JR58: The "My Fellow American" Interfaith Initiative

A: I was contacted this week by a person who's working with the Unity Productions Foundation on an interfaith initiative called My Fellow American. The goal of the initiative is to encourage Americans to think of their fellow Americans who happen to be Muslim as fellow Americans. There's a 2 minute film produced by Unity, and there are also uploaded videos and stories from various supporters of the idea that all Americans are equally American, regardless of religion. What do you think of this project?

J (grinning): I think you should post the address.

A: Oh yeah. Good thinking. The address is http://myfellowamerican.us/

I discovered when I went to watch the film how truly outdated my computer really is. Computer updates are not my thing. Good thing the computer at work has more juice in it.

The person who contacted me also wondered if I could maybe Tweet about the project if I checked it out and liked it. I don't know how to tell her this, but I don't even own a cell phone. So the Tweeting is pretty much out.

J: Everybody has their own way of communicating with others.

A: Anyway, I certainly can't argue with the basic principle of treating all your neighbours with dignity and respect and compassion and kindness regardless of religion. This is what makes a society internally strong.

J: The one thing people have to remember is that all human beings are children of God. A Muslim woman is just as a much a child of God as the saints of Christian history. To deny a woman dignity and respect simply because she's Muslim is to withhold divine love from your neighbour. It's as simple as that.

A: I think some people are afraid that if they love and accept the woman with an open heart they'll be required to love and accept all the religious teachings that are part of her tradition. At least that's how they view it.

"For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them yet existed. How weighty to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! I try to count them -- they are more than the sand; I awake -- I am still with you" (Psalm 139:13-18). Psalm 139, apart from a rather unloving interpolation in verses 19-22, is a deeply personal and humble reflection on the unique relationship each human being has with God. There are no Chosen People. God sees us only as individuals making difficult decisions about faith, hope, and love. Pictured here is a dahlia with its welcome visitors: Creation feeding Life, Life preserving Creation. Photo credit JAT 2025.

 
J: Religious teachings are very much a human thing. Divine love, on the other hand, is a soul thing. Divine love always trumps religious teachings. Every religion on the face of Planet Earth today has problems -- problems with abusive doctrines, problems with gender issues, problems with "law," and problems with balance. Every religion. Islam is no different from Christianity in this regard. Sure, Islam has some problems. But so does orthodox Western Christianity. This is no excuse for failing to love your neighbour and failing to believe in his or her best self. Everybody's struggling. People of all religions have to hold each other up. People have to work together. It's the only way to find healing.

A: The 10-year anniversary of 9/11 is coming up. Some people haven't got over the shock. They're still looking for someone to blame.

J: If they're looking for someone to blame, then they should be looking at the unassailable laws of neurophysiology, not at religion. Only a seriously, seriously dysfunctional individual thinks it's okay to blow up buildings "in the name of God." This applies across the board to all religions and all cultures. Christianity has had its fair share of psychopaths in martyrs' clothing, too. Psychopathy is a social, medical, and educational issue. Psychopathy is about as far from genuine relationship with God as it's possible to get.

The vast majority of Muslims and Christians and those of other faiths are doing their best to get closer to God -- not farther away from God and faith -- even though they make mistakes along the way. People of all faiths are constantly learning, changing, growing. Traditions change. Religious teachings change. The one core truth that doesn't change is the reality of the good soul, and the potential of all human beings to help each other understand this reality. If you allow yourself to be open to this truth, amazing things can happen in your community. Whatever community you happen to live in.

A: There are some psychopaths in positions of religious authority.

J: Yes. But there are also psychopaths in positions of political and economic and educational authority. Psychopathy is an entirely separate issue from the question of faith. Inherent to the definition of psychopathy is a total lack of conscience and empathy -- in other words, a disconnection from all that enables true faith, true relationship with God. A psychopath seeks status, not faith, when he or she chooses to blow up buildings. It's entirely a question of status addiction. Can we say this status addiction is true of "all Muslims"? Well, OF COURSE NOT. This would be the same as saying that every person who lives in Boston must be a status-addicted psychopath simply because he or she happens to live in Boston. It isn't right or fair to make such a claim.

A: Claims such as this have been fairly common over the course of history, though.

J: True. These claims fall under the umbrella of the HDM Myths that you posted about on Concinnate Christianity. (http://concinnatechristianity.blogspot.com/2010/11/it-takes-village-non-hdm-village-that.html ). Group myths of Hierarchy, Dualism, and Monism. Again, these are human myths, human choices, that have nothing to do with the faith of the soul. Challenge the myths and heal the soul, remembering always that the soul is not the aspect of the self that's perpetuating these myths. It's certain parts of the biological brain that have gone off the rails, so to speak, and now enjoy the addictive high of schadenfreude. For a person suffering from status addiction, there's just nothing better than a good hit of mental revenge and religious hatred to get you through the day. It's cheaper than buying whiskey and cigarettes.

A: That's a pretty tough statement.

J: Addiction is a pretty tough reality. Addiction destroys lives. Better to be honest about its effects.

A: Because, as you often say, healing follows insight.

J: My hat's off to the My Fellow American participants because they're doing their best to help others in their community be their best selves. And they're working together as a team to teach and share and communicate in relationship with each other. As an angel, I can't ask for more than that.

_______________________________________________

Addendum, October 16, 2023: It's been 12 years since I wrote this post with the soul who lived as Jesus.

The world has changed greatly during this time. One of the unfortunate changes has been an ideological shift towards monism within many educational institutions and humanitarian organizations in Western nations. This shift has taken society further away from the idea that people hold individual responsibility for their own choices. In place of the long-held Judeo-Christian value system built on free will, personal responsibility, and accountability to your own inner wisdom (what we call "conscience"), there has been a push to impose a value system based on "group banners" behind which individuals can hide.

