Month: May 2021

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Corresponding Effects

May 30, 2021 Joseph Dewey

Corresponding Effects

Reader Comment: I am sure that the time in prison would pay back karma quicker than dying, we all have to die, and it gives time to the person to take stock of his life.

JJ: The trouble with using time in prison as punishment for murder is that the punishment does not correspond to the crime. Life in prison may be justice for to the deviate who keeps his kid locked in his room for many years, but it is not a close compliment to the crime of murder.

It does provide some elementary reflection, often interrupted by rape, beatings etc. As far as reflection goes nothing beats the time in between lives. There the reflection is much more efficient and accurate than life in prison.

Prison time does not effectively pay off the crime of murder because it does not teach the murder what the victim felt like. In fact, the prisoner often becomes even more hardened to the victims feelings and will have an even greater distance to attain the required empathy that must be acquired by all as we proceed along the path.

This is why the murderer must experience for himself the feelings of his victim so he will have the empathy to not commit the crime again. Placing a man in prison for a lifetime merely delays this experience and this delays his progression. If he is speedily put to death by the state then his soul will judge as to whether he has learned the required empathy so he will not murder again. If not, his soul will then arrange some unique situation in a future life where he will either learn or take the left hand path.

Question: Who and when does one forgive a murderer?

JJ: Only the victim can forgive. As far as the state goes it only administers justice, not forgiveness. The state does not hold as grievance.

Many, however, say we should not have the death penalty because the state should forgive, but my point was the state is not in the business of forgiveness. Forgiveness is an individual thing.

BUT if the state were supposed to forgive then it would have to forgive all, even the prison sentence.

Comment: As in the example you cited in Acts God has the power to take life, not humans.

JJ: The power of God was used, but Peter made the judgment and executed it. It is as the scripture says:

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Gen 9:6

It doesn’t say that God will take the murderer’s life, but that “man” will.

If man has the right to take a life by condemning a man to prison for the length of his days then why would he not have the right take his life by execution? What is the difference? None except an entire life in prison is much more cruel.

Comment: He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. This includes the society that punishes by the sword.

JJ: It is true that a society or nation is subject to the laws of karma just as is the individual, but to see how this is played out we must look at the principle itself.

A cause creates a similar effect, not a different effect.

Hitler was an example of one who lived by the sword of injustice for he sought to exterminate the Jews and as it turned out the Jews are still alive and flourishing, but the Nazis wound up being the ones who were almost obliterated.

DK tells us that taking a life is not counted as murder if it is done in defense of the innocent.

If the state then executes a murderer as justice to the innocent victim as well as to protect other innocents from murder what will be the effect related to this cause?

One who supports this process but is otherwise innocent will not come back and be killed with the sword. The effect mist be related to cause. The effect instead would be twofold :

(1) If such a supporter commits murder then he would be put to death by the state. If be does not commit murder then he will not be affected.

(2) He who supports such a punishment will gravitate to a society in future lives where this this justice is in play. There he wouldn’t be put to death unless he commits murder.

On the other hand, he who is against the death penalty will gravitate to be born within a state where there is no death penalty and if he commits murder or accused of it he would suffer life in prison rather than execution.

Eventually through experience we will all learn where true fairness and justice lie. Only by seeing the effects in the world and out of the world can one have sure understanding.

Interestingly, the main thing the murderer usually learns through a life in prison is that a speedy execution would have been the preferable punishment. He will especially be aware of this after death when he can review the whole picture.

There is a time and place for everything and because of diverse circumstances there are exceptions to every rule, but when dealing with law (which is black and white) if we have justice 90% of the time we are doing pretty good. When society becomes enlightened civil laws will take second place to justice and fairness in the hearts of the people.

Council from God

A reader mentioned that he woke up in the morning with these words in his mind: “give council to the Lord.” He asked for my comment.

The scriptures tell us to take council from God. Based on this the interpretation would mean you are supposed to give God the opportunity to counsel you. In other words, listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Here are a couple scriptures from the Book of Mormon:

“Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works.” Jacob 4:10

“Counsel with the Lord in all thy doings, and he will direct thee for good; yea, when thou liest down at night lie down unto the Lord, that he may watch over you in your sleep; and when thou risest in the morning let thy heart be full of thanks unto God; and if ye do these things, ye shall be lifted up at the last day.” Alma 37:37

From DK

“Let him work first of all for alignment with his soul and then meditate, for from his own soul, his true counsel must come…. “ Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Page 142

“His word is power. His light, electric. The lightning is his symbol. His will is hidden in the counsel of his thought.” Esoteric Psychology, Vol 1, Page 63

“Man must go back in memory, seek for and destroy the causes of evil, however far back they lie. This going into the past and replaying a scene of the past in imagination as it ought to have been played the first time, I call revision.” Neville

Feb 7, 2004

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Mysteries of A Course in Miracles, Chapter 5

May 29, 2021July 11, 2022 Joseph Dewey

Chapter Five
The One Son of God

The Course gives us more details on the Son than the Father. The Father is basically that life or “idea” that initiated all creation and the Son continues it. The Father, we are told, created the Son; the Son did not create Itself. Thus, we have a difference between the two as noted here:

“I and my Father are one, but there are two parts to the statement in recognition that the Father is greater. T-1.II.4

This agrees with Jesus of the Bible who said: “my Father is greater than I.” John 14:28

We are told then that God did not desire to be alone so He extended Himself by creating a Son like unto Himself with all the Father’s original creative powers. He could then take joy in the Son’s creations as if they are His own, for they share the same mind. We are told that “He (God) created you (the Son) as part of Him.” T-24.VI.1 and “You were created only to create” T-14.I.4

The first thing a Course student must grasp about this mysterious figure called The Son, or Son of God, is that it is a unity – sharing oneness with God yet is composed of all of us and more. When, therefore, the Course states that God has only one Son, it is speaking of a great life composed of many parts sharing the same mind and purpose.

Some students take the statement of the “one Son” or “Only Son” literally to the extent that they think this means there are no parts but just one life. Their thinking goes like this:

In this illusion we appear to be many but when we return to our Source, we will no longer be an individual in any degree, but all of us will awaken as the One Son with no parts. The One Son is just dreaming all of us into temporary existence as egos. You and I will disappear along with our egos when the final awakening happens.

This is not only an error in interpretation. but such a view misses many statements in the course to the contrary.

One could make this same error with the Father and the Son which are also grouped as one, but that oneness does not mean sameness for the Course says, as quoted earlier that, “I and my Father are one, but there are two parts to the statement in recognition that the Father is greater. T-1.II.4

Then we read in the unedited version:

“the original statement was “are of one kind.” The Father and the Son are not identical, but you can say “Like Father, like Son.” UR T 1 B 22l.

Just like the Father and the Son share one mind and one life, but are separate parts of the whole, even so, is the Son composed of many parts that make up the one great life. This is comparable to cells in the body that are parts of the one life that make up the whole of your body. It is one life, but composed of many parts. This analogy was used by Paul in a similar approach to the Course:

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, SO ALSO IS CHRIST. For by ONE SPIRIT we are all baptized into ONE body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into ONE SPIRIT. For the body is not one member, but MANY (All lives together)… Now Ye are the body of Christ (the Son), and members in particular.” I Cor 12:12-14, 27

Here the Course teaches a similar principle of the One and the Many:

“It should especially be noted that God has only one Son. If all His creations are His Sons, every one must be an integral part of the whole Sonship. The Sonship in its Oneness transcends the sum of its parts. T-2.VII.6

“And here, before the altar to one God, one Father, one Creator and one Thought, we stand together as one Son of God. Not separate from Him Who is our Source; not distant from one brother who is part of our one Self” W-pI.187.10

“So do the parts of God’s Son gradually join in time, and with each joining is the end of time brought nearer.” T-20.V.1

“God has but one Son, knowing them all as One.” T-9.VI.3

This one Son consists of many Sons and the principle of the many in the one will continue after the return home:

“When the Atonement is complete and the whole Sonship is healed there will be no Call to return. But what God creates is eternal. The Holy Spirit will remain with the Sons of God, to bless their creations and keep them in the light of joy.” T-5.I.5.

Notice that we are called “Sons of God,” plural, even after our final union with God.

