Month: June 2014

March 28, 2014

The Keys of Knowledge

Larry W

MY list for Keys of Knowledge revealed so far — did I get this right?

JJ

The Keys given out so far are 1. Decision 2. Judgement 3. Right Perception 4. The Book of Revelation is the Key to the path of the disciple as revealed in The Unveiling. 5. Hint is given at the end of Eternal Words and will be revealed at the gathering. #12 is The Word is God. The Molecular Relationship and Gathering of Lights books contain two keys.

 

March 29, 2014

Cosmos

There is a new show on Fox called Cosmos, A Spacetime Odyssey, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

So far three shows have been presented. There are some good things included that can enhance the knowledge of the majority. On the other hand, Tyson seems really bent on flatly dismissing the idea of any intelligence being involved in any creation of life. After watching the program I assumed he was an atheist so I checked it out and was somewhat surprised to see that he classifies himself as an agnostic. If he is truly an agnostic then you would think he would at least be open to the possibility that a higher intelligence may have been invoved in the creation of life.

One of the most interesting things presented in the first show was an encapsulation of the story of Giordano Bruno who was a thinker I admired from history.

Here is what Tyson presented.

Imagine a world before telescopes, when the universe was only what you could see with the naked eye.

It was obvious that Earth was motionless, and that everything in the heavens the Sun, the Moon, the stars, the planets revolved around us and then a Polish astronomer and priest named Copernicus made a radical proposal.

The Earth was not the center.

It was just one of the planets, and, like them, it revolved around the Sun.

Many, like the Protestant reformer Martin Luther, took this idea as a scandalous affront to Scripture.

They were horrified.

But for one man, Copernicus didn’t go far enough.

His name was Giordano Bruno, and he was a natural-born rebel.

He longed to bust out of that cramped little universe.

Even as a young Dominican monk in Naples, he was a misfit.

This was a time when there was no freedom of thought in Italy.

But Bruno hungered to know everything about God’s creation.

He dared to read the books banned by the Church, and that was his undoing.

In one of them, an ancient Roman, a man dead for more than 1,500 years whispered to him of a universe far greater, one as boundless as his idea of God.

Lucretius asked the reader to imagine standing at the edge of the universe and shooting an arrow outward.

If the arrow keeps going, then clearly, the universe extends beyond what you thought was the edge.

But if the arrow doesn’t keep going say it hits a wall then that wall must lie beyond what you thought was the edge of the universe.

Now if you stand on that wall and shoot another arrow, there are only the same two possible outcomes it either flies forever out into space, or it hits some boundary where you can stand and shoot yet another arrow.

Either way, the universe is unbounded.

The cosmos must be infinite.

This made perfect sense to Bruno.

The God he worshiped was infinite.

So how, he reasoned, could Creation be anything less? It was the last steady job he ever had.

And then, when he was 30, he had the vision that sealed his fate.

In this dream, he awakened to a world enclosed inside a confining bowl of stars.

This was the cosmos of Bruno’s time.

He experienced a sickening moment of fear, as if the bottom of everything was falling away beneath his feet.

But he summoned up his courage.

I spread confident wings to space and soared toward the infinite, leaving far behind me what others strained to see from a distance.

Here, there was no up, no down, no edge, no center.

I saw that the Sun was just another star, and the stars were other Suns, each escorted by other Earths like our own.

The revelation of this immensity was like falling in love.

Bruno became an evangelist, spreading the gospel of infinity throughout Europe.

He assumed that other lovers of God would naturally embrace this grander and more glorious view of Creation.

What a fool I was.

He was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church in his homeland, expelled by the Calvinists in Switzerland, and by the Lutherans in Germany.

Bruno jumped at an invitation to lecture at Oxford, in England.

At last, he thought, a chance to share his vision with an audience of his peers.

I have come to present a new vision of the cosmos.

Copernicus was right to argue that our world is not the center of the universe.

The Earth goes around the Sun.

It’s a planet, just like the others.

But Copernicus was only the dawn.

I bring you the sunrise.

The stars are other fiery suns, made of the same substance as the Earth, and they have their own watery earths, with plants and animals no less noble than our own.