No one can be his or her best self if "group banners" (especially religious "group banners") are used as an excuse for hanging onto harmful traditions, hateful actions, or justification for revenge.

Mother Father God and your angels don't care what your religious teachers say. What matters to God is how you choose to use your free will as a human being during your time on Planet Earth. If you decide it's a great idea to hate other people on the basis of their religion, that's not okay with God. The recent resurgence of anti-Semitism is therefore not okay with your own soul or your angels.

Anti-Semitism isn't the only example of extreme hatred in today's world, but right now it's a cauldron of suffering, especially for those who are doing the hating.

It's your job as a human being -- as a soul in human form -- to learn how to look past the "group banners" that breed hatred and divisiveness. Seek the best in others and stand your ground as a child of God. Treat each person you meet as an individual who is responsible for his or her own choices towards others and towards God. This probably means you'll have to reject some of the destructive religious doctrines that are causing problems in the world today. But if that's what you have to do so you can hear your own conscience, that's what you have to do.

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

JR48: Second Step in Healing the Church: Restore the Mystery of Divine Love

A: I was rearranging a couple of my bookshelves yesterday -- actually, I was tidying up because my parents are coming over -- and I felt drawn to set aside a book I picked up last fall in the remaindered book section at Chapters. It's The Complete Idiot's Guide to Christian Mysteries by Ron Benrey (New York: Alpha-Penguin, 2008). It's not a bad little book. And it sure beats trying to wade through Jaroslav Pelikan's massive 5 volume history of church doctrine.  

Anyway, Benrey's book is divided into 4 parts and a total of 24 chapters. Part 1 is called "The Christian Mindbenders." The 6 mysteries included in Part I are "the mystery of the incarnation," "the mystery of the trinity," "the mystery of Jesus' dual natures," "the mystery of Jesus' resurrection," "the mystery of the atonement," and "the mystery of the last things." A few days ago, you said there's not enough mystery in the church.* Yet Bender has filled a whole book with Christian mysteries of various sorts -- most of which you've trashed in your discussions with me. So I'm wondering if we can return to the question of mystery in the church today. How do you envision the role of mystery in healing the church?  

J: First, it's important for church leaders to accept that people want and need mystery. If you strip away the mystery, all you really have is a secular service club devoted to charitable causes. That's not faith. Faith and mystery go hand in hand. 

“Jesus said: Images are visible to people, but the love within them is hidden in the image of the Father’s love. He will be revealed but his image is hidden by his love” (Gospel of Thomas 83). Standard translations of this saying use the word “light” where I’ve used the word “love.” But for Jesus, Divine Love — rather than hidden knowledge — was the great light that shines upon us all. There was no word in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic that adequately captured this concept of love, so he sometimes used the Greek word φως (phos) to try to capture the intensity and sense of life in God’s love. Strange as it may sound, mystery, and love are always associated with a sense of movement, beauty, grace, and transformation. St. Margaret's Church, London, UK. Photo credit JAT 2023.

 

A: Why?  

J: Because faith -- as opposed to piety or fear of God -- is about relationship with God. And as soon as you start talking about relationships, you start entering the realm of mystery. 

A: That feeling of awe about somebody else's gifts and gaffes -- their amazing courage, their brilliant insights, their hilarious mistakes.  

J: Perhaps the greatest mystery of all is consciousness -- what it means to be a person. This mystery extends to the origins of our divine Mother and Father. God the Mother and God the Father are distinct consciousnesses -- two distinct people -- with vastly different talents and abilities, yet they share their journey together in the deepest love and trust and gratitude. What they create together is so much bigger than what either could create alone. There's an immense sense of wonder on the part of all angels at the richness and kindness and patience that's infused in everything our Mother and Father create together. The creations themselves are cause for much appreciation and emulation. But it's not the creations themselves (stars, moons, planets) that convey to us -- their angelic children -- the deepest sense of divine mystery. It's the love itself. The deepest mystery -- the startling mystery, the core mystery, the infinite puzzle -- is the mystery of divine love. And this is a mystery based on relationship.  

A: Some Christian theologians like to talk about the "scandal of particularity." In Christian terms, it's related to the doctrine of the incarnation -- the idea that God entered one particular, limited existence. Namely you. It's interesting that what you're describing as the mystery of divine love sounds nothing like the Christian doctrine of the incarnation, yet it sounds an awful lot like the scandal of particularity -- though not at first. You have to ponder the feeling for a while to notice the connection . . . which reminds me that I've noticed over the years that some of the doctrines Christians cling to so desperately contain an echo or a hint of something true. The doctrines have become all twisted around and knotted so we can't see the original truth anymore. But at the same time we don't want to let them go because we sense there's something important there.  

J: You've really nailed that. There IS a "scandal of particularity," but it applies to God the Mother and God the Father, not to me.  

A: I've been hanging around with you for too long.  

J: The same thing applies to the idea of the Christ archetype. I was not -- and am not --THE Christ. The original Christ archetype is held by God the Mother and God the Father TOGETHER. I seek to emulate their courage, their love, their devotion as an angel, as a child of God, and in so far as I choose to emulate their example, I am a "small-c" christ. But when angels think of Christ, we think of our divine parents. We think of God. It's a term of affection. And gratitude. It's a positive epithet. But Paul and his successors took this term of affection and turned it into a word that means power and control and hierarchy. They mutated and subverted the meaning of everything that God the Mother and God the Father stand for together as the Christ.  