This oneness applies to the entire Trinity:

“The Son of God is part of the Holy Trinity, but the Trinity Itself is One. There is no confusion within Its Levels, because They are of one Mind and one Will.” T-3.II.5 “you are of one mind and spirit with Him.” T-5.VII.3 “There is one life. That life you share with Him.” W-pI.156.2

So, just as you are a part of the “Only Son,” even so, the Son “is part of the Holy Trinity.” The parts of the Son share a Oneness as do the three parts of the Trinity which “Itself is One.”

So, what then produces this oneness? Is it caused by a merging where each part is exactly the same with no one having a unique contribution or individual existence?

No. What causes the oneness is that we all share the same Mind, Will, Spirit and Life. The mind and Spirit of God is circulating within you now giving you life, yet you live your life as a unique contribution. That will not change when we awaken. Instead, we will merely lose our ego which sees us as a separate unconnected unit. When this happens, we will see and accept the unity and oneness of life.

The Course makes it clear that when it speaks of the Son, plural or singular, it is talking about all of us for it says, “WE stand together as one Son of God.” W-pI.187.10 But what is often missed is how inclusive the Sonship really is. The Sonship is often referred to as an actual extension of God Himself:

“Very gently does God shine upon Himself, loving the extension of Himself that is His Son.” T-12.VI.7

Then it draws this fantastic conclusion:

“There is no end to God and His Son, for WE ARE THE UNIVERSE” and we are to “See His creations as His Son.” T-11.I.5.

“God created nothing beside you and nothing beside you exists.” T-10.in.2

“Without you there would be a lack in God, a Heaven incomplete, a Son without a Father. There could be no universe and no reality.” T-24.VI.2

“The universe consists of nothing but the Son of God,” W-pI.183.10

Those are pretty inclusive statements for you and me, but this one tops them all:

“How holy is the smallest grain of sand, when it is recognized as being part of the completed picture of God’s Son!” T-28.IV.9 “all living things as part of him.” M-23.2 “Know, then, the Sons of God, and you will know all creation.” T-7.XI.7

So, the Son not only consists of you, me and all humanity, but all life and creation down to “the smallest grain of sand.”

Since God created “nothing beside you,” this means that when we achieve full awareness we will share life with all things even to the tiniest inorganic particles. Since we all belong to one mind, and mind even creates the grain of sand, we can suppose that mind and life envelopes all things as a unity.

The Course places us as Sons in a very powerful position. We have all the powers that God has but are just unaware of who we are.

We are told that God “created you out of Himself, but still within Him.” T-14.IV.4 You are to “accept your rightful place as co-creator of the universe.” W-pI.152.8 “all His extensions are like Him.” T-12.IV.6

Then we have this powerful statement concerning those who realize their true identity:

“There is now no limit on his power, because it is the power of God. So has his name become the Name of God, for he no longer sees himself as separate from Him.” M-23.2

According to the Course, then, we are truly made in the image and likeness of God with all the powers of godliness, but instead of extending the work of the Father through true creation, we used our unlimited power to limit ourselves in a world of illusion. Apparently, we wanted the challenge of overcoming these self-imposed limits.

Instead of having a fun challenge, we lost our true identity and have become trapped in the illusion and need help getting out. To that end was the reason the Course was written.

When we as Sons of God realize our true power, nothing will be impossible, as was said by Jesus in the Bible.

When students read A Course in Miracles, they usually see the creator Father as a single entity. The concept of the Son is not so cut and dried. It clearly tells us there is one Son and all of us in this illusion are part of it, but there is not agreement on what happens when we return to heaven. Some think the end result will be a Son that is a single entity with no individual parts, and others see it as one united life composed of many parts.

Earlier we showed clear evidence from the Course writings that the latter is true. The Son has many parts but shares in the one mind, as does the Father.

What is not so clear is what the Father is and how He differs from the Son. Perhaps starting with an analogy will help.

If one is writing a book on parenting, the writer may talk about the son, daughter or child in the singular even though the term may apply to the billions of them worldwide.

This he will also do with the father, mother or parent. The fact that he refers to “the son” or “the father” doesn’t mean there is just one entity on the planet in that position.

The same goes for A Course in Miracles. When it speaks of the one Son or the one Father, it talks about a singular position, not a singular entity.

Now, getting back to the parent and child, the analogy also tells us this. The father was once a son and the son will someday be a father. But even when the son becomes a father, he is still a son to his father, but also a father to his own son.

Contrary to common interpretation, the Course’s teachings are in harmony with this example.

First, it clearly tells us that the Son of God (us) will have sons just as the Father had Sons.

“Without your Father you will not know your fatherhood. The Kingdom of God includes all His Sons AND THEIR CHILDREN, who are as like the Sons as they are like the Father.” T-7.XI.7

There you have it. The Sons of God will have “children, who are as like the Sons as they are like the Father.”

This idea is reinforced here:

“His joy lay in creating you, and He extends His Fatherhood to you so that you can extend yourself AS HE DID. You do not understand this because you do not understand Him.” T-8.VI.6

It is certainly true that many students do not understand the Father and Son concept, but it is further clarified here:

“the Son gives Fatherhood to his Creator, and receives the gift that he has given Him. It is because he is God’s Son that HE MUST ALSO BE A FATHER, WHO CREATES AS GOD CREATED HIM. The circle of creation has no end.” T-28.II.1

This truth is emphasized here:

“What He creates is not apart from Him, and nowhere does the Father end, the Son begin as something separate from Him.” W-pI.132.12

And if the Son creates additional sons “as God created him,” then what will the newly created sons call the creator Son?

They will call him “Father.” Yes, this Son will be a Father to his Sons but also a Son to his Father. He is thus a Father and a Son.

So why would this not apply to our Father? Would he also not be a Father to us but a Son to another creator?

Indeed. Consider this:

“The shining radiance of the Son of God, so like his Father that the memory of Him springs instantly to mind. And with this memory, THE SON REMEMBERS HIS OWN CREATIONS, AS LIKE TO HIM AS HE IS TO HIS FATHER.” T-24.II.6

The Son’s creations (his children) are then to him “as he is to his Father.”

Furthermore: “your creations, who are son to you, that you might share the Fatherhood of God,” T-24.VII.1

We will share Fatherhood with God the same way we do with our fathers here. When we have children in this world, we share the principle of fatherhood with our earthly father the same as he did when he had us. The same goes for the next world. When we are Fathers, we will be like our creator Father who is also a Son.

“The Son of God has both Father and Son, because he is both Father and Son. …What can the Son of God not accomplish with the Fatherhood of God in him?” T-11.II.1&4

“The Father must give fatherhood to His Son, because His Own Fatherhood must be extended outward. You who belong in God have the holy function of extending His Fatherhood by placing no limits upon it.” T-8.III.3

“A co-creator with the Father must have a Son. Yet must this Son have been created like Himself. A perfect being, all-encompassing.” T-24.III.6

Every creator Son is a Father and every Father is also a creator son. This is why we are told “The universe consists of nothing but the Son of God.” W-pI.183.10

The final and ultimate question is who is our Father’s Father and how far back does the lineage go? Most would say there is no beginning which is hard to fathom, but so it is.

Our Father identifies with all other Fathers in the universe through the one mind as one Father, and all awakened Sons identify as the one Son, also through the one mind; and through this one mind the Father and the Son are One.

Oneness Is.

Read the Introduction HERE, Read Chapter One HERE. Chapter Two HERE, Chapter Three HERE, Chapter Four HERE, Chapter Five HERE Chapter Six HERE, Chapter Seven HERE, Chapter Eight HERE, Chapter Nine HERE, Chapter Ten HERE, Chapter Eleven HERE, Chapter Twelve HERE, Chapter Thirteen HERE, Chapter Fourteen HERE, Fifteen HERE, Sixteen HERE, Seventeen HERE, Eighteen HERE, Nineteen HERE, Twenty HERE, Twenty-One HERE, Twenty-Two HERE, Twenty-Three HERE, Twenty-Four HERE, Twenty-Five HERE, Twenty-Six HERE, Twenty-Seven HERE, Twenty-Eight HERE, Twenty-Nine HERE, Thirty HERE

ACIM Conversations, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, Part 16, Part 17, Part 18, Part 19, Part 20, Part 21, Part 22, Part 23, Part 24, Part 25

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Scriptures and Karma

May 28, 2021 Joseph Dewey

The Scriptures and Karma

What do you think? Is it not more cruel and vengeful to put a man in prison for life than to put him to death?