Are you mad or merely ignorant? Everyone knows there is only one world.

What everyone knows is wrong.

Our infinite God has created a boundless universe with an infinite number of worlds.

Do they not read Aristotle where you come from? Or even the Bible? I beg you, reject antiquity, tradition, faith, and authority.

Let us begin anew, by doubting everything we assume – has been proven.

– Heretic! Infidel! Your God is too small.

A wiser man would have learned his lesson.

But Bruno was not such a man.

He couldn’t keep his soaring vision of the cosmos to himself, despite the fact that the penalty for doing so in his world was the most vicious form of cruel and unusual punishment.

Giordano Bruno lived at a time when there was no such thing as the separation of church and state, or the notion that freedom of speech was a sacred right of every individual.

Expressing an idea that didn’t conform to traditional belief could land you in deep trouble.

Recklessly, Bruno returned to Italy.

Maybe he was homesick.

But still, he must have known that his homeland was one of the most dangerous places in Europe he could possibly go.

The Roman Catholic Church maintained a system of courts known as the Inquisition, and its sole purpose was to investigate and torment anyone who dared voice views that differed from theirs.

It wasn’t long before Bruno fell into the clutches of the thought police.

This wanderer, who worshiped an infinite universe, languished in confinement for eight years.

Through relentless interrogations, he stubbornly refused to renounce his views.

Why was the Church willing to go to such lengths to torment Bruno? What were they afraid of? If Bruno was right, then the sacred books and the authority of the Church would be open to question.

Finally, the cardinals of the Inquisition rendered their verdict.

You are found guilty of questioning the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Of believing that God’s wrath is not eternal, that everyone will be saved.

Of asserting the existence of other worlds.

All of the books you have written will be gathered up and burned in St.

Peter’s Square.

Reverend Father, these eight years of confinement have given me much time to reflect.

So you will recant? My love and reverence for the Creator inspires in me the vision of an infinite Creation.

You shall be turned over to the Governor of Rome to administer the appropriate punishment for those who will not repent.

It may be that you are more afraid to deliver this judgment than I am to hear it.

Ten years after Bruno’s martyrdom, Galileo first looked through a telescope, realizing that Bruno had been right all along.

The Milky Way was made of countless stars invisible to the naked eye, and some of those lights in the sky were actually other worlds.

Bruno was no scientist.

His vision of the cosmos was a lucky guess, because he had no evidence to support it.

Like most guesses, it could well have turned out wrong. (End quote)

Tyson gives a good account of Bruno but he dismisses the idea that he did not make a guess but received knowledge from Higher Intelligence.

Newton, the greatest scientist of all time, stated that the complexity of the human eye proved the existence of God. Tyson, however, who has made no discoveries close to Newton, thinks the eyes, the cell, DNA etc evolved with the help of no intelligence. Here was what he said about the eye.

Darwin discovered the actual mechanism of evolution.

The prevailing belief was that the complexity and variety of life must be the work of an intelligent designer, who created each of these millions of different species separately.

Living things are just too intricate, it was said, to be the result of unguided evolution.

Consider the human eye, a masterpiece of complexity.

It requires a cornea, iris, lens, retina, optic nerves, muscles, let alone the brain’s elaborate neural network to interpret images.

It’s more complicated than any device ever crafted by human intelligence.

Therefore, it was argued, the human eye can’t be the result of mindless evolution.

To know if that’s true, we need to travel across time to a world before there were eyes to see.

In the beginning, life was blind.

This is what our world looked like four billion years ago, before there were any eyes to see.

Until a few hundred million years passed, and then, one day, there was a microscopic copying error in the DNA of a bacterium.

This random mutation gave that microbe a protein molecule that absorbed sunlight.

Want to know what the world looked like to a light-sensitive bacterium? Take a look at the right side of the screen.

Mutations continued to occur at random, as they always do in any population of living things.

Another mutation caused a dark bacterium to flee intense light.

What is going on here? Night and day.

Those bacteria that could tell light from dark had a decisive advantage over the ones that couldn’t.

Why? Because the daytime brought harsh, ultraviolet light that damages DNA.