Sure, there really is a Christ. And sure, regular Christians don't want to let go of the idea that there's a Christ. But they're pinning the tail on the wrong donkey. I'm not the Christ. I'm a child of Christ -- as, indeed, are all souls in Creation.  

A: When we started talking about the "scandal of particularity" a few minutes ago, I got my butt off my chair and retrieved another book -- this one called Constructive Theology: A Contemporary Approach to Classical Themes, edited by Serene Jones and Paul Lakeland (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005). In it there's an article called "God With Us in the Dust" by Karen Baker-Fletcher (pages 188-190). Baker-Fletcher says this:  

"What, then, is the difference between Jesus and other humans? It is not that we are like Jesus in the suffering we humans endure. It is the other way around; Jesus is like us, relates to us, identifies with us, having experienced the violent consequences of human sin. Jesus is like us because Jesus has been sinned against. He therefore can identify with human suffering. Jesus is like us because Jesus also feasts and rejoices with us. But we are not Christs [emphasis added]. Jesus does not sin but is sinned against. Jesus is unlike us because he is the Christ, the anointed one, one with God. God alone in Christ can promise restoration, redemption, salvation. As human beings we may participate in this activity, but we do not initiate it (page 189)." How do you respond to these thoughts?  

J: Well, she's managed rather neatly to allude to the Christian mysteries of the incarnation, the trinity, Jesus' dual natures, Jesus' resurrection, the atonement, and the last things all in one paragraph. She gets points for brevity. But she gets no points for understanding my ministry or my true relationship with God.  

A: You've said in the past that all human beings have the potential to live as Christs-in-human-form.  

J: Yes. It's a question of living your human life in imitation of Christ -- not as Paul taught the nature of Christ, but as I and others have taught the nature of Christ. Since God the Mother and God the Father are THE Christ, it's a pretty good bet that if you live your life in imitation of their love -- their courage, their devotion, their gratitude, their trust -- you're going to be "in the zone."  

A: In the Christ Zone, as you've called it before.  

J: Yes. I've called it the Christ Zone for a modern audience but 2,000 years ago I called it . . .  

A: The Kingdom of the Heavens.  

J: Same thing, different name. It's not the name that matters, after all. It's the intent. Paul's intent -- his choice of ground on which to sow the seeds of human potential -- was barren and rocky because he didn't actually want people to understand their potential to initiate the activities of healing, forgiveness, and redemption. He wanted them to feel helpless and hopeless about themselves so they would turn first and foremost to church leaders (such as himself) for authority and guidance.  

A: And you?  

J: I wanted people to feel helpful and hopeful about themselves so they would turn to God the Mother and God the Father for direct guidance.  

A: How very Protestant of you. 

* http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/06/first-step-in-healing-church-rescue.html

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.

JR 43: The Case for "Mark Versus Paul"

A: Today, I'm shifting back into academic mode on the question of what Jesus actually taught 2,000 years ago -- as opposed to what the Church says he taught. 

I've had an inquiry about my academic arguments on the "Mark versus Paul" question -- that is, on my thesis that Mark wrote his gospel as a direct rebuttal of Paul's First Corinthians. To present this argument in its entirety would fill at least one big fat Zondervan text (as if Zondervan's editors would publish such a thesis!) so all I can do at this stage is present a brief list of comparisons between the two texts. I'm aware that in order to build a case for each "talking point" in a complete academic format -- a format that would be acceptable to a peer-reviewed journal -- would require many months of research for each point and a long research paper for each. The work would go faster, however, if others were willing to help. If you're interested in helping with this project, please contact me. 

I'm going to present some of the major contrasts I see between First Corinthians and the Gospel of Mark. I'll assume for this purpose that the extant copies of these two books represent with a fair degree of accuracy the original texts as they were written by Paul and Mark respectively, with the exception of Mark 16:9-20 (the very ending of Mark), which is generally believed to be a later addition.  

If you want to see which researchers I rely on, please refer to the post called "The Author's Research Bibliography" (http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/03/authors-bibliography.html).  

Study of the Gospel of Thomas, which has strong links to the Q Source and the Synoptic Gospels, makes it easier to see what Jesus was actually saying and how Jesus’ teachings differed radically from Paul’s teachings. Ceiling mosaic in the original Queen’s Park entrance of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. Photo credit JAT 2017.

I use more than one form of biblical criticism -- more than one analytical tool -- in this comparison. I tend to start with traditional methods -- socio-historical criticism, source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism -- and then I cross-reference these arguments with recent scientific insights from quantum theory, neurophysiology, psychotherapy, archaeology, and recent historical findings. I also use my own personal mystical faculties, but I won't apologize for this, since insights derived from mystical conversations are only a starting point, not an ending point. Other researchers get "aha" moments and call them intuition, or divine revelation, or just plain ol' personal brilliance. Me, I'm being honest about where I get my starting point for this discussion. After that, it's up to me to use logical human tools to make my case. 

Fortunately for me, what Jesus and my angels pointed out to me leads to an extremely strong case. To the best of my knowledge, there are no biblical scholars currently publishing on this topic. So this is original research you're reading. You'll probably wonder straight away how I -- an obscure blogger from Canada who has no PhD and no publishing record of note -- could see evidence of a book-to-book biblical feud that nobody else has seen. To this I must reply that the feud has been obvious "to those who have eyes and those who have ears" (Mark 8:18) since these two texts began to circulate simultaneously in the latter part of the 1st century CE. Christians have always been called to decide whether they choose Paul's teachings or Jesus' teachings (even if they haven't been able to articulate the choice in scholarly terms). However, it's only now that Christians are getting round to being honest about this fact. 