Reader Comment: If you look at it from the spiritual point of view, it is less cruel and vengeful to allow the person to live and learn, If you look at it from the material view, just execute him and be done with it.

JJ: What spiritual view is that? The spiritual view is that which is best for the progress of the individual.

Chances are a life in prison will take him away from his soul and harden him in the direction of a life of crime. There are anecdotal exceptions as noted, but we have to look at the good of the whole when making or supporting various laws.

If giving him the death penalty leads to a faster reincarnation where he is free from a life of negative influence, free from prison, but in a situation of his soul’s choosing where he can progress faster is that not a more spiritual solution?

Comment: I don’t know which is worse, being stuck in prison for life, or being stuck on an endless treadmill, going nowhere. Kind of like this discussion.

JJ: I think most are enjoying the stimulation of this discussion and it is going somewhere. Watch and see. We can’t keep every single person interested in every topic, but we can keep the majority enjoying the conversation most of the time. I believe we are doing this.

Perhaps it may be helpful to see what the scriptures say about the death penalty. It is interesting that most of the scriptures of the world support it without hesitation and the Bible is no exception.

Most us are aware that it was implemented in the time of Moses. Because they were in such a mobile condition prisons were very impractical so the criminal was usually punished with either a fine or death. Quite a simple justice system. Some think that outside of the decrees of Moses for that special situation that the Bible does not support the death penalty.

Not so.

Let us go back before Moses to the God’s own voice to Noah.

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Gen 9:6

Here the scriptures seem to be citing a principle of how karma is to be played out upon those who shed innocent blood. If this is a principle it means that the murderer will eventually get the death penalty even if he should suffer life imprisonment. Obviously he would have to come back and have his life taken.

This agrees with the words of Jesus

“All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Matt 26:52

This is a statement giving us the exactness of the measure of karma – that we shall perish with the measure that we have caused others to perish.

In speaking of punishments Jesus also said: “Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.” Matt 5:26

Karma, as it plays out in this world, indeed demands the “uttermost farthing” to be paid before the debt is released.

Some who are against the death penalty will quote the following story as evidence that murderers should not be put to death:

“And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.

“But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

“So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

“And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

“And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

“When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” John 8:3-11

There are several reasons that this scripture has nothing to do with the death penalty as it is applied today. The first was that he woman was not a murderer, but accused of adultery. In today’s world the civilized countries apply no criminal punishment to those who commit this act. Karma also does not demand such a draconian measure as death for adultery. Instead, such a person would in some future time suffer a betrayal so he or she would learn the pain of the victim of adultery.

Jesus was ahead of his time in attempting to discourage an overkill in punishment. He was in an awkward situation though because if he showed himself to be in defiance of the Law of Moses he could have been toast before the crucifixion. In addition to allay fears among the Jews he told them:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matt 5:17

Therefore, if he had told the group he was against punishing the lady for adultery he would have been accused of being a false teacher. He got out of an awkward situation by displaying a wisdom greater than Solomon by saying:

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

He directed the severity of the punishment back at them and they each realized that the punishment of death did not fit the crime.

On the other hand, because Jesus did not condemn the woman some feel that this his way of saying we should forgive the murderer and not put him to death.

But, as I said earlier, forgiveness and justice are two different things. Would it be justice to not charge any debt to the murderer and just let him go? Even those who are adamantly against the death penalty usually want murderers placed in prison, often for life which is worse than death – so where is the forgiveness there? Those who apply this story in an effort to forgive the death penalty must also forgive all other penalties including prison. Forgiveness of debt is forgiveness is it not? If we did this we would have the Jeffery Dahmers and William Gacies running around killing more innocent people and even eating them. This makes no sense. The innocent deserve the protection of the state.

The scripture indeed says that there is no way around the death penalty for the murderer:

“He that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.” Rev 13:10

Why must the saints who suffered persecution and death have patience? Because in past lives they were the ones who persecuted and killed the innocent. It was no accident that many paid with their lives by being thrown to the lions, beheaded, crucified etc. This was their death sentence being carried out because of crimes in past lives.

Now consider this. If they could have paid for their crime in the life in which it was committed then they could have avoided the death penalty as an early Christian and perhaps have spent an entire life in real service during that important time period.

As far as the death penalty itself Jesus said nothing specific about it except that he did not intend to “destroy the law” of the Jews which included the death penalty. The interesting thing though is we have an example of Peter, the Apostle, actually putting two people to death.

“Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. Acts 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.” Acts 4:34-37

“But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

“But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

“And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

“And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for Acts so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

“Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

“Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.” Acts 5:1-11

This indeed seems pretty harsh, but if the account is accurate then it seems that the heavenly powers that be supported Peter. Peter accused these two of something worse than murder which was that they lied “to the Holy Ghost.” Concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost Jesus said:

“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” Matt 12:31-32

Apparently the Holy Spirit testified to Ananias and his wife that they were supposed to give the whole gift and they willingly went against this.

Fortunately DK elaborates on this sin and tells us that the point which is beyond forgiveness is not achieved in one incident but through a denial of the soul and hardening of the spirit over several lifetimes.

The point is that this is a New Testament example of the application of the death penalty and the interesting thing it was carried out by the power of God itself.

“Behind every successful man, there’s a woman rolling her eyes.” Jim Carrey – From Bruce Almighty

Feb 6, 2004

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Difficult Judgments

May 27, 2021 Joseph Dewey

Difficult Judgments

The Question:: How many years would you have to be in prison before death would be preferable from the standpoint of your soul? That is when would you as an entity would move ahead faster through the door of death than prison and physical life.

5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 40 years 60 years 100 years? Never?

Notice the difference in the wording from the previous question. The last question was from the viewpoint of your soul. This was from your own viewpoint.

Have you noticed that over half of those who responded did not answer the question, but related their views on imprisonment, punishment, the State etc.

This question has nothing to do with whether imprisonment is right or wrong, whether a person deserves to be in prison, prison reform, making good use of time in prison, what the crime was, whether or not life is a prison etc.

What does it have to do with? It has to do with how it would effect you if for some reason, right or wrong, just or unjust, you were thrown in prison. How many years would you have to be sentenced before you would choose death instead? There has to be a number for every person has his limitations. Even if it is a million years, there is a number which would weigh so heavy upon you that you would choose instead to be separated from the body and placed in the hands of your soul.

There is a reason I am steering the group this direction – toward a specific answer.

Now let’s put another twist on this question.

Suppose you were a judge and five criminals were brought before you. All these criminals are twenty years of age and have committed murder and are expected to live to be 100 years of age. The evidence is beyond dispute that they are guilty. Here is the recommendation of the jury.

Criminal number one. 10 years in prison or the death sentence.

Criminal number two. 20 years in prison or the death sentence.

Criminal number three. 40 years in prison or the death sentence.

Criminal number four. 60 years in prison or the death sentence.

Criminal number five. 80 years in prison or the death sentence.

What would be your judgment? How long would the wretched soul have to spend in prison before you would deem the death penalty more merciful than prison?

Why do you suppose that so many are unwilling to answer these specific questions?

Even though I love and respect you all my job here is not to please, but to teach so here goes a tough presentation.

Remember the parable of decision? What made Ron and Dave different from Jim and Mike?

Ron and Dave surveyed the situation and made a judgment as to the best course of action even though they were lacking significant information. After they made a judgment they then followed through with a firm decision.

The other two were hesitant to judge and decide. They wanted to play it safe and avoid hurt. The interesting thing is that these two were the ones who wound up powerless and in the real hell.

When I have taught of the first two keys we find that most believe they are great principles. But now I have presented situations that require their use many present every possible avenue to avoid using them.

Why?

Because they are afraid their decision and judgment will create some unforeseen harm.

They do not want to think about an uncomfortable situation.

They are afraid they could be wrong.

Jim and Mike in the parable also feared doing harm and they were paralyzed and missed the opportunity to build heaven.

