope comes from healing and relationship and dignity and change. If the early church had wanted to teach real hope, it wouldn't have chosen the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Chalcedon Creed as its operative statements of faith.

A: Ah. You mean they might have mentioned the themes of divine love, forgiveness, healing, redemption (as opposed to salvation), and egalitarianism?

J: If the bishops in the first few centuries of Christianity had spent one tenth the time on compassion that they spent on their endless arguments over the "substance" of the Trinity, medieval Europe would have been a much nicer place to live in.

JR21: Saying 67 in the Gospel of Thomas

A: Okay. Here's another pretty big question for you. Stevan Davies translates Saying 67 of the Gospel of Thomas as "Jesus said: One who knows everything else but who does not know himself knows nothing." Was this saying central to your teachings? Was it an important theme for you?
 
J: Yes. I tried very hard to express this idea. I tried to express it in many different ways.
 
A: Similar ideas have been taught by many spiritual leaders over the centuries. In fact, it's almost a spiritual cliche. It's so easy to say, "One who knows everything else but who does not know himself knows nothing." But what exactly does it mean?
 
J: It means you have to know who you actually are as a soul -- "the core you" that's left after you strip away all the false, damaging prejudices and religious doctrines and abusive teachings of your family and culture. It means you have to love, honour, and respect the person you are when you remove all the weeds from the garden of your biological brain. It means you have to trust that when you pull out all the weeds, there's still going to be something left in there. You have to trust that when you pull out all the weeds, you won't be left with a barren patch of lifeless dirt. Instead you'll be able to see the flowers of your soul -- the lilies of the field -- for the first time.

"Happy are those who make the Lord their trust, who do not turn to the proud, to those who go astray after false gods. You have multiplied, O Lord my God, your wondrous deeds and your thoughts toward us; none can compare with you. Were I to proclaim and tell of them, they would be more than can be counted. Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. Then I said, 'Here I am; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do your will, O God; your law is within my heart'" (Psalm 40:4-8). Photo credit JAT 2014.

 

 

 

A: I take it you're not too fond of the image of Creation in Genesis 2:7: the Lord God forming Adam from dust and then breathing the breath of life into his nostrils so he'd become a living being.
 
J: I don't like the Christian interpretation of this verse. The Bible has many references to human beings as dirt or clay or potters' vessels. Clay is nothing more than a kind of dirt that can be shaped, moulded according to the creator's will. The message that's repeated again and again is that human beings are malleable in the way that wet clay is malleable. Wet clay starts out as a lump. It can be turned into any shape imaginable (as long as the laws of physics and chemistry aren't broken). You can make a plate. You can make a bowl. You can make a large urn. You can make a small storage container. A complex sculpture. A string of beads. Clay is like that. You can make whatever you want. Many people -- pious Pauline Christians especially -- believe that God intends human beings to be like clay. They believe that each person is basically a lump of malleable clay. Based on this belief, they assume that God can reshape each individual in any way God chooses. It's the idea of neuroplasticity taken to absurd extremes: "I can be anything God wants me to be if only I try hard enough to surrender to God's will!!!" How often have you heard a sanctimonious preacher say that?
 
A: It's a popular Christian idea.
 
J: It was a popular idea with many Essene and Hellenistic philosophers in my time, too. It's an idea that makes it very easy for religious leaders to blame people in their flock for "not trying hard enough." It makes it very easy to accuse regular people of being "weak". To accuse them of falling short of true faith. To make them feel guilty for "letting God down." To point fingers at them and say they're filled with sin. These teachings are spiritually abusive.
 
A: You're talking about the bread & butter of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians.
 
J: And fundamentalists of other faiths, too.
 
A: You're saying, then, that the doctrine of malleable clay is factually incorrect. That Genesis 2:7 is wrong in its portrayal of human beings.
 
J: I'm saying the Second Creation story (Genesis 2-3) has been completely misread. In fact, both Creation stories in Genesis have been misunderstood. Obviously (without apologies to any Creationists who might read this) there is no literal truth to Genesis 1 or Genesis 2-3. On top of that, the metaphorical truth doesn't say what Christians believe it says. Human beings are not malleable lumps of clay. They can't be shaped by God or by anyone else into something they're not. You can't force a woman to become a man (though some people would like to try). You can't force a gay man to become straight (though some Christians would like them to try). You can't force a musician to become an engineer (though sadly many parents have tried. And tried and tried and tried.) God the Mother and God the Father don't make souls this way. Souls aren't malleable. Each soul has a unique identity, a unique blueprint, a unique set of talents and traits and strengths and absences of strengths. Souls are like snowflakes -- no two are alike. You can't take what God the Mother and God the Father made and "fix it." You can't turn a bowl into a plate. You can't turn a sculpture into a wind chime. You are who you are. It's true that you may not know who you are. It's true that you may not know whether you're a bowl or a plate or a sculpture or a wind chime. But your soul knows. And God knows. Between you -- between you and God -- you can uncover your own true soul identity.
 
A: I like the garden metaphor better. I'd rather discover what kind of "flower" I am. I'm not sure I really want to "see" myself as a set of dishes in the kitchen cupboard.
 
J: I hear ya. Nature metaphors are much more natural, much more helpful. That's why I used so many images from nature in my teachings. There's a natural resonance, a natural harmony between the images of nature and the soul's own language. The soul "gets" nature imagery. The soul doesn't mind being likened to trees or flowers or fruits. Or the totems of Indigenous North American tradition. It helps human beings to have a nature metaphor of their own soul. An image to help them "see" themselves as God sees them.
 
A: If I were a tree, what kind of tree do you think I'd be? (Not that I'm saying I'm literally a tree . . .)
 
J: You'd be a yew. A tough, gnarly yew. That reminds me a lot of you.
 
A: Yeah? Okay, well that makes sense to me. I even really like yews. Always have. Nobody's gonna believe this when I say this, but to me, you're most definitely a magnolia. A big, showy magnolia. And damn but you wear it well! Of course, if the shrivelled up hearts of the pious Pauline Christians had their way, you'd be a bleeding, suffering, miserable, ugly thorn bush.
 
J: What? No burning bush? No branch of Jesse? No grafted grapevine? No olive tree? I think I'd make a particularly fine Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Don't you?
 
A: You're such a cynic.