If Mark had simply written about entirely different themes than Paul did, there would be no point in trying to show that Mark wrote his gospel as a rebuttal of Paul's First Corinthians. But Mark didn't write about different themes than Paul did. He wrote about exactly the same topics and inverted them. He also chose his words as carefully as Paul did. He never uses Paul's favourite word: nomos (Greek for law, authority, unbreakable tradition). Nor does Mark use the words charis (grace) or elpis (hope). The words nomos, charis, and elpis are part of the vocabulary of apocalyptic thought. And Mark is trying to show, contrary to Paul's claims about Jesus, that Jesus himself rejected apocalyptic thought.  

Mark never uses the words nomos, charis, and elpis. But for a man who never uses these words, he talks about them a lot in his book. He talks about what it means for a person of faith to be in full relationship with God the Mother and God the Father.  

Here is a point form list of some of the direct comparisons. I reserve the right to edit, modify, add to, and clarify this list whenever additional information comes to light in future. If information is suggested to me by other writers, I will so note the contribution(s).  

Concerns of Form:  

1. Viewpoint Character In Paul: The viewpoint character is Paul himself. In Mark: The viewpoint character is Jesus; the author (Mark) is not present; reference to "a certain young man" in Mark 14:51 may indicate an eyewitness to whom Mark later spoke about events surrounding Jesus' arrest.  

2. Narrator's Voice In Paul: The narrator speaks in first person (Paul himself). In Mark: Third person narration. 

3. Literary Genre In Paul: Written as a letter; uses rhetoric, exhortation. In Mark: Written as a biographical narrative interspersed with parables, sayings, and teaching actions (i.e. teaching chreia).  

4: The Narrative Hook: "The Hero's Journey" In Paul: The hero Paul recounts highlights of his long and arduous journey to save the Gentiles; the focus is on important urban centres; the hero's personal journey is a metaphor for the path of spiritual ascent (i.e. the vertical path that leads to salvation and eventual bodily resurrection). In Mark: The hero Jesus takes many small trips around a small freshwater lake; the focus is on unimportant outlying communities; the hero's journey is horizontal, not vertical; the path is not straight; bad things happen on high hills; good things happen near boats and water.  

Theological and Social Concerns:  

5. Relationship to the Jerusalem Temple: In Paul: The physical Temple has been replaced by Jesus and "believers" (1 Cor 3:9-17; 6:19-20); the Temple is now purely mystical; it is more important than ever. (Note: the actual physical Herodian Temple was still standing in Jerusalem at the time Paul wrote his letter and Mark wrote his rebuttal). In Mark: The physical Temple exists and is the centre of corruption in Palestine (Mark 11:12-24;12:35-44; 15:38). 

6. Relationship to the city of Jerusalem: In Paul: Jerusalem is still favoured as shown by the collection for the Jerusalem church (1 Cor 16:1-4). In Mark: Jesus spends little time in Jerusalem; healing miracles all take place outside the city; Jesus' friends live outside the city; Jerusalem is the place where genuine faith withers away (Mark 11).  

7. Healing Miracles: In Paul: No mention of healing miracles. In Mark: Several healing miracles take place; the theme of healing is introduced early on and repeated until Jesus reaches Jerusalem.  

8. People With Disabilities: In Paul: No special mention of individuals with physical or mental illnesses or disabilities or special needs. In Mark: Those deemed "impure" according to Jewish custom and law are healed, touched, spoken to in violation of purity laws.  

9. The Kingdom of God: In Paul: The Kingdom is a reality outside the self; it depends on power (1 Cor 4:20; 15:24-28; 15:50). In Mark: There is no simple explanation of the Kingdom, but empathy is central to it (Mark 10:13-31; 12:28-34).  

10. Relationship of Body to Soul: In Paul: Influenced by Platonic dualism.; the flesh is corrupt (1 Cor 3:1-4; 7:8-9; 9:24-27; 15:42-49). Souls are in peril without belief in Christ. In Mark: Holistic attitude toward the body; non-Platonic and non-Covenantal; flesh is not impure or corrupt; right relationship with God involves caring for the body. Souls live as angels in the afterlife (Mark 12:24-27)  

11: Forgiveness: In Paul: No mention of forgiveness. In Mark: The theme of forgiveness is introduced early on (Mark 2:1-12); both God and humans can forgive (Mark 11:25).  

12: The Definition of Human Virtue: In Paul: "Foolishness" (morias) and unquestioning faith are the highest expressions of right belief (1 Cor 1:10 - 2:5); obedience, fellowship, holiness, "strong consciousness," and the proper exercise of freedom are emphasized. In Mark: Courage (ischys) and a questioning faith are the highest expressions of right belief (Mark 8:11-21); egalitarianism, service, forgiveness, and insight (suneseos) are emphasized.

JR32: The Buddha Question

A: There's been a trend in the past few decades to try to equate your teachings with the teachings of the Buddha, to try to show that Jesus and Buddha were teaching the same universal truths. This trend seems particularly true of those who are interested in placing you among the apophatic mystics of Christian history -- mystics such as Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysius, the Cloud of Unknowing, and John of the Cross. Thomas Merton, a well-known Roman Catholic Trappist contemplative, was very interested in establishing a dialogue with Buddhist monks. What are your thoughts on the universality of faith and spiritual practice?