Dave made a decision and stuck by it and it took him to hell but he made the best of it and turned hell into heaven.

Yes, sometimes our judgments and decisions, even when doing the best we can, will take us to hell, but if we continue with pureness of heart then we create an opportunity to build heaven, which opportunity escapes he who shuns the first two keys.

Do those of you who cringed at using the first two keys at the last three questions I asked wish to reconsider?

If not then place yourself on the beginning of the two paths in the parable and honestly ask yourself: What would I do?

Tough Questions

Glad to see we have the wheels spinning on the current issue. Whenever talk begins around the death penalty emotional feelings, dogmas, mindsets and programming comes to the surface on both sides.

What we are attempting to do here is examine this subject from the plane of the mind starting with the fundamental principles which may lie behind it. Only be releasing ourselves of our preconceived notions and looking at the esoteric facts and influences can we get at the truth.

Of all the questions I have asked the group in the past five years, these past few concerning judgment have been sidestepped by the group more than any other I have asked by far. This just shows how emotionally charged this issue is. Then too I take some risk in entering an emotionally charged area because I am likely to offend some who do not see the conclusions that will be reached. I do hope we can rise above any offense and continue to learn together.

First Question: Are there punishments worse than death that are given by the State? What are they and why are they worse than death?

We received a wide variety of answers on this including descriptions of punishments that have nothing to do with the State.

In more civilized countries the main severe punishment (other than death) are long prison terms. In totalitarian ones they may cut off your limbs, your tongue, gouge out your eyes, use castration, electric shock etc.

These are bad indeed, but to answer the question we must ask – how bad is death? It is amazing that many who believe in heavenly bliss seem to view death as some horror much worse than all of these combined. Some will go to such extreme such as keeping the person on life support in great agony for many years just to avoid sending a loved one to the hands of God.

Is death really so horrible that it must be avoided at all costs?

Of course not. At death we are placed in the arms of the soul which has our best interests in mind. In between lives we contemplate the lessons learned in the last life and prepare for a better one. Is this so bad that we must shun it to the point that we force imprisonment and great pain on others to avoid it? Is this logical?

But, says one, we do not have the right to decide life and death?

If one supports life in prison for the hardened criminal has he not already supported the judgment of taking a life? One who is sentenced to life in prison with no hope of parole is given something worse than a death sentence. His life is not only taken way, but his freedom and hope is also taken away.

Why do we think we have the right to sentence one to prison for life but do not have the right to give the death sentence when both take way the life of the person? What is the difference between the two in finality?

If we do not have the right to give the death sentence then we do not have the right to put any in prison for any extended period either.

Question Two: How many years would you have to be in prison before death would be preferable from the standpoint of your soul? That is when would you as an entity would move ahead faster through the door of death than prison and physical life.

5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 40 years 60 years 100 years? Never?

The general consensus on this was around twenty years. This is also the figure I came up with. Some avoided coming up with any figure but when you think about it there has to be one. In the eternal scheme of things the life of a physical body (a vehicle) has a set value just as any other vehicle (such as a car) has a set value. Just as most of us would be willing to go to prison for a year for a sum of money, even so would there be a term in prison that would equal the value of your vehicle – the physical body. I would personally put this at about 20 years.

Think of what can happen in twenty years. You can go to the spirit world and dwell there for five years and be reborn and arrive at around 15 years of age in a strong new body in a new and better situation for progress which has been arranged by your soul – or by yourself if you are a disciple.

This question has nothing to do with whether you deserved the sentence, whether you are innocent or guilty or the degree. It matters not if you are a saint, for in 20 years you can be reborn in a better situation and if you are a murderer you can also do this. The only difference is the murderer will be born in a situation where he can more quickly pay off his karma and so he can understand the magnitude of his crime. If the murder does not pay with his life in the lifetime of the crime then he will in the next. He will get the death penalty one way or another with rare exceptions.

Keep in mind that when we speak of murder that we are talking about the shedding of innocent blood here and not an act of self defense which is another matter.

The exception would require the murderer to realize the extent of his crime and then save a life (or possibly more than one life) to repay his debt. The trouble with most murderers is that they have a ways to go before they will take the necessary risk to serve others in this way so they have to pay off their debt the hard way.

Question Three: Suppose you were a judge and five criminals were brought before you. All these criminals are twenty years of age and have committed murder and are expected to live to be 100 years of age. The evidence is beyond dispute that they are guilty. The choice is 10, 20, 40, 60 or 80 years in prison or the death sentence.

What would be your judgment? How long would the wretched soul have to spend in prison before you would deem the death penalty more merciful than prison?

This puts the shoe on the other foot. You are not judging yourself, but someone else.

Now some mentioned that such judgment is impossible or should not be, but we must recall that every nation, people land, state and city has judges who have to make some very tough decisions.

Some mentioned that revenge or lack of forgiveness is a motive involved here but I do not think the thousands of judges who imprison criminals or even sentence them to death have any revenge or lack of forgiveness as a motive. To them it is a job and they hold nothing personal toward the criminal. The judge is concerned with justice, not forgiveness. These are two entirely different items.

To forgive there must first be a grievance. A person can release a grievance and forgive a crime but still desire to see justice done, not for revenge, but because it is the right thing to support for the continuance of civilization.

Now let us consider the question. How many years would you sentence a person to prison before you would view a death sentence as the more merciful alternative. Some think that one cannot put a number on this, but it is an esoteric truth that there is a number for anything that has value – and the life of the physical body does have a value.

Let us suppose that the person to be sentenced would live indefinitely in prison. Can you really say that you would let the poor soul rot in prison for 100, 200 or more years before you would rule a death sentence? Would it not be extremely cruel to do so?

If the average value of life in the physical body is worth about twenty years in prison then is it not more cruel to place anyone in prison for 40 years or more instead of giving the death penalty?

What gives the state the right to take away a life in a fate worse than death by sentencing to life in prison with no hope of parole when a more loving alternative of the death penalty is available?

Many are against the death penalty because of a fear that they are participating in a punishment that cannot be undone.

But they forget that even a year in prison cannot be undone. No punishment can be undone. Which is worse? To put an innocent man to death or to put an innocent man in prison for twenty years? Neither can be undone. The man in prison for twenty years often comes out a much more hardened criminal than he was before whereas the man who is put to death and reborn may be discovering a new and healthier life.

What do you think? Is it not more cruel and vengeful to put a man in prison for life than to put him to death?

“If we would become emotionally aroused over our ideals as we become over our dislikes, we would ascend to the plane of our ideal as easily as we now descend to the level of our hates.” Neville

Feb 5, 2004

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Wrapping Up Conspiracies

May 26, 2021 Joseph Dewey

Wrapping Up Conspiracies

I thought I would wrap up the subject of conspiracies. The reason I brought up the subject and presented a few is the discerning the truth of these things takes a strong mental effort. The reason is that each of the false conspiracies present so much evidence, witnesses and reasoning that they can convince by the sheer volume of material on the subject.

The idea that we did not go to the moon is a good example. There are still many who have not heard of this conspiracy, but enough have heard of it that 22% of the American people believe that we did not go and that a conspiracy was involved. This means that a fairly large percentage of those presented with the data accept it. One of the reasons so many are convinced is the large amount of information available.

It is also interesting that over 90% of the Muslims in the Middle East believe we did not go to the moon.

I checked into the arguments of the moon conspiracy one by one and found a reasonable explanation for each one.

For instance, the believers ask why the Apollo Astronauts never photographed any stars save a few. The answer is that the brightness of the moon’s surface made the exposure rate too small to capture their faint light. For proof just look at pictures of the earth, that we know are real, from the space station. The sky in the background is always pitch black in the pictures just as with the moonshots.

One clincher I just mentioned was the retrieval of parts of the unmanned Surveyor III by Apollo 12. Surveyor had been on the moon for three years and when its camera and some parts were brought back to the earth and examined by scientists it was shown to have wear from micrometeorites and cosmic rays consistent with being on the moon for three years.

Overall I am not convinced at all by this conspiracy.

Members also researched the Philadelphia Experiment and although it seemed to be a marvelous mystery, desirable to believe, most concluded that nothing happened as mysterious as was supposed.