The sensitive bacteria fled the intense light to safely exchange their DNA in the dark.

They survived in greater numbers than the bacteria that stayed at the surface.

Over time, those light-sensitive proteins became concentrated in a pigment spot on the more advanced, one-celled organism.

This made it possible to find the light, an overwhelming advantage for an organism that harvests sunlight to make food.

Here’s a flatworm’s-eye view of the world.

This multi-celled organism evolved a dimple in the pigment spot.

The bowl-shaped depression allowed the animal to distinguish light from shadow to crudely make out objects in its vicinity, including those to eat and those that might eat it a tremendous advantage.

Later, things became a little clearer.

The dimple deepened and evolved into a socket with a small opening.

Over thousands of generations, natural selection was slowly sculpting the eye.

The opening contracted to a pinhole covered by a protective transparent membrane.

Only a little light could enter the tiny hole, but it was enough to paint a dim image on the sensitive inner surface of the eye.

This sharpened the focus.

A larger opening would have let in more light to make a brighter image but one that was out of focus.

This development launched the visual equivalent of an arms race.

The competition needed to keep up to survive.

But then a splendid new feature of the eye evolved, a lens that provided both brightness and sharp focus.

In the eyes of primitive fish, the transparent gel near the pinhole formed into a lens.

At the same time, the pinhole enlarged to let in more and more light.

Fish could now see in high-def, both close up and far away.

And then something terrible happened.

Have you ever noticed that a straw in a glass of water looks bent at the surface of the water? That’s because light bends when it goes from one medium to another, say from water to air.

Our eyes originally evolved to see in water.

The watery fluid in those eyes neatly eliminated the distortion of that bending effect.

But for land animals, the light carries images from dry air into their still-watery eyes.

That bends the light rays, causing all kinds of distortions.

When our amphibious ancestors left the water for the land, their eyes, exquisitely evolved to see in water, were lousy for seeing in the air.

Our vision has never been as good since.

We like to think of our eyes as state-of-the-art, but 375 million years later, we still can’t see things right in front of our noses or discern fine details in near darkness the way fish can.

When we left the water, why didn’t nature just start over again and evolve us a new set of eyes that were optimal for seeing in the air? Nature doesn’t work that way.

Evolution reshapes existing structures over generations, adapting them with small changes.

It can’t just go back to the drawing board and start from scratch.

At every stage of its development, the evolving eye functioned well enough to provide a selective advantage for survival.

And among animals alive today, we find eyes at all these stages of development.

And all of them function.

The complexity of the human eye poses no challenge to evolution by natural selection.

In fact, the eye and all of biology makes no sense without evolution.

Some claim that evolution is just a theory, as if it were merely an opinion.

The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact.

Evolution really happened.

Accepting our kinship with all life on Earth is not only solid science.

In my view, it’s also a soaring spiritual experience. End Quote

I don’t know how you can have a godless spiritual experience.

Question for the group. What is Tyson missing in his explanation of evolution? Where is his error? We are looking for something more than just “God” as the answer here.

 

March 30, 2014

The Personality

Dan writes;

Does someone that is soul-infused and capable of group unity to the point that they could participate in a molecule, no longer have a personality?

JJ

It doesn’t matter how high on the totem pole you get, you still have a personality as long as you are incarnated in a physical body.

The personality consists of three things.

(1) The calculating brain

(2) The feeling nature – the emotions.

(3) The mind and powers of reasoning.

Each of us combines the powers of these three vehicles to create what is called a unique personality.

Now, if Jesus had a personality then it stands to reason that other disciples who are soul infused would still have one.

Did Jesus have and use a calculating brain? Most certainly.

Did Jesus have and show feelings? Indeed. He wept several times and another time became so angry that he chased the moneychangers out of the temple.

Did Jesus use his reasoning powers? He used them regularly in arguments he had with the religious leaders. He also used his creative mental powers to concoct numerous teaching parables that were concise, but very effective.

For most of us the personality slowly falls into place after we are born. It is created as we follow the line of least resistance and we go with the influences of our rays, astrological influences, inherited tendencies and what rubs off on to us from our friends, associates and family.