J (sighing): You've asked a very, very difficult question. There's no easy answer, but I'll try to express some of my thoughts. A book such as Thich Nhat Hanh's Living Buddha, Living Christ (New York: Berkley-Riverhead, 1995) is so beautiful and so kind and so sincere that I want to say I agree with everything he says. But I don't. I can't. I can't agree with the underlying premises, the underlying doctrines of Buddhist belief. On the other hand -- and this is where it gets very messy, very complicated -- I agree with a lot of the spiritual practices that Thich Nhat Hanh describes. I agree very much with the path of mindfulness and compassion. I agree with the desire to create communities of peace. I agree with the decision to take action to create positive change. These are aspects of faith that are, indeed, universal. I don't think anyone would disagree. No matter what religious tradition a person belongs to, the truest expression of faith -- the truest expression of humanity -- has always been a life lived with mindfulness, compassion, peace, and transformative change. This is true for Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Christians, and other religions, as well. At any time and in any place there have been some Buddhists and some Jews and some Muslims and some Christians who've chosen, as individuals, to pursue the path of true faith. These are the people who've consciously tried to help heal communities, families, and individuals. They've chosen this path because they think it's the right thing to do.

A: You're placing the emphasis on individual choice rather than on formal religious beliefs or doctrines.

J: I'm drawing a very clear line here between religion and faith. Religion, as it's practised in major world religions today, including various schools of Buddhism and various schools of Christianity, is one of the biggest obstacles to faith. Faith -- by that I mean a relationship with God based on courage, trust, gratitude, and devotion -- is supposed to be an everyday part of life. An everyday experience. An everyday sense of belonging. A sense of belonging to Creation, belonging to God's family. It's the opposite of abandonment or estrangement from God. Faith is quiet acceptance. It's compassion. It's empathy. It's balance. It's wholeness. It's pure humbleness and contentment.

A: Religion doesn't teach this.

J: No. Religion gets in the way of this. It doesn't have to. In fact, the world would be a healthier place if people could meet each week on the Sabbath to express their faith and share their spiritual experiences together in a safe spiritual environment. This would be church at its best. Unfortunately, this isn't what church has become in the Western world. Church has become a place to centralize the authority of narcissistic, fear-mongering men and women. Church has become a place to take people farther away from God, not closer.

A: If you were incarnated as a human being today, would you turn to Buddhism for answers to the questions that Pauline Christianity doesn't answer very well?

J (sadly shaking his head): No. As I said earlier, Buddhism has some important things to say about spiritual practice -- about living the teachings of compassion and mindfulness each day, rather than just speaking them. There's more insistence in Buddhism on outward actions matching inward intent. And this is important. It's integrity, after all. Integrity is what you get when your inner choices match your outer actions. It's the opposite of hypocrisy. Integrity is an important part of peaceful community. I respect this underlying impulse in Buddhist thought.

A: Yet, based on what you've already said, you believe this underlying impulse towards daily practice and integrity is not specifically Buddhist. It's a universal part of true faith.
 
J: Yes. All human beings are born with this capacity. Unfortunately, like all aspects of human growth and learning, the capacity for mindful, compassionate practice can be lost. "Use it or lose it" -- that's how the human brain and central nervous system work. All human beings are born with the innate capacity to love and forgive, as well, but as experience shows, many individuals lose both. They lose both their ability to love and their ability to forgive. These individuals are the bullies, the psychopaths, and the narcissists. The same people who've been in charge of formal religious instruction in most parts of the world. 

“His disciples asked him: Is circumcision useful or not? He said to them: If it were useful, children’s fathers would produce them already circumcised from their mothers. On the other hand, the true circumcision of spirit is entirely valuable” (Gospel of Thomas 53 a-b). A person of faith who commits to a daily practice of courage, trust, gratitude, and devotion in all relationships will inevitably outgrow the "spiritual skin" he or she started out with. This is normal and healthy. In fact, it will happen several times over the course of a person's spiritual journey if heart, mind, body, and talent are always kept in balance. On the other hand, the bullies and narcissists of the world never grow big enough in heart or mind to need a new skin. Photo credit JAT 2025.

A: I get that part. But why do you feel uncomfortable with the trend towards having your teachings conflated with the Buddha's teachings?

J: It's the cosmology. It's the core assumptions. I don't agree with either. How could I? I mean, it would be ludicrous for an angel speaking from the Other Side in partnership with a human mystic to claim there is no God. Buddhism, after all, is a non-theistic religion. In Buddhism, there's a belief in an ultimate reality, but this reality isn't a person in the way that you and I talk about God the Mother and God the Father as actual identifiable people -- unique, distinct, and both very, very big. Buddhism also rejects the idea of an immortal soul, a distinct consciousness that continues to exist after the death of the physical body. And this is before we get to Buddhist teachings about karma and the nature of suffering, impermanence, rebirth, and enlightenment.

A: What are your thoughts on karma?

J: It's a form of Materialist philosophy -- a profound reliance on the idea that universal laws of cause and effect exist, laws that must be followed and can't be broken. I reject pure Materialism as a model for explaining and understanding the complex interactions of all life in Creation. It leaves no room for God's free will. It leaves no room for the profound mysteries of forgiveness, redemption, and humbleness (as opposed to humility). It's also incredibly depressing when you think about it.

A: The idea that the universe is holding you accountable for choices you can't even remember from previous "lives" -- or previous manifestations.
 
J: Yes. The idea of blaming the poor and the sick and the downtrodden for their own misfortunes when it's usually a group's own leaders who have made the sick sick and the downtrodden downtrodden.

A: How do you feel about the question of rebirth? A number of different religions teach a form of reincarnation. Is there any place for this concept in your understanding of God, soul, and faith?
 