The third conspiracy was the accusation that Bush, the government, the military, the Jews, etc were behind 911. We didn’t get much discussion on this for the conversation drifted toward Bush and the war instead.

I’ve studied both sides of this issue and have concluded for myself that 911 is pretty much what it is presented as being – an attack from Muslim extremists who want to destroy civilization as it is and revert to a more primitive state with their version of Islam in control.

So do I believe that all conspiracies are unfounded?

No. There’s always some type of true conspiracy at play, some with good intent and some evil. The most common conspiracy which succeeds is, unfortunately, murder. I believe that John as well as Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were all killed through the influence of conspirators.

I’m not sure that a full blown conspiracy was behind the Oklahoma City bombing, but I believe that there were a number of people involved that were not caught and McVey received some foreign help.

When we hear talk of conspiracy we have an opportunity to sharpen our minds and judgment by examining both sides and attempting to discern the truth.

In the present discussion we are talking about the various astral wars. One of these fronts put forward was Capital punishment. It is indeed true that there are two sides warring on this subject.

Those who oppose it see it as the ultimate punishment, as if there is no punishment worse than this.

What do you think? Are there punishments worse than death that are given by the State? What are they and why are they worse than death?

Reader Response: I think living the rest of my life in prison would be a much worse punishment because one could easily dig oneself deeper into more and more negative karma.

JJ: True, but the very punishment of being in prison being stripped from your freedom is pretty tough by itself.

Answer this. How many years would you have to be in prison before death would be preferable from the standpoint of your soul? That is when would you as an entity would move ahead faster through the door of death than prison and physical life.

5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 40 years 60 years 100 years? Never?

It is interesting that only two people answered this question. The rest of you gave your philosophy about how there are good and bad people in prison and that if one has a good attitude he can still make use of his time etc.

I want you to consider that this question has a specific answer and it matters not whether the prisoner is enlightened or a degenerate.

The fact is that anyone can get some advantage out of any situation, but that does not mean it is desirable to be in that situation.

A situation where there is loss of liberty, movement and expression is indeed a detriment that only the foolish desire.

A reader has a good argument that there are times in the life of the soul where it is desirable to live the life of the monk, but many of us have already been monks or nuns. And even here there is only a limited time frame where this solitude is useful and in prison you generally do not have gentle monks as your associates.

The soul always seeks to guide us in those paths that lead to greater freedom and a release from those things that imprison us.

It is true that we often make our own prisons, but these are our own choosing. Few choose to go to physical prison. When the prison of our own making becomes too powerful our own souls often lead us to death and then prepares a new incarnation for us with the memory wiped clean so we can have a new opportunity to advance toward freedom.

Now think about the question again. Even tough it is true you can do some good in prison I doubt if you want to go there or spend much time there. How long would someone have to force you there before you would choose death instead?

Someone mentioned the figure of 20 years which seems reasonable. How about 100 or 1000? What sentence would you have to hear before you would choose the death penalty instead?

Do you think 20 years is a figure that would apply to you or would it have to be longer?

A point is well taken that the victim is often overlooked. Another makes a good point that prisoners should work and get paid and reimburse the victim. I’ve often thought it silly that the criminal will often do damage to a victim and then the state fines the criminal and keeps the money giving none to the victim in many cases.

From the eyes of the soul though the interest is in the whole. We have all been victims as well as offenders and no matter what situation we are in the soul leads us to our next step on the path of freedom and liberation if we will just listen.

“Where motion ceases God begins.” Yogananda

Feb 3, 2004

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Mysteries of A Course in Miracles, Chapter 4

May 25, 2021July 11, 2022 Joseph Dewey

Chapter Four
What is God?

To lay a foundation of understanding of A Course in Miracles we need to understand what it teaches about its four major players that compose the true reality of the entire universe. They are all follows:

God, the Father
The Son
The Holy Spirit
Angels

Anything else that we may think exists is not real and only exists in the dream state and will disappear when fully awake, according to ACIM.

God, the Father, of course, is the supreme creator who initiated all things. The Course is fairly sketchy about Him but does say a few things.

First it makes clear that when it speaks of God, it is speaking of a real life for it says:

“God is not symbolic; He is Fact.” T-3.I.8

In examining the teachings, the reader needs to recall that the author of the Course insists he does not speak in misleading symbols, but means what he says:

“you may believe from time to time that I am misdirecting you. I have made every effort to use words that are almost impossible to distort, but it is always possible to twist symbols around if you wish.” T-3.I.3

This gives evidence to the idea that when the author identifies with the historical Jesus that he is speaking literally and not symbolically. The first thing concerning God then that is obvious is that the Course identifies Him as a Father, a male figure. Some in our current generation are displeased with this and many figure the male identity was used because it was common vernacular at the time it was written to identify generic figures with the male gender and calling God an “It” seemed disrespectful. God is also called “Father” in the Bible.

Many Course students figure that it doesn’t matter whether we call God a “He” “She” or “It.” Others take it literally and feel that God is represented by the male gender. Most feel the female mother is somewhere in creation – maybe represented by creation itself.

Most students see the Father and the Son as merely convenient titles for life that is beyond duality, or male and female. After all, the Son, as taught in the Course, includes all of us no matter what gender with which we identify.

The Course doesn’t tell us where God came from. Instead, it merely makes this statement that is repeated by many students:

“God is” M-27.6

So, God just IS, which is beyond understanding, and is a great mystery for it is written:

“No one on earth can grasp what Heaven is, or what its one Creator really means.” M-23.6

The Course does make this curious statement:

“God is an idea, and so your faith in Him is strengthened by sharing. What you find difficult to accept is the fact that, like your Father, you are an idea.” T-15.VI.4

So, here we are told that we are an idea. Obviously, we are an idea in the mind of God since it is stated many times that he is our creator.

But if God is also an idea, as it says, the question to be asked is whose idea is God our creator? Is he merely His own idea or is there some even greater being still that created our creator?

Here is an interesting statement along this line:

“He (God) is first in the sense that He is the First in the Holy Trinity Itself. He is the Prime Creator, because He created His co-creators.” T-7.I.7.

What we could take from this is that our God may not be the first of the Gods, but first in the sense that his position in the Trinity is first, with the Son being second and the Holy Spirit third. All of them may be “ideas” from some eternal Source.

We’ll examine this more closely when we discuss the Son.

As it is, our creator is said to have pretty vast creations. He is called, “The Creator of life, the Source of everything that lives, the Father of the universe and of the universe of universes, and of everything that lies even beyond them” T-19.IV.D.1

If there is a creator above our creator who came up with the idea of our God, then our creator would share in its life as we are to share the life of our creator. Thus, if all the Gods are as one life, they all would identify with being the creators of “everything.” Even of the Son it is written he is the “co-creator of the universe”. W-pI.152.8

The Course does give us a few more details about our Creator. We are told that God “is the universe” T-11.I.2 He is “the sum of everything, then what is not in Him does not exist,” T-29.II.10 He is “the Mind which caused all minds to be.” T-28.I.11

As Sons of God we are told that “there is one life, and that we share with Him, with all creation, with their thoughts as well, whom He created in a unity of life that cannot separate in death and leave the Source of life from where it came.” W-pI.167.11

Even though God is said to have created everything, this world that we perceive is not part of creation, for it is considered an illusion which does not exist from an eternal perspective. The Course says:

“The world as you perceive it cannot have been created by the Father, for the world is not as you see it. God created only the eternal, and everything you see is perishable. Therefore, there must be another world that you do not see. “ T-11.VII.1

As stated earlier, the creation of the universe that we perceive is considered to not be from God, but a “mad idea” of the Son, an illusion or a bad dream. Understanding this illusion and how it fits in with reality is a key to understanding many of the mysteries of the Course. We will cover more on this later.

Most religious believers in God see Him as complete and in need of nothing. He just created us out of the goodness of His heart, but if we cross Him in any way He will either annihilate us or send us to hell, so we will cease to be any bother for Him.

The Course takes a significantly different view on this. First, we are told that God loves all his creations and has no desire to punish them or bring them pain. In addition, God does not want to be alone and is lonely when any part of creation attempts to separate itself from Him.