Because the personality naturally develops in standard humans they have a tendency to identify with it. The average person thinks that he is his personality. It does not occur to him that what he thinks he is, is merely composed of a life essence using three vehicles so he can function on the physical plane.

Now here is an interesting point made by DK. He tells us that after the Fourth Initiation the disciple no longer attaches himself to the personality, but still needs one to function in the world. Therefore, what he does is to consciously create one. In other words, he becomes what he decides to be rather than what is thrust upon him by outward forces and circumstances.

This is a goal that all seekers and disciples would do well to seek. Instead of developing and expressing ourselves through impulses gained by programming and outer forces, seek to be the observer and then decide what type of personality you want to express and be that person.

 

March 30, 2014

Avoiding Phase Two

One thing this group has in common with other groups, whether they be spiritual or not, is that we are very creative in discovering ways to offend and be offended at each other.

What is overlooked is that there are degrees in which various statements are offensive as a whole. This is often overlooked because a black and white approach is often taken. Either the person is offended or not. For many there are not degrees, or places in between. There is just offense or toleration.

In this group, the offense we want to avoid more than any other are those things that go beyond offending just one person, but irritates the many and leads to a round of arguments, attack and defense that can sometime last weeks and totally distract the group. Such diatribe often causes good people to withdraw and scares new people away.

When this happens no one seems to take responsibility in starting it, instead, always blaming it on the other guy.

Here’s how a lengthy, distracting personality argument often gets started.

Person A disagrees with Person B and describes his thoughts using a politically incorrect word. He may say something like the following:

That’s a crazy idea.

Where have you been living, Fantasyland?

You are not being logical.

You must have gotten that idea from watching Looney Tunes.

We could go on and on listing phrases and words that will offend some people. The problem is that all of us, if we speak or write long enough, will say something that will be considered offensive by someone.

I am as careful with my wording as anyone here, and still manage to do it from time to time.

The key in participating in a harmonious group is to overlook politically or spiritually incorrect speech. This is easy to do if one tries to look at the person’s heart. Often I see a member say something quite stark, but I sense that he is either making an attempt at humor or means it as a good natured jab. In this case it is easy to overlook the black and white wording.

These jabs made with harmless intent are not the cause of group conflict, though they often take the blame. They are not a cause, but an excuse.

The real cause begins when the jab is taken too seriously and the guy then attacks with real intent to demean or humiliate.

If this second step were never taken then an incessant round of conflict would never occur. The person taking this second step bears the brunt of the responsibility.

What the person who feels tempted to take the second step needs to realize is that this first step happens regularly in every group there is and if he or she is going to register offense there then he will wind up doing it everywhere. No matter where you go you will find people making cutting comments.

So if one is not clear about whether or not a comment is merely a part of the fairly harmless Phrase One, how can he tell?

A good sign is to look toward the reaction from the group. If only you, or a small handful are concerned then that is a sign that your concern or offense is misplaced.

If a significant number become involved in dealing with the offense then that is a sign that Phase Two has been entered where an endless round begins.

Allow me to give examples of the Phase One, Phase Two offenses.

Phase One: That’s a crazy idea.

Phase Two: Who you calling crazy?

Phase One: That’s a crazy idea.

Phase Two: So, you think I’m insane? You are the lunatic here.

Notice here that the Phase One guy did not attack the person, but the idea. And notice that the Phase Two person did not respond to the idea being attacked but as if he was personally attacked. Instead of hearing “That’s a crazy idea.” He heard “You re a crazy person.”

Instead of taking it personally and responding with a personal attack he should have merely asked, “What is so crazy about the idea?”

The key that must be absorbed by the Phase Two person is the Third Key of Knowledge, which is “Correct Perception.” If he had used this key he would have not registered the incorrect unspoken meaning, “You are a crazy person.” All sane people say something deemed a little crazy now and then.

Now here is a response that is sure to lead to conflict:

Phase One: That’s a crazy idea.

Phase Two: You need to get some soul contact so you can speak with respect.

This response lays the groundwork for major problems because so much can be perceived between the lines such as:

(1) This person is judging the other has not being in contact with his soul. This is not his to decide. He can think this and keep it to himself, but to blurt it out creates fightn’ words.