J: Well, souls can and do incarnate into 3D bodies all the time. But not for the reasons that the Buddha taught. Souls don't incarnate because they "have to." Of course, as soon as I start talking about souls, it's clear I'm talking "apples" and the Buddha is talking "oranges." Souls do exist, and rebirth, when it happens, is not a form of karmic consequence to be escaped at all costs. Most souls who choose to incarnate as human beings on Planet Earth find that a single human lifetime is enough for their unique purposes of learning, growth, and change. However, a small percentage of human beings have already "been there, done that." They come back a second time -- and, in exceptional circumstances, a third or fourth time -- because they want to help guide others on a journey that's difficult.

A: Mahayana Buddhism teaches that certain enlightened beings choose to "postpone" their reward so they can help others achieve enlightenment. They call these beings "bodhisattvas." I've met a few people in my lifetime who've felt somehow more grounded, more connected to the simplicity of spiritual truth, and I've called these individuals bodhisattvas.

J: Not unreasonable.

A: I think I'm going to let the cat out of the bag here. I'm going to tell our readers something I've known about you for a long time -- you were a bodhisattva. A second-time-arounder. A man who messed up big-time during your first lifetime as a human being, and volunteered to go back in as a spiritual teacher and healer. Not because you had to but because you wanted to. For you, second time round was the charm.

J: It's not something you realize at the time. You can't even remember anything from your first life as a human being. There's just a deepening of the connection, I guess you could say. An ability to stay more grounded, more aware of the patterns. It's not something you can put your finger on, exactly. The sensation is probably best captured by the old maxim, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." A person who has lived once before as a human being is harder to fool with propaganda, spin doctoring, and religious sleight of hand. That's why they make good mentors.
 
A: Can you give another example of a well-known person who was a bodhisattva?

J: Glenn Gould, the Canadian musician, was a bodhisattva.

A: No wonder he played so beautifully.

JR29: Eucharist: The Temple Sacrifice

A: One thing I've noticed over and over in my studies is the idyllic portrait that's been painted of the apostle Paul. "Paul was such a good man." "Paul was such a brave missionary." "Paul teaches us how to be imitators of Christ." "Paul was a selfless servant of God." "Paul was a man I can relate to." "Jesus is my saviour, but Paul is my hero. I want to be like Paul when I grow up." I wonder sometimes if the Christians who are saying these things have ever read what Paul's letters actually say. Paul's own letters -- Romans, First & Second Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, Philemon, and probably Colossians -- reveal clearly that Paul was every bit as interested in "pagan" occult magic and mysticism as the "pagans" were at this time. This wasn't a "modern" or "progressive" religious movement at all.

“His disciples said to him: Show us the place you are, for it is essential for us to seek it. He responded: He who has ears, let him hear. There is light within a man of light, and it lights up all the world. If it does not shine, it is dark” (Gospel of Thomas 24). This saying can be understood as a central thesis statement in guiding your understanding of Jesus’ original teachings. Among those who believe in dualistic traditions about light versus dark that include good versus evil, purity versus sin, and mind versus body, a quick glance at Thomas 24 suggests that Jesus is talking about the light of divine knowledge and salvation. But only those who haven’t been paying attention to Jesus’ teachings on love, forgiveness, and healing could conclude that, for Jesus, the inner light sought by the disciples is gnosis (occult understanding, illumination, pure wisdom). For Jesus, the highest state of human experience was not gnosis but Divine Love — how to feel it, how to share it, how to be healed by it. You can choose to accept a life of relationship with God, in which case you’ll begin to live a life of wholeness, expansiveness, empathy, and healing -- entering the Kingdom that can’t be “seen” but can be “heard,” or, more properly, emotionally sensed. Or you can choose to block God’s love and forgiveness in your life by allowing ancient occult rituals and beliefs to get in the way of your daily relationship with God -- that is, choosing Paul’s movable Temple with its occult feast of body and blood). The photo shows a marble head and torso of Dionysos, God of Wine, Roman copy after a Praxitelean work of the 4th century BCE, on display at the Royal Ontario Museum. Photo credit JAT 2017.

J: In the first century of the Roman Empire, the idea of gods and goddesses and cult rituals and visions and prophecies and sacrifices and divine fools and chosen oracles and sacred pools and sacred temples and sacred stones and sacred forests was -- by far -- the dominant understanding of humanity's relationship with the divine. This way of thinking has become foreign to the modern mind. But it was the context in which I was teaching. It was also the context in which Paul was teaching. In my time as a teacher and healer, I was not only trying to undermine the authority of the Jerusalem Temple -- I was also trying to lessen the authority of occult magic in people's minds. I was trying to say that visions and prophecies and sacrifices get in the way of people's relationship with God. I wanted to make the experience of faith consistent with the experience of the human senses and the natural world. Some would call it a form of natural theology.  

A: If this is what you were trying to do, it doesn't come across well in the New Testament. 

J: No. It can only be seen clearly in the Gospel of Mark. There's also an indication of it in the Gospel of Thomas and in the parts of the Letter of James I myself wrote. The Kingdom parables that Matthew and Luke cut and pasted from earlier written sources also give an indication of my lack of support for ritual, magic, prophecy, and the like. The images I used in my teaching parables were all very practical, very normal. You won't find any mystical flying chariots in my teachings.  

A: Or any trips to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2). On the other hand, there are lots of references to healing miracles in Mark, and many people today would want to lump healing stories into the same category as other first century superstitions. 