We are plainly told: “He (God) did not set His Kingdom up alone.” T-30.II.1

Then there is this:

“You dwell in the Mind of God with your brother, for God Himself did not will to be alone.” T-11.I.1

“God is incomplete without you.” T-9.VIII.9

“God is as dependent on you as you are on Him, because His Autonomy encompasses yours, and is therefore incomplete without it.” T-11.IV.7

So ACIM tells us that God did not set up his kingdom alone and it is contrary to His will that he be alone.

And why is that?

“God is lonely without His Sons, and they are lonely without Him.” T-2.III.5 “His joy is not complete because yours is incomplete. And this He does know. He knows it in His Own Being and its experience of His Son’s experience. The constant going out of His Love is blocked when His channels are closed, and He is lonely when the minds He created do not communicate fully with Him.” T-4.VII.6 “They are part of you, as you are part of God. You are as lonely without understanding this as God Himself is lonely when His Sons do not know Him.” T-7.VII.10

So, the Course presents the rare teaching that neither God or us is complete without each other. God needs you and me and all of his creations to be complete. As it is, the Sons of God thought they could create a more interesting universe than God had at the home front, and like typical children who reject the values of their parents, they thought they could do better and made this dream world in which we live. Basically, it has been the playground for the Sons of God.

But then, like the Prodigal Son, we eventually get tired of the pain and sorrows we have to endure here and decide to return home.

When we do, instead of being rejected, God welcomes us back with open arms – for He is lonely without us.

In relation to this the Course says:

“His Son removed himself from His gift by refusing to accept what had been created for him, and what he had created in the Name of his Father. Heaven waits for his return, for it was created as the dwelling place of God’s Son. You are not at home anywhere else, or in any other condition. Do not deny yourself the joy that was created for you for the misery you have made for yourself. God has given you the means for undoing what you have made. Listen, and you will learn how to remember what you are.” T-10.V.11

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Astral and Physical War

May 23, 2021 Joseph Dewey

Astral and Physical War

I was asked to elaborate on what an astral war is.

To understand, it helps to expand on a comment DK made about evil. He stated that one of the goals of the hierarchy is to elevate evil to a higher level. In other words, that which is the good in one age may become the evil in another. For instance, in ancient Rome slavery was seen as a “good,” a necessary institution to sustain a civilized world. Today slavery is almost universally recognized as evil. In the more civilized countries the old slavery is so rare that it is no longer an evil to fight. Instead, this evil is now taking a higher form and many are recognizing the existence of the evil of slavery in other forms such as too much debt, too much taxation, too many laws, too much control by religious, civil and business organizations etc.

In other words, the evil of slavery has moved to a higher level. From one age to the next this is always the goal – to move the battleground of evil to a higher level.

Slavery is just one evil. War is another that plagues us. Even though war can bring a good result (WWII for example) most will agree that the process of physical war itself is indeed as an evil plague that has brought much pain to the world over the ages.

Just as it was with other evils such as slavery, the goal of the Hierarchy as far as war is concerned is to not eliminate it, for that is not currently possible, but to move it to its next level. In other words, the goal is to move war from the physical level to the astral and then later move it from the astral to the plane of the mind. In that far away time when war moves beyond the plane of the mind war will cease as we can understand it but will incarnate again in a future system.

When war securely moves from the physical to the astral we will have peace on earth as far as physical war is concerned, but it will be waged on the astral, or emotional plane, with greater intensity than dreamed of in ages past.

Currently we are on the cusp between two ages. The achievement of physical stability on the earth so physical war is rare is one of the expectations of this new and unique age which is Aquarius within an even greater cycle of Aquarius. Instead of this Aquarius being one age out of twelve it is Aquarius-Aquarius, or one age out of 144 ages. Therefore, this cusp we are in marks an extremely important turning point in our history – with the most powerful Aquarian energies in over 300,000 years.

Because we are in the transition phase we are still dealing with physical war while seeing a increase of astral or emotional war.

What is an astral war? As most of you know the word “astral” refers to the emotional world. An astral war is one that is fought out through the exchange of feelings and those philosophies to which feelings are strongly attached. Some mental energy is always at play in an astral war, but the polarization is in the feeling world rather than in the realm of the mind.

Let us examine several battle fronts in the developing astral war.

First: The abortion war.

As most of us are aware the war dealing with abortion is not fought out in physical battles but in heated emotional confrontation.

Let us look at the emotional attachment of both sides.

The conservative side: These people “feel” that God does not want abortion, that killing a fetus, however developed, is as evil as killing a human being.

It is interesting that the Bible says nothing to support this idea and there is no scientific evidence to support it. Therefore the conservative belief on this matter is based on feeling rather than a mental deduction, though they do have a point that the fetus is alive.

The liberal side: These people feel that a fetus is no more than extra tissue that has no value as human life. Removing this fetus is no more evil than cutting your hair, for it is not alive as a human being. Because it is not alive one should not be inconvenienced by an unwanted pregnancy. If one wants to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy one should do it and feel no worse than cutting one’s hair. Free choice is the issue, not any right an unborn should have.

Again, it is interesting that this side also arrives at their view from an emotional attachment and have no evidence to back up their argument.

They maintain that there is no human life in the womb, but how do they know this? They do not even claim to know it, but instead they feel it. Do they have any scientific evidence that human life begins after birth or did they get some revelation from God on the matter?

No. They are in just as much ignorance on the matter as the conservatives they criticize.

The truth of the matter is that neither side has any true knowledge of when life begins or the value of that physical life in the womb in the eyes of God. Both sides feel they are right and they have such feelings because it supports their belief system. Both sides see the other as evil and make non violent war (except for a few crackpots) using all means at their disposal.

Both sides are fighting for the triumph of their feelings – not of their wisdom/mental nature.

Of course, the truth lies in neither of the extremes, but in the middle way where judgment is made based on true facts.

Physical Wars

Those who use the Bible to teach that God is against all wars are mislead indeed.

The basic principle is given in this scripture:

“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

“A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; A TIME OF WAR, and a time of peace.” Eccl 3:1-8

Here we are clearly told that there is a time and place for all things, even “a time of war,” as well as “a time to kill.”

While it is true that Jesus has been called the prince of peace we are also told that “The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.” Exodus15:3

Here is another one:

“The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy LIKE A MAN OF WAR: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies.” Isa 42:13

A principle for going to war is thus stated: “And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the LORD your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies.” Numbers10:9

Thus we see that the Bible gives oppression as a reason to go to war. This was the justified reason for the revolutionary war in America, for instance.

Old testament stuff you say? Let us then move to the new:

“And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Rev 12:7-9

The archangel Michael made war against the dragon so peace could once again be maintained in heaven. According to pacifists he should have allowed the dragon to upsurge the power of God and do what he willed and offer no resistance.

“These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.” Rev 17:14

When the lamb (the Christ) is attacked does he do nothing? No He “overcomes” his enemies.

How does he do this?

“And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him (Christ) was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and MAKE WAR.” Rev 19:11

Christ overcomes his enemies my making right use (righteousness) of war.

If we move to modern esoteric literature one would be hard pressed to justify a black and white pacifist attitude. DK maintains that pacifists often do more harm than good and would allow evil to triumph while good men give their life’s blood to allow then the opportunity to continue their existence. DK supported the war of the Allies against the Axis powers from which good definitely did come. He also supported the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan, Italy and Germany were freed from tyrants and now enjoy much more freedom than before the war. The rest of the world is freed from the totalitarian threat that existed at that time.

Let me quote again from a Master of Wisdom:

“The second point upon which I would touch is the arguments brought out by the pacifists of the world. All true and good people are pacifically minded and all hate war. This is a fact which the academic idealist and pacifist often forgets. Such people tell us that two wrongs do not make a right; and to meet murder with murder (which is their definition of war) is sinful; that war is evil (which no one denies) and that one must not take part in it. They contend that thinking thoughts of peace and of love can put the world straight and end the war. Such people, fighting the existent fact of war, usually do little or nothing concrete to right the wrongs which are responsible for the war, and permit their defence-personal, municipal, national and international-to be undertaken by others. The sincerity of these people cannot be questioned.

“It should be remembered, in countering these ideas and in justifying the fighting spirit of the Christian democracies, that it is motive that counts. War can be and is mass murder, where the motive is wrong. It can be sacrifice and right action, where the motive is right. The slaying of a man in the act of killing the defenceless is not regarded as murder. The principle remains the same, whether it is killing an individual who is murdering, or fighting a nation which is warring on the defenceless. The material means, which evil uses for selfish ends, can also be employed for good purposes. The death of the physical body is a lesser evil than the setting back of civilisation, the thwarting of the divine purposes of the human spirit, the negating of all spiritual teaching, and the control of men’s minds and liberties. War is always evil, but it can be the lesser of two evils, as is the case today (written during World War II).

“The present war, if carried forward to a successful completion by the defeat of the totalitarian powers, constitutes a far lesser evil than the subjugation of many nations to the unparalleled cupidity, the appalling educational process and the defiance of all recognised spiritual values by the Axis powers. If the totalitarian powers should conquer, it would mean years of turmoil and revolt; their victory would result in untold misery.” DK The Externalization of the Hierarchy Pages 179-180

Jan 31, 2004

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Mysteries of A Course in Miracles, Chapter 3

May 22, 2021July 11, 2022 Joseph Dewey

Chapter Three
The Message of the Course

Back around 1980, when I first studied the Course, a lot of the profound material in it went over my head. I recognized that it was a revelation of a high order, but at first I saw it as teaching the same thing as many other teachings I had studied, but just using a different terminology.

And what was that?

Well, I went through everything the Christian religion had to teach, then on to all kinds of teachings in New Age philosophy and on to Theosophy, Eastern religions and the Ancient Wisdom of the east.

They all teach some version of salvation. For Christians it is an after-death movement to heaven where you live with God and Jesus. For New Agers it is all kinds of things from being picked up by flying saucers to moving to a new dimension. For the esoteric thinkers it is freeing ourselves from the wheel of rebirth and going back to our formless Source. We then rest there until we are ready to incarnate into a new universe based on the principles of illusion but of a somewhat higher order than before.

When I first studied ACIM I figured it was in harmony with the eastern teachings of liberation, that we were living in a world of illusion and needed to see the true reality so we could finish the schooling here as soon as possible.

Then, when I studied the course for a second and third time, I began to see differences that set it apart from anything else that is in the spiritual mainstream.

The reason many casual students do not see the main purpose of the book is that the key ingredient of the whole presentation is not given until near the end of the main text. When I first read it I found it to be in contradiction to everything I had accepted so far, and it caused me to do much additional reflection on the course. And what is this mysterious teaching?

ACIM teaches that the whole creation of the perceived universe including all form, time and space was a big mistake, and the purpose of the Course is to correct the mistake and take us home to a mysterious heaven where there is no form, no time and no differences but merely oneness, peace and bliss.

The only teaching I know of that comes close to this is in some gnostic writings that teach that the universe was not made by the Most High but a lower being called a Demiurge. Some Gnostics considered this being evil while others see it as simply misled.

Here is the main quote from the Course that caused me to do some rethinking:

“Let us return the dream he gave away unto the dreamer, who perceives the dream as separate from himself and done to him. Into eternity, where all is one, there crept a tiny, mad idea, at which the Son of God remembered not to laugh. In his forgetting did the thought become a serious idea, and possible of both accomplishment and real effects. Together, we can laugh them both away, and understand that time cannot intrude upon eternity. It is a joke to think that time can come to circumvent eternity, which means there is no time.” T-27.VIII.6

So then, according to ACIM, the creator of the visible universe was a holy being, called the Son of God, with all the attributes and creative powers of God. This Son is composed of all the lives in the universe, including you and me. Together, in an ancient time, we conceived this “mad idea” and created a universe based on principles of illusion that wound up placing us within it in a dreamlike state. We thus became trapped here thinking the dream is real when it is not. The purpose of the Course is to wake us up to our error as soon as possible.

A huge obstacle to us waking up is guilt and fear. This resides in us as a residual effect of attempting a creation that was contrary to the will of God. This produced an inner fear that we offended God and he may be angry with us. This has created a natural inner reluctance to approach God and return to His presence.

The solution presented is A Course in Miracles. If we follow the teachings, we are told we can save thousands, perhaps millions of years in this dismal existence and return to the awakened state, which, we are told, is so much better than this reality. The Course calls it heaven, our eternal home.

The Course tells us that we are the Prodigal Son who left his home and squandered his inheritance. Like the son in the parable, we feel unworthy to return home for fear our Father will not accept us. Instead, the Course tells us that God is waiting with open arms for our return. The only obstacle in the way is our thinking.

The purpose then of the Course is to correct our thinking so we can escape this inferior world of illusion and death and move back home where we enjoy eternal life and joyousness. Therefore, unlike numerous other spiritual philosophies that deal with many aspects of life and cosmology, the Course focuses on overcoming those obstacles in thinking that stand in the way of our restoration to the presence of God.

Fortunately, in the process of guiding us in this direction, the Course does make comments now and then giving hints and details that touches on other mysteries of existence, and we shall be exploring some of these.

The basic obstacles the Course attempts to assist us with to make a return home possible are:

(1) Overcoming Fear. Of all the obstacles in our way, this is the biggest one, and, according to the Course, our greatest fear is the fear of God. Because of our apparent rebellion and attempt to make a world that is separate from God’s real creation, we have a natural fear that we are an offense to God and would be rejected by him.

One of the main teachings of the Course is that this is self-deception that needs to be realized and transcended. The key to accomplishing this is through the understanding of and sharing of love. Along this vein the Course says this:

“Perfect love casts out fear.

If fear exists,

Then there is not perfect love.

But:

Only perfect love exists.

If there is fear,

It produces a state that does not exist.” T-1.VI.5

The Course makes a number of clever paradoxical statements like this. Most believing students love them, whereas others find them frustrating or inconclusive circular reasoning.

For instance, the orthodox left brain mind would reason that if there is fear, which is a state of mind, then that state of mind would exist or we wouldn’t even be talking about it.

On the other hand, the right brain merely accepts such words as true like a beautiful piece of poetry.

(2) Forgiveness. The Course powerfully teaches that we cannot wake up to our true reality without forgiveness. Seeing our brothers and sisters as guilty of sin of any kind keeps us trapped in the dream.

It has an interesting take on forgiveness that I haven’t seen presented anywhere else before.

It tells us that the orthodox idea of forgiveness is to see the other guy as committing a sin or offense of some kind, and to forgive in the regular sense means that you place yourself in the superior position of being big hearted enough to overlook the guy’s error.

It tells us that this is not forgiveness at all, for we still see our brother as a sinner and guilty. Instead, we just see ourselves as being in a superior position.

On the contrary, it tells us that true forgiveness involves the person seeing the offense as something that never even happened. If the offense did not happen there is nothing to forgive and your brother is sinless.

If there is nothing to forgive, then forgiveness is instant and effortless.

This seems to be a strange doctrine unless one soaks in its reasoning, which goes something like this:

Suppose you have a dream that your best friend and business partner withdrew all the money from your joint account and ran off to Rio with your wife.

In the dream you were so furious that you wanted to kill the guy, not to mention your wife.

Then you wake up to the real world and discover that the offenses did not happen at all, but it was just a dream. Your best friend is still your best friend and your wife is still faithful.

You wipe the sweat off your brow and think to yourself, “A few minutes ago, I wanted to kill them both and now I love them as much as ever because nothing really happened.”

“There is nothing to forgive. It was just a dream.”

Like it or not, that is the reasoning ACIM presents as the attitude we must have toward forgiveness in this physical life, which it says is a dream.

I must say that this attitude is helpful in my life and I already used it to a degree before I read ACIM. It indeed helps to tune out offenses if they are seen as never existing.

(3) Grievances. A grievance is closely related to forgiveness, and the student must let it go before complete forgiveness is possible.

(4) Guilt. Guilt is closely related to fear, and creates an illusionary feeling of unworthiness. If the prodigal son feels unworthy, he will not attempt the journey home and risk being rejected by his parents.

The Course tells us that guilt is caused by allowing the ego to supplant the true God. When this happens, we are under the power of the illusion. This problem must be seen in the correct light before the pilgrim can take solid steps toward liberation.

(5) The Special Relationship. The tendency is to show love and acceptance to those special people we care for and not to others, but the Course tells us that we must see Christ in all people, even the irritating ones. Our love for all must have no barriers.

(6) Overcome the Ego. Students must see themselves as united with the One Great Life which is God rather than as separate individuals identified with a body. One must identify with the spirit rather than the form, with the eternal rather than the temporary.

(7) Acceptance. To awaken from the dream, one must accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit, often called the Inner Voice. For many lifetimes the student has followed the outer voice of the ego and this must cease. The direction must be changed from the lower temporary voice to the Spiritual Eternal Voice. This spiritual guidance must be followed if we wish to see beyond the illusion and awaken.

This is easier said than done because of the great investment each of us has in the world of form. Attachments are strong and students have great difficulty in letting them go… until they do.

The Course covers numerous other topics to aid students on the path to liberation, but these seven are the main roadblocks wherein the emphasis lies.

Some complain that the half million words in the Course have a lot of repetition saying the same thing. Yes, it does repeat itself at times but never exactly and always supplying new insights that need to be absorbed. And in the seeming repetition are many side comments and hints into mysteries that go beyond salvation. We shall explore some of these.

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Mysteries of A Course in Miracles, Chapter 2

May 21, 2021July 9, 2022 Joseph Dewey

Chapter Two
Who Wrote A Course in Miracles?

Most believing ACIM students think that the Jesus of the Bible wrote the Course.

Why?

Because the author pretty much says so. Numerous times we come across statements where the author speaks in the first person as the voice of Jesus, such as:

“I elected, for your sake and mine, to demonstrate that the most outrageous assault, as judged by the ego, does not matter. As the world judges these things, but not as God knows them, I was betrayed, abandoned, beaten, torn, and finally killed.” T-6.I.9

“When I said “I am come as a light into the world,” I meant that I came to share the light with you.” T-5.VI.11

“When I said “I am with you always,” I meant it literally. I am not absent to anyone in any situation.” T-7.III.1

“I have also made it clear that the resurrection was the means for the return to knowledge, which was accomplished by the union of my will with the Father’s.” T-3.V.1.

But then the author often speaks of Christ in the third person. For instance, he again speaks of the resurrection as follows:

“The resurrection is the complete triumph of Christ over the ego, not by attack but by transcendence. For Christ does rise above the ego and all its works, and ascends to the Father and His Kingdom.” T-11.VI.1

Statements such as this are typical of the third person referencing.

“Christ waits for your acceptance of Him as yourself, and of His Wholeness as yours.” T-11.IV.7

It may seem odd for an author to reference himself in the third person, but many have done it, so this is certainly not without precedent. It can, however, arouse suspicion if authorship is in question.

In defense, one could argue that ACIM teaches that the Christ, or the Son of God, in its wholeness is composed of all of us in our true nature, not just the one man Jesus.

It is interesting that the most quoted authority on the Course, who was also its original editor as well as a friend of Helen Schucman, Kenneth Wapnick, was not sure if the voice was the Jesus of history.

He wrote this:

“Returning now to Helen and the Course, while her experience most definitely was of Jesus-a person outside herself-relating to her and dictating to her, in truth the reality was much different. Helen was able to return her mind to that memory of God’s Love-her true Identity-symbolized by her as Jesus. By uniting with him, she united with love. That union has no form or specifics, for love, as we have seen, is abstract and beyond all divisions of the ego. This love, of which Jesus was the manifestation, flowed through the separated mind we know as Helen (the water taking shape in the glass) and came out to the world as the three books we know as A Course in Miracles.” Absence of Felicity, Page 457

So here, Ken gives his view that Helen was not in contact with Jesus, a different entity than herself, but “was able to return her mind to that memory of God’s Love-her true Identity-symbolized by her as Jesus.”

According to him Helen had the ability to unite with her Christ self which is still with God, and through this contact, with what is often called “the Higher Self,” she was able to manifest the Course.

Are there any other possibilities?

Some, of course, believe that Helen, as a clever person, was the author. However, most who have taken a serious study of it do not think she had the ability to create such a document.

Of course, many reactionary fundamentalist Christians believe that Satan was the author. This makes no sense for a number of reasons.

(1) ACIM emphasizes the most important teachings of the Biblical Jesus such as, love, forgiveness and the reality of the resurrection.

(2) One can disagree with some of the teachings, but any astute student must admit the Course guides us toward a behavior that is good and not evil.

As noted, any honest student who has really examined the Course must admit that the mind that revealed it is of a very high order, seemingly far beyond Helen’s intelligence.

Is it possible that another entity who was neither Jesus or Helen revealed it? Is it possible that this entity also identified with Christ because he was speaking from the higher mind which is one with Christ or the “One Son” mentioned in the Course?

This is an interesting possibility not considered by most students.

Some who take a cursory interest in the Course may think the author is an astral entity such as those contacted in the trance state or by automatic writing. But most of these channelings do not create writings of such a high order of intelligence as ACIM. Those entities who are one with the Christ mind do not use such methods, but will use a means of mental impression or mental telepathy.

In Helen’s case it was mental telepathy.

In September 1965 Helen Schucman was working to advance her career as a psychologist at Columbia University working in association with Bill Thetford, also a psychologist.

Out of the blue she started getting some impressions, visions and hearing an inner voice. She kept getting the feeling that something unusual was going to happen.

Then one evening in October while sitting in her bedroom she clearly and consciously registered a Voice which said: “This is a course in miracles. Please take notes.”

She was somewhat alarmed, thinking she may be experiencing a psychological problem and called Bill for advice. Fortunately, instead of dismissing it, he told her to write down what the Voice said and they would talk about it in the morning.

The next day Bill reviewed Helen’s notes and saw they were far from the gibberish of someone with a mental problem. The writing seemed to be presented with high intelligence and her notes ended with this profound statement:

“Nothing real can be threatened.

Nothing unreal exists.

Herein lies the peace of God.”

Bill was impressed and advised her to continue taking notes. He wanted to read more.

She took down a few more notes and began to wonder what the Course was all about and what its purpose was. She asked the Voice and received this reply:

“The world situation is worsening to an alarming degree. People all over the world are being called on to help, and are making their individual contributions as part of an overall prearranged plan. Part of the plan is taking down A Course in Miracles, and I am fulfilling my part in the agreement, as you will fulfill yours. You will be using abilities you developed long ago, and which you are not really ready to use again. Because of the acute emergency, however, the usual slow, evolutionary process is being by-passed in what might best be described as a celestial speed-up.” Journey Without Distance by Robert Skutch

For the next seven years Helen took the words of the Voice down in shorthand and read them off to Bill who typed them up.

Unlike many New Age trance channelers, Helen was quite reluctant and sometimes dragged her feet and delayed the work. Like the Voice said, she was not ready for the job, but apparently the world situation called for her early cooperation. Fortunately, her sense of duty got the best of her.

She was a non-religious Jew and didn’t feel she was a good choice for the job so she asked the Voice: “Why me? I’m not religious; I don’t understand these things; I don’t even believe them. I’m about the poorest choice you could make.”

The answer came back very clearly. “On the contrary; you are an excellent choice. In fact, the best.”

“But why?” she anguished. And then, without a hint of doubt she heard the answer; “Because you’ll do it.”

(Quotations from Journey Without Distance by Robert Skutch)

Later, she learned that she had been an Essene in a past life, apparently in the days of Jesus, and had developed the mental skills necessary for her current work as a scribe using mental telepathy.

Kenneth Wapnick refers to the process of her work as “‘internal dictation’; that is, she did not go into an altered state, a trance, or engage in automatic writing. She was always aware of what she was doing, even if she chose not to pay attention to it. Regardless of her attitude, the writing would continue.” Absence of Felicity, Page 181

Many students of Eastern teachings, Theosophy and the Ancient Wisdom will rule out most anything from the trance state or automatic writing and believe that true masters use a process similar to what Helen described. This is very similar to how Alice A. Bailey received her teachings and ironically, she was also very reluctant to take the notes at the beginning.

So, we have a scribe receiving through a high order of telepathy giving us writings from a mind with intelligence beyond mortal wisdom. Whether one believes this was the mind of Jesus or some other high intelligence, the writing is compelling enough that any serious thinker would be wise to take its content seriously.