(2) This person is inferring that he is in contact with his soul and the other is not. He would have to think this way to make such a judgment.

(3) This individual is attacking the person and not his ideas.

(4) This person is making a negative judgment on the other which never has a good end.

I could go on but I hope this gives the general idea of what causes the personality problems that surface here from time to time.

The main key is to not take personal offense at non personal attacks or non personal biting comments.

 

March 31, 2014

Referee’s Comments

To insinuate that Dan committed the unforgivable sin against the Holy Ghost is indeed misguided. I have personally received many things through the Spirit and have encountered many people who think that such things I have received are crazy. They think it is even crazier if I tell them that the source is the spirit.

Does that mean they have sinned against the Holy Spirit? No. Of course not. It merely means they disagreed with my words as they understood them.

In order to sin against the Holy Ghost you have to feel Its presence and know that what you are dealing with is a true reality. If the person becomes hardened so he is unwilling to receive anything through the soul then a wall of his own making is created between him and the Spirit .

As it turns out, the Spirit does not leave us but the person leaves the spirit by insulating himself from the Presence. This causes the person in his present personality to be cut off from the spiritual presence. I do not see this problem occurring with any of my friends posting here.

I normally do not comment on causes of conflict but there have been so many accusations going around that perhaps in this case I should say a few extra words. In my opinion there is plenty of blame to go around here. Dan disagreed with how Rick saw himself as being led by the Spirit. Dan tells him, “Your ‘spirit’ sounds like an idiot.” Obviously Dan thinks Rick is led by his feelings and not an infallible Spirit.

There is nothing wrong with Dan disagreeing with Rick or any revelation he has, but his response was pretty stark and would be hurtful to many receiving such language. If I disagreed with Rick and wanted to voice it I would have said something like this:

“I don’t care where you think you received this it doesn’t make sense to me and I disagree because…”

Dan has disagreed with me pretty frankly a number o times with fairly abrupt language, but they have been Phase One disagreements and I generally just let the roughness pass through me and answer as if the wording was spoken with kindness.

Rick also made mistakes in my opinion. He took extra offense because he saw the Spirit as being attacked. Actually Dan could not attack the Spirit unless he really believed the Holy Spirit was at work here. Because Rick saw Dan’s response as extra egregious, instead of just voicing disagreement (which would have been the best course IMO) he punished Dan by unilaterally cutting him off from the group.

This in turn outraged a number of members.

Both men could have handled this differently and avoided the disruption the group suffered. Most of us can see this on hindsight so the best thing to do now is move onward and remember we are in this together as friends and should treat each other accordingly.

Also, it would be helpful to take my post #67310 to heart. Susan called this a classic and I’m glad she saw it that way because I felt led by the “Spirit” to write it. If anyone thinks the ideas sound like they came from an idiot, I’ll take the blame for making it sound that way.

 

Adam:

The whole notion of being offended by anyone or anything, is totally offensive.

JJ

“Blessed is he who is not offended by me.” Jesus

 

April 1, 2014

Noah, The Movie

Johann:

How was it that the very earth itself was corrupt and “ALL flesh”? These are very strong words as for instance the animals just run on a program designed to work on context and nothing else, not on a creative purpose as we understand it.

JJ

Supposing that the story of Noah represents the great floods that destroyed Atlantis the clue to this may be found in legends of that time, left to us in the image of the Sphinx, which still stands in Egypt. The Sphinx is half man and half lion. Some legends tell us that Atlantean scientists experimented with the mixing of the species, mixing animals with humans as well as various animal species and this corrupted much of the life of the planet. Unfortunately scientists are headed in this direction once again. Who knows what kind of creatures will be roaming the earth in a hundred or more years.

 

April 2, 2014

The Question on Cosmos

What is Tyson missing in his explanation of evolution? Where is his error? We are looking for something more than just “God” as the answer here.

We received some great answers on this. Unfortunately, I do not have time to comment on them and give them justice.

There is one very important point that orthodox evolutionists leave out of their argument, which basically goes like this.