J: Well, the honest truth is that healing miracles do take place, and always have, because healing miracles aren't a form of magic. They're a form of science. Healing miracles, when they take place, are the result of conscious choices made by God or by God's healing angels. At a scientific level, God is collapsing probability wave functions and shifting quantum energies by means of non-locality (quantum entanglement) to effect changes at the macroscopic level. In other words, if God decides to give you a "miracle healing" -- and only God is in charge of this decision -- then God uses perfectly acceptable scientific tools to bring about the healing. This is just a more sophisticated form of what today's medical researchers are doing with targeted therapies and surgeries performed with computer-aided magnification. Really, it's just goofy to claim that healing miracles aren't scientifically possible. Just because the human mind can't grasp the scientific principles God uses doesn't mean those principles don't exist. Modern science gives people more grounds for believing in healing miracles, not fewer.  

A: What does a human being have to "do" in order to receive one of these healing miracles? What sort of religious observance will lead to a healing miracle? 

J: What I was trying to get at 2,000 years ago was the idea that occult magic gets in the way of the relationship between each person and God. It's the relationship that's central to the healing process. It's the choices that people make around their relationships -- all their relationships, not just their relationship with God -- that affect the functioning of the body's built-in healing abilities. Human DNA comes with some pretty amazing built-in "healing subroutines." If those subroutines are functioning properly, the body can bounce back quite quickly from all sorts of injuries and illnesses. I'm not saying there won't be scars, and I'm not saying there won't be psychological and emotional adjustments. Human beings can't escape occasional illness or eventual death. (Though to listen to Paul, you might think you can.) On the other hand, you can make the most of your DNA package. You can make the most of your human biology. You can work with God rather than against God towards a state of healing.  

A: I continue to be amazed that Paul's silence on the question of healing and healing miracles doesn't bother today's orthodox Christians.  

J: The author of Luke-Acts did a brilliant job of making it seem that Paul's spiritual concerns were the same as my spiritual concerns. Acts makes it seem that Paul cared about healing the disadvantaged in society. Paul's own words say otherwise. 

A: In 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, we see Paul instituting the Eucharist. In his own words, Paul says he received a revelation from the Lord in which you supposedly commanded your faithful followers to eat bread in remembrance of you and to drink the cup which is "the new covenant in [his] blood." How do your respond to that?  

J: The same way I respond to all Temple sacrifices: they gotta go.  

A: You're implying that Paul's Eucharist is a Temple sacrifice? 

J: I'm saying it right out loud. I'm saying that Rabbiniic Judaism freed itself from the horror of Temple sacrifices more than 1,900 years ago, and now it's time for Christianity to follow suit. Paul's mystical Eucharist is nothing more than an extension of Paul's Temple theology. First he tells people that if they have blind faith in Christ, the Temple will come to them. Then he institutes a classic Temple sacrifice -- in this case the sacred Messianic bread and wine of the Essenes (1QS 6 and 1QSa). This would have made perfect sense to a first century audience steeped in occult magic -- you go to a Temple to offer a sacrifice. Logically, however, you can't take an external sacrifice to the Temple of the Spirit if the Temple is already inside of you. So to keep the Temple clean and make it habitable for the Spirit (so that the Spirit can come in and bring you lots of special spiritual goodies) you have to ingest the sacrifice. You have to drink holy blood and eat holy flesh because nothing else in the corrupt material world is powerful enough to purify your inner Temple.  

A: But this inner Temple isn't really "you." It's something that originated outside of you -- something that God gives and God can take away. It's like a surgical implant, a pacemaker or a stent or a pin in a broken hip. Right?  

J: Exactly. It's a Gnostic idea. An occult idea. Paul's Eucharist is a pagan ritual. A cult ritual. A vampiric ritual. It has nothing to with "remembrance" and everything to do with occult power over evil forces. The very idea of drinking blood would have offended and horrified mainstream Jews, including me and my followers. Even John the Baptist doesn't speak of the Eucharist in his gospel. Paul's Eucharist crossed a big line. 

 A: And I suppose Mark confronted this very issue in his gospel? 

J: Oh yes. Most definitely. 

 A: Good. Then I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on that topic.

JR19: The Beatitudes of Luke

A: People are often confused about the meaning of your statements on wealth and poverty. There's a long history of Christians deciding to "imitate you" by giving up all their possessions and taking vows of poverty (among other vows). How do you respond to this interpretation of your teachings?  

J: It's an incorrect interpretation. 

A: In what way?  

J: Psychologically and spiritually, it's an incorrect interpretation. There's no truth to the widespread belief that asceticism is the correct path to knowing God. Asceticism, including the modified form of asceticism preached by the monastic founder Benedict, is an ancient spiritual practice, to be sure, but it's a dangerous one. It's dangerous to the human body and the human brain. Therefore it gets in the way of connection with God. I don't recommend asceticism today. I didn't recommend asceticism 2,000 years ago. 

Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you, and defame you on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for surely your reward is great in the Kingdom within; for that is what their ancestors did to the prophets. But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:22-26, translation from The New Oxford Annotated NRSV, 3rd Ed.) Photo credit JAT 2022.

A: The Beatitudes and Woes in Luke (Luke 6:20-26) seem to suggest otherwise. The footnotes in the New Oxford Annotated NRSV state that "the focus [in the beatitudes] is on economic and social conditions, not spiritual states" (p. 107 NT).  

J: Commentators interpret the Lukan beatitudes this way because the commentators themselves have a dualistic understanding of humanity. There's a common belief that economic and social conditions can be separated from spiritual states. But they can't. They've always been intertwined. There's no such thing as a spiritual state that's separate and distinct from economic and social realities. It's one of the great myths of religion -- the idea that people can dissociate themselves from their own thoughts, needs, feelings, and relationships in order to get closer to God. It's pure crap. Abusive, damaging crap.  

A: Explain. 

J: The only path to connecting with God while living as a human being is to become a Whole Brain Thinker. A Whole Brain Thinker is a person who makes balanced choices, holistic choices each day. A Whole Brain Thinker engages all parts of the brain God gave him. He uses his emotions in a balanced, compassionate way. He uses his logic and memory to balance his heart. He honours and respects the needs of his physical body, neither denying himself food nor overindulging at the expense of his physical health. He incorporates his spiritual life into his regular daily life, rather than setting aside just one or two hours per week to attend religious services. He struggles each day to find the balance among all these competing aspects of his true self, but he tries his best because that's the only path open to a self-realized person. To a person who has found the Kingdom.  

A: Are there any measurable benefits to such a path? Any positive outcomes? Any source of spiritual hope?  

J: There are many measurable benefits. Too many to count, in fact. I can't give a precise list, because each person is different, each soul is different, so there's variation from person to person. But there are some overall patterns that can be described. There are overall improvements to physical health, mental health, family relationships, and community relationships that develop automatically when individuals start to take control of their own choices, their own thoughts and feelings. Thousands of researchers in hundreds of different fields would back me up on this one.  

A: I love it when scientific research backs up the Divine Truth! 

J: One area that gets very little research attention is the role of brain health in facilitating the experience of trust. One of the first emotions to get "blocked" in the angry brain, in the addicted brain, is trust. Trust is a complex soul emotion. It's interwoven with relationships in the soul and in the childhood brain. It's also interwoven with the physical body through ongoing touch -- respectful touch, appropriate touch, sentimental touch. There's a reason that folk wisdom recommends daily hugs. Hugs are important. Respectful hugs -- by that I mean non-sexualized hugs -- are hugely important to people's health. On the other hand, abusive contact, abusive touch has the opposite effect on people's biology. It damages brain cells. Stress hormones released in the body damage the brain cells of both the abuser and the abusee. A survivor of childhood abuse is likely to grow up unable to trust. Without the emotion of trust, there's no basis for mature relationship. There's no basis for mature relationship with yourself or with anybody else. It means you have no foundation for a relationship with God.  

A: Because you need to feel trust in order to feel faith. Genuine faith. 

J (nodding): Genuine faith is founded on a person's ability to trust that God actually knows what they're doing! If you aren't able to trust God, then you're always going to be second-guessing God, getting angry with God. You're always going to be judging God. People don't like to admit that they're judging God, but many Christians do it. Every single day they draw up lists of God's "crimes" of omission and commission. You wouldn't believe the number of angry prayers God gets every day. 

A: So how does all this relate to the message of the Lukan beatitudes? 

J: The issue here is the interconnection between trust and faith on the one hand, and anger and addiction on the other hand. The brain isn't wired -- nor should it be -- to allow human beings to live a life of trust and faith AND anger and addiction. People have to make a choice. They have to make a choice between living a life of trust and faith -- a life where they feel alive every day instead of dead inside, empty inside -- OR living a life of anger and addiction. It's an unfortunate fact that once people become addicted to status, physiologically addicted to the dopamine release of "status hits," they tend to want to stick with their "drug of choice." They won't give it up until they decide their addiction is causing harm. They have to stop denying the harm created by the addiction. So let me ask you . . . how many people do you know who've voluntarily given up their status for the sake of inner life, inner freedom, inner joy? 

A: I know several people who've lost their status involuntarily -- not through choice, but through circumstance. Stock market losses. Divorce. Illness. Long-term disability. That sort of thing.  

J: You know a number of people with money, status, privilege, possessions. How would you say they're doing on the "inner joy" scale?  

A: Many aren't doing well. They're getting clinically depressed. They're developing chronic health problems -- a lot of autoimmune stuff. Sleep disorders. Chronic pain. Unrelenting stress.  

J: Right. These responses to stress and status addiction aren't new. They've been around for as long as homo sapiens have been biologically susceptible to status addiction.  

A: The Lukan Woes -- Luke 6:24-26 -- look different when read in the context you've just described. The "consolation" and the "hunger" and the "mourning and weeping" sound a lot like clinical depression.  

J: Clinical depression has a genetic component, but it's also intertwined with internal stresses and external stresses. Sometimes you can't do anything about the external stresses -- things like the Dow Jones average. But the internal stresses have an effect on clinical depression, too. People can really stress themselves out by making choices that harm themselves and harm others. There's a reason that people with clinical depression respond best to a treatment course that involves both appropriate antidepressant medication AND certain kinds of effective psychotherapy. The medication helps your brain build new "wiring," which is necessary for the healing process, while the psychotherapy can help you recognize your harmful choices and learn to make more loving choices.  

A: Nothing new there as far as an empathetic psychiatrist is concerned.  

J: Exactly. And Christianity should jump onto the same page with the empathetic psychiatrists. It's not money that's the root of all evil. Money builds schools, hospitals, roads, etc., etc., etc.  

A: Whereas status addiction builds huge monuments, huge reputations, huge armies, and professional sports teams. 

J: Jared Diamond thinks that civilizations collapse when they harm their own environment and starve themselves to death. But people who are using their brains in holistic, balanced ways have too much common sense to destroy their own environment. Only serious status addicts are stupid enough to destroy their own sustenance for the sake of building a bigger, better Temple.  

A: The history of collapse in a nutshell. 

J: God won't back up status-addicted choices. God would rather bring people Home to heal them and release them from the pain of status addiction than leave them in a morass of profound abuse. And make no mistake -- religion based on status addiction is profoundly abusive. 

A: Including Pauline Christianity. Its doctrines, its teachings.  

J: If the shoe fits . . .