We know that life was created by evolution and not Intelligent Design because of what we have observed. We know the fossil record shows that over eons of time life evolved from a simple state to a more complex one. In addition to this natural evolution, the historical and fossil record shows that humans speeded evolution up. An instance was when he domesticated the wolf and controlled his breeding, which, over time, produced dogs we have today in all their forms.

This approach has a basic error and it is amazing most scientists, which consider themselves way above the masses in intellect, do not understand the error.

The error is this: They witness and tabulate a process of creation and then conclude that they understand all the ingredients and intelligence involved in the creation.

For instance, they tabulate the steps of evolution and think all that was involved was a natural selection process. Case closed.

They tabulate all they know about gravity and when they find the Higgs particle they think they know how gravity was works and was created.

They tabulate all they know about creation and figure the Big Bang (with no intelligence involved) explains it all when they have no idea how the whole universe exploded into being from a tiny point.

Now just imagine how silly this approach is when applied to reality as follows.

Charles loves apple products. He has an Apple computer, an iPhone, an iPod and an iPad. He wonders. How did these fine products come to be?

He investigates and finds out that Apple products were created through an evolutionary process. They started with the Apple I, then came the Apple II. Next was Lisa, then the Mac, followed by the Mac Plus, the Mac SE, the iMac, the G3, the G4, the G5 and now the latest Apple computers and products in all their glory.

After his study Charles comes to a startling conclusion and thinks to himself:

“Obviously Apple products were created through a process of evolution and natural selection. As soon as a new and better product shows up through some type of mutation then from that point on it is naturally selected and the Apple products just become more and more sophisticated without the need of an Intelligent Designer.

If any one of us were to encounter Charles we would think he is pretty stupid, yet scientists make this same error. They observe the history of evolution and see the complex designs, much more complex than any computer, and figure no intelligence was necessary in creation.

When these guys die and go to the other side and discover that great intelligence was involved in all creation they will feel pretty embarrassed as the truth was always there staring them in the face.

 

April 3, 2014

Study: Vegetarians Less Healthy

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/study-vegetarians-less-healthy-lower-quality-of-life-than-meat-eaters/

Violet Writes:

There’s a book called ” Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” that was written by a dentist who traveled the world in search of the healthiest diet. Originally, Dr. Weston Price thought it would be vegan but found the healthiest diets include meat or protein of some kind. in one case, insects were the source of protein. He and his wife did this at a time when some regions were still cut off from Western civilisation and they were able to provide photographs of their findings. Its an interesting read. More on Weston Price can be found on YouTube.

JJ

A part of the reason that many vegetarians are not that healthy is they substitute a lot of starchy foods for protein because this tends to fill you up. They also eat a lot of soy products which are not good for you unless fermented as they do in Japan. Tofu is not a health food .

I believe that those who stay away from the dead starches and concentrate on whole live foods come out in pretty good shape on the average. It would be interesting to see the results of a more detailed study.

 

April 8, 2014

Another Letter on Global Warming

Here’s another letter I wrote to my local paper.

How Global Warming Alarmists Are Like the Religious Leaders in the Days of Galileo.

(1) They claim they are right because of consensus, not proven science.

(2) Just like the medieval scientists refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, today the rigid left does not examine the opposing point of view but only seeks to distort it.

(3) Most of their predictions are incorrect.

(4) Most refuse to debate the actual science.

(5) Instead of debating they try to shut down free speech on the topic. For example, alarmists tried to prevent the Washington Post from publishing Krauthammer’s opinion on the subject and the LA Times refuses to even allow skeptical opinions (like mine) in the letters to the editor. Other papers have threatened to follow their lead. Hopefully the Statesman stays above this dogmatic approach.

(6) Instead of using reasoning, facts and science they attempt to destroy opposition through name-calling. Medieval religious leaders called skeptics, “heretics” and “blasphemers.” Today alarmists call them “deniers,” “traitors” and “flat earthers.”

(7) They both call for punishing dissent. Alarmists are increasingly calling for lawsuits, jail and “Nuremberg-style trials” for climate skeptics.

History indeed repeats itself. Only the names of the intolerant change.

 

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE