Month: August 2021

The Synthesis Test – Analysis, Part 8

Questions Fifty and Fifty-One:

Have you read three or more Health Food related books in your life? (a) Yes (b) No

Do you purchase from a Health Food store periodically? (a) Yes (b) No

50 &51. Most enlightened people try to keep their bodies in good functioning shape and will express some interest in health foods and visit health food stores or organic sections in grocery stores occasionally.

Question Fifty Two: If your next door neighbor angrily accused your boy of stealing $5.00 from inside the neighbor’s house and your boy’s feelings were hurt to the extent that he shed tears; and you knew the accusation was false, because he had been helping you in your house at the time of the purported stealing, how would you react?

(a) I would be visibly upset and tell the neighbor off. (b) I would remain calm and tell the neighbor off. (c) I would refrain from telling the neighbor off, but would explain that my boy was with me and did not go into the neighbor’s house.

Question Fifty-Three: Whatever your response, the neighbor becomes more angry and demands you give her the $5.00 that your son has stolen. What is your reaction? (a) I would hit the neighbor (for this answer, assume that you are of the same sex).

(b) I would take my son and walk away and make sure neither I nor my son darken the neighbor’s door again.

(c) I would tell the neighbor off some more. (d) I would remain calm and explain that I know my son is innocent. If the neighbor calms down later I would react as though the incident had never occurred.

(e) I would give the neighbor the $5.00.

Question Fifty-Four: If you discover that your neighbor’s boy stole $5.00 from your house what do you do?

(a) Angrily confront the neighbor and demand punishment of the boy and return of the $5,00.

(b) Same as (a) but without anger.

(c) Calmly explain the boy’s behavior to his parents, but not demand the $5.00. Wait and see if they return it.

(d) Catch the boy and punish him myself.

(e) Do nothing.

Comment on Questions 52-54. This is a difficult set of questions to answer honestly. It may help to explain the objective. People respond one of two ways to emotional situations. They will act or react. The actor is his own person; whereas the reactor is controlled by the situation. The majority of people are reactors; the few who are actors are on the path of Synthesis.

The actor returns good for evil. The reactor returns evil for evil, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The reactor always wants revenge and to “get even”. He wants his pound of flesh. He always wants the criminal to serve the last day of his sentence.

The actor does not follow the accepted pattern of behavior and response. Someone may shout directly at him or even slap him on the cheek and he will not impulsively return the insult. He will mentally consider first whether such response is desirable. To the offender’s surprise, the actor may respond by a show of love or friendliness which may often disarm him. The response of such a person will not always appear as love, however. Remember the cutting words of Jesus to the Jewish officials a few pages earlier. Even here Jesus was not just reacting, but acting. When an actor does respond with criticism, it is with a well deserved righteous indignation. The actor’s emotionally charged criticism will always be true and cutting. The reactor’s criticism will often contain half truths and insinuations.

The reactor will always think his criticism is justified, but the basic difference between an attack by an actor and by a reactor is the frequency and the predictability. If you shout at a reactor in an angry fashion he will always react in a negative way. On the other hand, if you shout at or attack an actor, even with great anger, he may not return the attack, perhaps nine times out of ten. But on that one time he does return it you may be assured it will have the result as a penetrating arrow, just as the attack of Jesus inflamed the Pharisees. “Frequency” then is the key word in determining the difference between the actors and reactors.

Many reactors deceive themselves and think they are really actors and think that even Jesus would do the same thing in their situation. Many overestimate their control in differing situations, thus will give an incorrect answer in these three questions. It was felt wise to include questions like these anyway, for a prospective Synthesizer should at least examine himself to see if he is acting or reacting. If he finds himself constantly reacting, perhaps he can become more self-aware and improve himself.

Examine the best answers on these three questions and ask yourself if this is really the trend you would be likely to follow. If it is not, above all do not deceive yourself. Self deception is the greatest hindrance to spiritual progression there is on this planet and when one gets caught in the web it can become almost impossible to break out. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” said the Master. Even if the truth is humiliating, face it boldly. There is no other road to freedom.

Question Fifty-Five: What percentage of your free time each day is spent in constructive activity?

(a) Almost none (b) 5-10% (c) 10-20% (d) 20-40% (e) 40-60% (f) Over 60%

55 To a Synthesizer, time is his most important possession, and he values it greatly. On the other hand, he also identifies with the “eternal now” and knows the timelessness of the spirit and has a calmness so he does not appear to be impulsively in a hurry. He values his free time and wants to spend it constructively.

Some may have answered this question incorrectly because they misunderstood what we meant by “free time” and “constructive activity”. Free time is time that you do not have to work in order to make money, time that you do not have to sleep, that that you do not have to spend in doing chores, washing dishes, tending kids, mowing lawns, fixing up the house, and so on. It is time you can spend in constructive activity. And what is constructive activity? First let us explain what it is not. It is not earning money. It is not sleeping, doing chores, washing dishes, tending kids, mowing lawns, fixing up the house, etc. These things may be constructive in the normal sense, but are not constructive use of free time.

By constructive use, we mean time which is used for self-improvement or unselfishly used for the benefit of mankind. Some types of reading may be for self-improvement and some may not. Reading a novel would generally be for entertainment unless one were reading it for study so he can become a writer. Studying non-fiction would generally constitute self-improvement. However, some of the gossip about movie stars, even though some of it may be true, is of very little use. Taking various lessons and educational classes of your own initiative is also constructive. Going to church would not count here, as it is usually done out of duty instead of for a real benefit. Anything that improves skill is constructive. Of course, watching sitcoms on television is not counted as constructive, but this time is definitely free time.

Time used for the benefit of mankind is the second area of constructive use. This may be a project designed to bring enlightenment to your fellow men. If you are a church goer, it would be time spent proselytizing activities. If you are into meditation, it would be time spent in teaching others your methods. If you are into healing (not as a profession) it would be the time spent in helping others to better health.

Now that we have defined terms, review the question again. Figure out how much free time you actually average a week and then decide approximately how many hours you honestly spend in genuinely constructive activity.

Note that the highest score is 60%. This is because it is recognized that no one spends all their time in constructive pursuits, nor is it desirable. Everyone needs to unwind at times in frivolous activities.

Now that you have studied the commentary here, you may want to reevaluate your score. If you have to lower it some it does not make you a lesser person. You are what you are, and no test will change that. It is important, however, that each individual sees clearly his true location on the path so the right steps can be taken. There is no greater or more common hindrance than for an aspirant to think that he is further advanced than he really is.

Again, in perceiving ourselves, it is good to follow the advice of Christ: “When he noticed how the guests were trying to secure the places of honor, he spoke to them in a parable: ‘When you are asked by someone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in the place of honor. It may be that some person more distinguished than yourself has been invited; and the host will come and say to you, “Give this man your seat.” Then you will look foolish as you begin to take the lowest place. No, when you receive an invitation, go and sit down in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he will say, “Come up higher, my friend.” Then all your fellow guests will see the respect in which you are held. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled; and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 14:7-11 New English Version.

There will be no greater humiliation than that which will come to him who represents himself as being higher upon the Path than he really is. Humility is the safest route and the only way to be exalted by the Master. A true Synthesizer will someday hear the words: “Come up higher, my friend.”

It is a difficult task to determine by black and white questions as to who is and is not capable of receiving truth. Generally, one with intuition will be able to fairly accurately surmise the enlightenment of another brother within about five minutes of conversation. Those who have not developed the intuition will always have limitations on the amount they can receive. It is as if each person has within him a container of a certain size that is able to contain so much truth and no more. Each person walks around with a different sized receptacle. Some may contain a teaspoon, some a cup, some a quart, and some a gallon, but once they are full, no more may be poured in. This is an important truth which many proselyters ignore: ONCE THE LIMIT HAS BEEN REACHED IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW CLEARLY THE TRUTH IS PRESENTED, IT WILL BE REJECTED.

Finally, the time comes when the intuition is developed. When this happens it is as if the bottom were to fall out of the container and is now capable of having an infinite amount of truth pass through it. The person is now opened to any possibility that his consciousness can conceive of. His next limitation to overcome is the limitation of consciousness.

May 31, 2004

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

The Synthesis Test – Analysis, Part 7

Question Forty-Nine: What is your view concerning revelations from God? (a) God no longer speaks to man. His whole revelation is in the scriptures. (b) God speaks to man through His authorized church representatives only. (c) God can and will reveal whatever He wants through whomever He wants, whenever He wants, and it may be to those who do not belong to any church.

These three answers cover the three basic beliefs concerning revelation from higher intelligence to man on the earth.

(a) This answer rates a -15 because it represents an extremely closed-minded view. Is it logical to assume that God spoke to people right and left thousands of years ago, but is powerless to do it today when we need him the most? Why do people think this way? Amazingly, they blame it on the scriptures themselves and quote the following from the last page of the Bible: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book.” Rev. 22:18-19.

This scripture is interpreted by many fundamentalist Christians to mean that this was the last page of holy writ that would ever be written in history and after this pronouncement man was on his own with no revelation from God, for God had given him everything that he was ever going to need in the Bible. If one wants to know what God has to say one must examine the thoughts of God toward mankind in situations that occurred from 2-6,000 years ago.

Not only is this belief not rational to an enlightened person, but it is not scriptural either. Let us examine the passage in the cold clear light of reason.

First we notice that “man” is not supposed to add to or take away from the book. They forget that if a new revelation comes, it is revealed not by man, but by God. Of course, God does not want man adding his thoughts to scripture and purporting them to be from God. God says nowhere that He, Himself, will not add revelation.

Secondly, John told us not to add to or take away from “the prophecy of this book.” What book is this? Is it the Bible? No–the Bible was not compiled until centuries later. Instead, John speaks of a book containing prophecies and plagues which is, naturally, the Book of Revelations, which was the book that he had his pen placed on when he wrote the above scripture. This little book of revelations has more prophesies and plagues mentioned than any other book in the Bible.

John wanted the vision he recorded to be preserved intact just as he wrote it and he knew of the habit of many scribes to add their own opinions and footnotes to scripture as they copied them over, so he warned them against doing this, knowing that a little note added could be interpreted by the next scribe as being from the original text.

Furthermore, if this scripture applied to the whole Bible, then John himself was under condemnation, for he wrote the Gospel of John after the Book of Revelations. If the books of the Bible were arranged in true chronological order, the last of the Gospel of John would compose the last page of the Bible, which would have ended the Bible on an entirely different note: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” John 21:25.

This would be a much more appropriate last verse in the Bible, for it tells us that many more scriptures like the Gospels could be written.

Many feeling people make the mistake of believing that the Bible is all the scripture that will ever be written. Many even believe the Bible contains all the truth available to mankind. Ask such a one to explain why 2+2=4 is not in there and you will not get a logical answer.

These fundamentalist Christians are not the first to make such a mistake. The Jews who rejected Christ did the same thing. They felt that the Old Testament contained all of the word of God and that Christ and his disciples were blasphemers for claiming to have more.

The Samaritans were even more closed-minded. They accepted only the first five books in the Bible and thought that they contained the total revelation of God. This was not without reason, for in the last accepted book of their scriptures was written: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it…” Deut. 4:2. Thus the Samaritans, Jews, and Christians are all caught up in the “last word” syndrome.

Fortunately, there is no last word from God.

Future revelation is predicted numerous times in the Bible, once in the Book of Revelations itself. In chapter eleven, we have the prophecy of two prophets who will arise at the end of the age and prophesy for three and one half years. Obviously, they will speak the word of God as much as any prophet in the Bible.

There are also numerous books obviously missing from the Bible. Some of those mentioned and quoted by Bible writers, but not included in the Bible itself are: The Book of the Covenant (Exodus 24:4); The Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14); The Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13, II Sam. 1:18); The Book of Statutes (I Sam. 10:25); The Book of the Acts of Solomon (I Kings 11:41); The Books of Nathan and Gad (I Chron 29:29); The Prophecy of Ahijah and Visions of Iddo (II Chron 9:29); The Acts of Uzziah (II Chron 26:22); The Sayings of the Seers (II Chron. 33:19).

The New Testament also mentions missing scripture. Concerning Jesus, Matthew wrote: “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” Matt. 2:23. This prophecy is found nowhere in holy writ, so obviously, it was from some lost book that Matthew had knowledge of. Acts has twenty-eight chapters in the Bible, but a twenty-ninth was discovered in the archives at Constantinople.

Paul gives several inferences to epistles he wrote that are not in the Bible. An obvious one is: “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” Col. 4:15. Other inferences into missing epistles are found in I Cor. 5:9 and Eph. 3:3.

Obviously, there was a missing book of Enoch, for Jude wrote: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, The Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.” Jude 14. Interestingly, there was a book of Enoch that was accepted as authorized scripture for the first two hundred years of the Christian church. With all of this evidence plus all of the logic and reason in the world, one cannot help but wonder how even an extremely emotional person can believe that the Bible contains all of the revelation or truth that there is.

The (b) answer is almost as illogical. This person does not want to take the responsibility of receiving truth or revelation for himself, so he leaves it up to his authorities to receive and interpret. He does not even want to think through the meaning of things, but wants someone else to do the thinking for him (though he would never admit this). He believes that if God has anything to say, or a new truth to presented that it will come through duly constituted authorities, prophets or Priests. He never expects God to work through some regular guy down the road or even some non-religious person,. Amazingly, throughout the scriptures, this is exactly the procedure that God has used. Study all of the apostles and prophets and you will see that they were almost all so average and unpious that the religious leaders as well as the people rejected them. They were not selected through “authorized” means. Usually, a prophet is only called by God when the current religious and civil authorities are corrupt.

(c) is the best answer. God will speak to the one who is willing to seek, listen, and do, not to the one with the most authority. As said of David of old: “God looketh upon the heart”.

The objection given to this line of reasoning is: “God is a God of order. It would be confusion for God to speak through just anyone. Therefore, He must use recognized authorities so the people will know the message is valid.”

This sounds like a reasonable point until it is realized that there are thousands of authorities all teaching different things to their followers and that most authorities are crystallized in their beliefs and cannot accept new doctrine as Jesus illustrated: “Neither do men put new wine (truths) into old bottles (established authorities): else the bottles break (The authorities cannot endure or accept the truth), and the wine runneth out (The truth is lost), and the bottles (men) perish: but they put new wine (truth) into new bottles (men who are not recognized authorities and generally not known to the public), and both are preserved.” Matt. 9:17.

This was the procedure followed in presenting truths through prophets throughout the Bible. Moses was not at first recognized. He was not even thought to be a Hebrew, but an Egyptian enemy. David was an upsurger whom Saul and his government constantly tried to kill.

Joseph was sold into Egypt by his own brothers and spent seven years in a dark prison from whence he was fetched to prove himself a true prophet.

Jeremiah was certainly no authority. He was rejected by both religious and political authorities. Even those in his home area thought he was crazy for prophesying their doom. God will not allow his own great city of Jerusalem to be destroyed, they said.

Ahab, King of Israel inquired of his four hundred and one prophets as to whether or not he should go to battle. Apparently, all were yes men except one, because four hundred of them gave him the answer he wanted which was yes. One, named Micaiah, received a true revelation and predicted disaster. The king was angry with this dissenter, but did not get to carry out his punishment, for the battle the next day was a disaster and Ahab was slain. (See II Chron, chapter 18)

Amos was no recognized authority and was himself surprised when he was called: “Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; but I was an herdsman, and a gatherer of Sycamore fruit: And the Lord took me as I followed the flock, and the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.” Amos 7:14-15. Thus was an ordinary laborer sent to prophesy to the “recognized prophets”.

There is probably no better example of God working through a non-authority than that of the carpenter’s son, Jesus.

When he announced his mission as the Messiah to the kind folks of his home town in the middle of a church meeting they were so horror struck with his audacity that they bodily picked him up right then and there and the whole group took him to the edge of a cliff to dispose of this blasphemer. Miraculously, he was able to escape.

When he told other Jews that he was a son of God and lived before Abraham they picked up stones and tried to kill him right there.

Listen to what Jesus had to say to the religious leaders and authorities in his day: “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel…Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead man’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocracy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and ye say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Matt. 23:24-33.

Is it any wonder that established authorities did not like the Son of God? Who has the guts today to speak to them that way? Never before had the powers that be been shaken to the core with such penetrating words as those which came from the mouth of Jesus, presented even before their faces.

It is common knowledge that the Apostles also were common people. None of them were selected because of religious experience or even because they were particularly religious or pious.

It is true that God is a God of order, but it would produce only deception and confusion to work only through authoritative figures. To keep order and continued spiritual progress for mankind he must work through the “new bottles” or receptive channels only, for the word of God itself, or truth, is the greatest authority: “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Heb 4:12

How can one reasonably argue against answer (c)? Put yourself in God’s shoes. Can you see yourself always working through orthodox procedures? Don’t you think that you would find yourself pulling unorthodox strings occasionally, as God has done?

May 31, 2004

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

The Synthesis Test – Analysis, Part 6

Question Forty-One: What is your attitude toward future emotional pain? (a) I am very hesitant to give or commit myself completely in my present romance or a new one, for I do not want to make myself vulnerable to emotional hurt. (b) The emotional hurt doesn’t worry me. I will open up whatever amount is beneficial.

(a) Those who answered (a) in question 40 will probably answer (a) here, also. Those who are emotionally polarized are only willing to give of themselves completely in a romance when they are sure that they can trust the person and that he will not hurt them. Once the emotionally polarized person is deeply hurt the pain is relived again and again and he feels very vulnerable to any new situation and will often suppress any emotional feelings to avoid hurt. This produces more problems and the person usually winds up hurting the one he or she loves and becoming frustrated.

(b) The Synthesizer is prepared to be jilted or hurt a hundred times if necessary. He is out to live life to its fullest and emotional pain does not slow him down. He loves to communicate on a 100% level as soon as possible in any relationship.

Question Forty-Two: How much time do you average a day in self educational activities? (College and school related activities not counted)

(a) Almost none.

(b) 15-30 minutes a day

(c) 30-60 minutes a day

(d) One to two hours a day

(e) Over two hours a day.

Again we have a question that demands an honest answer. For the majority of the populace the answer would be (a). To figure out if your answer is accurate, decide how much learning you can accomplish in one hour. Then figure out (according to your answer) how many hours you must spend a month in study. Multiply that by the amount you can accomplish in one hour. Did you accomplish that much last month? Perhaps it was an unusual month. Well, did you accomplish that much the month before? If your answer was not correct, redo it. Do not go back more than one year to figure your average here.

Question Forty-Three: What category have you spent the most time in mastering during your life?

(a) How to win friends and influence people.

(b) A new language

(c) History

(d) Healing techniques

(e) Gaining knowledge that increases my income

(f) I have not tried to master any field of knowledge to any degree.

Only one answer here rates a positive score. Just about everyone would like to learn new things, but a desire to heal is a desire to help your brethren, which is a Synthetic desire.

Question Forty-Four: What is your employment situation?

(a) I work for someone else and am happy with my job. (b) I work for someone else and am not happy. (c) I am not self employed, but would like to be. (d) I am a salesman. (e) I own my own business. (f) I am not employed.

A Synthetic person enjoys freedom and will take risks to get it. He is often self-employed or an independent salesman. This is not a black and white statement as many synthetic people are also employed by others, though many have a desire to be independent.

Question Forty-Five: Do you pray or meditate regularly? (a) Yes. (b) No.

Prayers in church or meditations in groups does not count here. We are referring to private inner seeking sessions as mentioned by Christ: “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily, I say unto you, they have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain (useless) repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.” Matt. 6:5-8.

Group prayer and meditation can be good and effective, but most of it done in the world is without purpose but merely part of a routine. However, when a person prays or meditated on his own, and no one else is aware of what he is doing, then at least the purpose behind it is unselfish.

When one uses correct prayer and meditation, he will find all the answers to his problems in advance, even before he asks for solutions, for the “father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.”

We are not told to cease using repetitions as many suppose, but we are not supposed to use “vain repetitions”. The Greek for vain means “useless”.. We can use repetitions as long as they have value, but to rattle off mantras and prayers because they sound good or for duty’s sake is vain indeed.

Question Forty-Six: What is the highest goal you presently have in life? Choose one: (a) To have a successful marriage and a happy family. (b) To find my true purpose in life,. (c) To be successful financially. (d) To be successful in my chosen career. (e) To do the greatest good for the largest number of people.

Did you pick the Synthetic answer here: (e)? If so, do you believe it in deed as well as word? Are you giving your highest and best personal energy and work to accomplish such a project? Or is over 90% of your energy going to accomplish other goals. Think this through. Is your answer honest?

Question Forty-Seven: If you could be anyone you wanted to be, which would you choose? (a) The President of the United States (b) The most knowledgeable person in the world (c) The most famous movie star in the world (d) The richest person in the world (e) The wisest person in the world (f) One with the ability to perform miracles like Jesus did.

You could accomplish nothing of worth by becoming the other answers without wisdom. “wisdom is the principle thing…” knowledge is the second most useful answer, but it is ineffective without wisdom. For instance, if a foolish man had the ability to perform miracles, he could cause a great deal of harm. A Synthesizer will desire wisdom above all other things in this world.

Question Forty-Eight: What do you think of the phrase “All men are created equal”? (a) People of all races and beliefs are equal in every way. (b) All people have equal opportunity to achieve. (c) Some applications of this statement are not correct.

A feeling orientated person interprets the phrase: “all men are created equal” in a much different light than one who is mentally polarized. Many people even think that it is a quotation out of the Bible, but, of course, it is not. It is from the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

Emotionally polarized people feel that this is a truth applicable to all things, particularly the different races. Never in a million years could such a person examine the obvious physical, emotional, and intellectual differences in the various races on a rational level. All men are equal, they feel, so there is no sense in even thinking about making comparisons.

Did Thomas Jefferson intend to indicate that all people are equal in every way? Of course not. Here is what he wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Here Jefferson explains what he means. All men are endowed with equal rights by their creator. Each man, high or low, should be able to pursue life, liberty and happiness, according to his desire. On the other hand, it is obvious to even a general observer that all people are different in their endowments of physical, emotional and mental capacities. No two people in the world are the same. No two races are the same. No two nations are the same. No two of anything anywhere are exactly the same. Diversity is a rule of nature and this principle saves all living things from eternal monotony.

The truth of this matter is so “self-evident”, as Jefferson said, that it is very condescending to explain it to adults, for a two year old child can understand it; but it is amazing how many adults, even high officials, do not understand it.

You may wonder why (b) scores a zero. The reason is that it is not correct. All men do not have equal opportunity to achieve. Some are born rich, others poor, some free and others slaves, and all are born with differing opportunities, but all should be treated equal under the law.

May 31, 2004

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

The Synthesis Test – Analysis, Part V

Question Thirty-One Suppose a man kidnapped your daughter and raped and killed her, but was later repentant. If he called you into his cell and, kneeling at your feet in tears, begged your forgiveness, what would you tell him?

(a) I could not forgive him.

(b) I would think about it.

(c) I would try to forgive him.

(d) I would forgive him.

This will be about the most difficult question to answer dispassionately. Many will say that the answer they want to give is not offered here, but in reality your attitude will have to fall in one of the categories included. A person may have other feelings, but we are not dealing with feelings, we are dealing with forgiveness. Thus, if one wants the man punished to the full extent of the law, it has no bearing on the question. Even if he is forgiven, the law will still take care of the punishment. A Synthesizer will be a basically forgiving person and try to follow the example of Christ on the cross: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”

(a) Again, whoever says this is at least being honest, but should examine the importance of forgiveness. “He who does not forgive is guilty fo the greater sin.” A lack of forgiveness is one of the greatest hindrances to spiritual progression there is.

(b) A large percentage would have this reaction, but this is not admirable enough for a positive score.

(c) Few people would even go so far as too tell the man that they would try to forgive him, so we rate this a positive ten.

(d) Two types of people will give this answer. One is the person who is truly forgiving. The other is he who does not understand himself or his own reactions. This second type of person would actually be the last to forgive. To make sure you have answered this accurately, it is recommended that you show the three people closest to you the question and your answer, and ask them if they think it is accurate. If two out of three agree, then score yourself fifteen points.

If you find yourself wanting to take full vengeance on the man, then obviously you could not forgive him completely. Christ did not call down the legions of angels to slay those who crucified him. If you feel that the man is still dangerous to the public, perhaps because he cannot control himself, then one is justified in wanting him put away, but since the man is in a repentant state, he obviously does not want to repeat his crime.

Question Thirty-Two: If you had just gone through a bitter divorce, wherein your spouse had tried to legally prevent you from ever seeing the children again, how would you handle future confrontations with this person? (a) I would be friendly, as though my spouse had done me no wrong. (b) I would not want to see this person again. (c) I would try to hurt him or her back.

This is another question wherein honesty is a factor. Again we test the forgiving attitude. (a) is, of course, the best answer.

Question Thirty-Three: Which would you choose if you had to pick one?

(a) A happy marriage (b) To see my children become the type of persons I hoped they would become. (c) To become a success in life (d) An opportunity to bring happiness to millions of people.

It should be obvious that (d) is the best answer. Now the question is, are you answering it honestly. If you truly want to bring happiness to millions of people above all else, is that what you are currently putting your major efforts towards? Over 99% of the populace are putting their major effort in the other categories. Remember, the reason for the question is not to test you to see if you can pick the best answer, but to see if you are the best answer.

It is best to emulate the example of Jesus: “While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. When one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Matt. 12:46-50. If we can look upon mankind as Christ did, then we can be true Synthesizers.

Question Thirty-Four: Do you pick up hitchhikers?

(a) Never

(b)Sometimes.

Having done some hitchhiking myself, I have had a first hand look at the type of people who pick them up. They are almost all good-hearted, generous people of goodwill. No one picks up all hitchhikers on the road, but a true Synthesizer will feel empathy toward those less fortunate travelers than himself and pick them up once in a while. If you feel that you would only pick one up if you felt inspired or if you knew one was in trouble, that isn’t good enough for a (b) answer. For a (b) answer, you should have a past record of picking some up. (Note from the year 2021: Hitchhikers are pretty rare these days so there is not much opportunity to help them, but there were a lot of them when I was younger)

Question Thirty-Five: What is your reaction toward beggars? (a) Ignore them. They should get a job.

(b) Give to them when possible.

Again, we test your generosity and goodwill. Many people feel that all beggars are leeches on society and that they are in that situation because of their own fault and that helping them only encourages them to beg more. I find that many of those who proclaim the loudest of their belief in the Bible are the last to obey the injunction of the Master: “Give to him that asketh thee.” Matt. 5:42. It is true that one may find reason after reason for not helping a person who is down and out, such as: “He’ll just spend it on booze.” “He’s probably making a lot of money doing it.” “Giving just encourages more begging.” “He won’t appreciate it.”

These same people may be the first to help the rich old lady up the street shovel her snow, as long as she is a member of their religion, so they can broadcast the good deed among their friends.

If you merely are willing to give to a beggar when a great stroke of inspiration from heaven hits you or when you know it is a matter of life and death, this is not enough. If you want to know if you deserve the (b) answer, examine your past life. What percentage of the times you have been approached by someone begging for money did you give? If you have given around 25% or more of the times you were asked, or when you were able, then you may deserve some points. Otherwise answer (a).

Question Thirty-Six: What is your reaction toward religious people (of a religion different from yours) who knock on your door wanting to give you a message? (a) Slam the door in their face. (b) Politely tell them I am not interested. (c) Give them a few minutes of my time and then tell them I am not interested. (d) Listen to them and also share my philosophy with them.

Having knocked on over 5,000 doors in the name of a religion a lifetime ago when I was a young LDS missionary, I have a firsthand knowledge of the typical reaction of the public. The average person is completely closed-minded and wants to get rid of you as soon as possible. About one out of ten will slam the door in your face or a semblance thereof. About 80% will politely tell you they are not interested. The remainder fit in categories (c) and (d). Even many of those who listen do it out of courtesy and not because they are open-minded. Some are merely afraid of offending you. Very few are willing to listen and share philosophy or theology. If you answered this (d), ask yourself what your reaction was to the last ten religious people who knocked on your door. How many did you invite inside? Even if you do not agree with them, you might remember that a little courtesy is like an oasis in a desert to them. If you have not actually entertained these people periodically, then you should not answer (d).

Question Thirty-Seven: When Jesus comes again:

(a) People will have to obey him and recognize his authority or be destroyed. (b) People will be free to reject his rule and still remain on the earth.

(a) The authoritarian “Obey or else” type of person will select this one.

(b) Those with more tolerance, which is the mark of the Synthesizer, will choose this. Furthermore, the scriptures support this answer.

Thirty-Eight: Mohammed claimed he received visitations from the angel Gabriel. How do you look upon this claim (If you are not a Muslim)?

(a) It could not be the same Gabriel who appeared to Mary the mother of Jesus. (b) It is possible it could be the same angel. (c) I do not believe in angels.

(b) scores the highest here, for the Synthesizer, realizing that God works through many different religions would be open to the possibility of Gabriel visiting someone outside of the Christian faith.

Question Thirty-Nine: If you knew you had only $10.03 in the bank and you received a statement showing that you had a balance of $1003.00, you would: (a) Tell the bank about the error.

(b) Keep the money. The bank wouldn’t miss it. (c) Not sure I could resist the temptation.

Honesty is a virtue for all classes of people, so obviously (a) is the best answer. (c) gets two points because one would have to be fairly honest with himself to choose this one. Perhaps some of those who marked (a) should have marked (c).

Question Forty: What is your attitude toward painful emotional hurts and experiences of the past?

(a) I do not like to be reminded of them, as I seem to relive the pain. (b) It does not bother me to think back on them, or to talk about them.

The Synthesizer is not controlled by his feelings, or the feeling world, but by the mind and intuition. Thus he has the ability to look upon painful experiences in the past with detachment. Let us take an example of the emotional reaction: A young couple is in love and they have a favorite song they play over and over as they gaze lovingly into each other’s eyes.

Without notice the man becomes attracted to another woman and ruthlessly jilts his loved one. The young lady is very upset and depressed over her lost love, but she gradually adjusts and acquires another boyfriend. He invites her over to his place for a romantic evening and a charming atmosphere seems to be created. Suddenly the stereo plays the song that was “their song” and she breaks down and cries and wants to leave. He is at a loss to understand what is wrong, for she does not want to talk about it –”it hurts too much.”

Another example: A woman is raped while staying in a particular motel. From this point on she never wants to stay in any motel again, even if it is particularly safe, and she cannot bear to enter the motel in which she was raped even with an armed guard.

Third example: A little boy is run over by a bright yellow car. The car does not stop, but peels away at great speed and the driver is never apprehended. The little boy’s father had a bright yellow car, but now he cannot stand the sight of it because it reminds him of the accident. He will not ride in any bright yellow car unless it is a matter of life and death, because it brings back painful memories.

A Synthesizer would react differently to the above situations. A Synthesizer is not without emotion. He feels emotion like anyone else, but is not ruled by his feeling, because he is not polarized in his emotional nature. In the first example, the tune would indeed remind the Synthesizer of her lost love, but because she would not be polarized in the emotional nature she would be able to handle it in a rational manner. She could mentally stop her feelings from being transported back into the past, even as she may talk about the song and the memories it brings. In fact, she may still enjoy listening to the tune and can play it over and over with no pain. She is perfectly willing to talk about the experience of her lost love.

The second example would be a real test even for a true Synthesizer, but any emotional situation can be handled if one does not shift gears back to emotional control. Logically, she should have no more fear of staying in a motel after the rape than before. Even before the incident, she realized the possibility. Now that the freak event has happened, there is no more danger than there was before. Of course, if the rape happened through carelessness, then logically, correct precautions must be taken in the future. The Synthesizer could continue to visit motels– even the motel in which she was raped without reliving the pain. It may be discomforting, but she could handle it.

In the third case, the Synthesizer realizes that the color yellow had nothing to do with his boy’s accident. The color may temporarily remind him of that painful event, but he does not relive the pain and does not feel impelled to sell his yellow car.

After reviewing these three examples, you may want to reread the question and make sure you have answered it properly.

May 31, 2004

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

The Synthesis Test – Analysis, Part IV

Question Twenty-One: If Jesus had returned to the earth and all the nations laid down their arms and peace was established with the kingdom of God a physical reality, and a man rebelled and shouted: “Jesus is crazy, do not follow him. The old ways are better.” If the man then went about teaching a philosophy completely contrary to the Kingdom of God, what would happen? (a) The man could not abide here on the earth. He would be killed or removed in some way.

(b) Jesus would be upset and punish the man. (c) Jesus’ feelings would be hurt, but he would not punish the man. (d) If the man proposed a threat, Jesus may challenge him to a public debate.

Comment: There is nothing in the scriptures that indicates that a person will have his free agency taken away from him when Christ comes again. There is nothing that tells us that there shall not be disagreements at that time. Jesus would not punish the man, for he is merely exercising his right to freedom of speech, which Jesus certainly supported in the New Testament. Jesus’ feelings would not be hurt, as his lofty spirit is above such trivia. If the man led people astray, Jesus might challenge him to a debate and defeat him with the sharp sword that proceeds out of his mouth (See Rev. 19:15) which is the weapon of words that will defeat his enemies. His word was his only weapon against the early Jews and this is the only sword he will need.

Question Twenty-Two: Which is the worst sin?

(a) Looking at a pornographic magazine.

(b) Deliberately hurting your spouse’s feelings.

It should be obvious that looking at a pornographic magazine is not nearly as harmful as making another human being miserable. This question tests common sense.

Question Twenty-Three: Which is the most important?

(a) Reverencing God.

(b) Living in peace with your neighbor.

Those who answer (a) do not realize that we reverence God by living in peace with our neighbor. It is written: “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: but he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” I John 4:20.

Question Twenty-Four: None of Hitler’s ideas had any merit. (a) This statement is absolutely true.

(b) Some of his ideas could have benefited mankind.

A person must be unbiased to answer (b) here. A little study of the man will reveal that he had a brilliant mind and numerous useable ideas, but misguided intentions. Hitler was responsible for the first Volkswagen, which was an idea ahead of his time. Under him, the first jet planes were produced and the most advanced rockets in the world at that time. He also initiated the Autobahn which is still in use.

Because a villain has used his talents in a destructive way does not mean every idea he had was bad. He had to come up with things that sounded good to get a following in the first place.

Question Twenty-Five: When we sin:

(a) We make God, as well as ourselves, unhappy. (b) We only make ourselves unhappy. There is no unhappiness with God.

There is nothing in the scriptures to indicate that God is ever unhappy. If sinning makes God unhappy, then He would be unhappy all the time, for there are millions of sins committed hourly. Furthermore, it is written: “In thy presence is fulness of Joy.” Psalms 16:11.

Question Twenty-Six: Which statement is true?

(a) God knows everything there is to know, even the exact second I will awake in the morning.

(b) It is possible that God doesn’t know everything.

This is a good test of broadmindedness, and it is an argument that has concerned humanity down through the ages . Most people believe that God knows every piece of trivia that will ever happen in our lives. Few ever stop to think that God would not even concern Himself with such things, just as a man is not concerned about which direction a slug under a rock is going to turn. It would be a great distraction to have such things in our consciousness. God is at a state of awareness that does not necessitate having His mind cluttered with facts. Furthermore, there is no scripture in the Bible that tells us that He knows everything; thus it is entirely possible that there are things He does not know. To understand this thoroughly, one must understand what is meant by the term “God”, as everyone has different concepts. We shall explore this later.

Question Twenty-Seven: Let us suppose that the draft was reinstalled and our government intervened in a civil war in a foreign country and took the side of a tyrant who was fighting against real freedom fighters seeking democracy. On the other hand, the media was reporting the situation in reverse as if the tyrant was a good guy and the freedom fighters were terrible rebels. You notice that the mass of people believe the media. Not all do though and quite a few avoid the draft. How would you look upon draft dodgers? (a) They are all dishonorable, for they are breaking the law. (b) They are doing the honorable thing, for the war is immoral. (c) Some are honorable, some are dishonorable.

(a) The black and white person will give this answer, for all he will see is that the draft dodgers went against authority. There are many who believe it is wrong to go against authority no matter what the reason.

(b) This the answer given by a person from the world of feeling. Because the war is wrong, then all who oppose it are right. We must consider here that many are not aware of the true facts behind the war. Even though some may think the enemy is evil and we are fighting for the cause of freedom, they may not want to fight for other reasons, one of which would be fear or cowardice. This, of course, is dishonorable. They may be taking the correct action, but for the wrong reason.

(c) This is the best answer. Some are honorably refusing to fight in an immoral war, and others are dishonorably unwilling to fight in what appears to them be an honorable war because they are not properly informed..

Question Twenty-Eight: What is your attitude toward free agency? (a) It is never necessary to give it up. (b) It is often necessary to subject our will to an authority over us. (c) Our will should be subject only to the God within.

(a) A person who is unwilling to sacrifice his personal desires at all cannot Synthesize. In fact, he will never be completely at unity with even one other person.

(b) This is the other extreme. The person needs an authority to follow. This is not Synthesis, for the sheep never know the mind of the shepherd, but only follow on blind faith that they are led correctly.

(c) This answer is after the pattern set by the Christ: “Not my will, but thine be done.” This leads to Synthesis, for if two or more people follow the God within or the Holy Spirit, then they will be as one mind, for they are led by one mind and they “have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” I Cor. 12:13.

Question Twenty-Nine: If your daughter came to you and announced that she was in love with a man who was a member of a cult who looked upon their leader as God, and that she planned to marry this man with or without your approval, what would be your reaction?

(a) It’s her life. Let her do what she wants. (b) I would use every means at my disposal to stop her, even force if necessary. (c) I would reserve my judgment until I got to know him a little better. (d) If I disapproved, I would try to persuade her to not marry him, but leave the final decision up to her.

This is one of the hardest questions to answer honestly. I would guess that about half of the populace would react differently in a real life situation than they would answer here. Nevertheless, the answer will give an indication of broadmindedness and common sense.

(a) This answer scores zero. It indicates indifference. Indifference is not broadmindedness, and is not a virtue, but is usually less harmful than th totalitarian approach.

(b) This rates the lowest score, because free will should not be infringed upon by another person except to prevent imminent violence. There is no indication that the man in question is violent.

(c) This is a good answer. It is possible the person is actually quite harmless and that you may like him if you give him a chance.

(d) You may have answered this along with (c), which would have scored the highest points. If you disapprove of your daughter’s action, then there is nothing wrong with trying to use persuasion and reasoning and even appealing to her emotions, but after you present your case the decision should be hers. If she makes a mistake it will still be a learning experience for her and all is not lost. All is never lost.

Question Thirty: If your daughter actually married the above man, what would be your reaction?

(a) I would no longer accept her. The two together would not be welcome in my house. (b) I would still accept my daughter, but he would not be welcome. (c) They would both be treated with the same hospitality I show anyone else.

Whoever answers (a) is at least honest. Many more would react this way than is realized. (c) is obviously the best answer. However, those who answered this one may want to honestly ask themselves if they would really react in such a kind manner.

May 31, 2004

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

The Synthesis Test – Analysis, Part 3

Question Eleven: Which would you rather win?

(a) A free ticket on the first passenger rocket to the moon. (b) An all expense trip around the world.

A Synthesizer always has a spirit of adventure and loves to explore and discover, therefore he would rather go to the moon than on a mundane cruise around the world.

Question Twelve: If you were in the mountains and met a harmless looking old man, who told you that he was a keeper to a passageway to the center of the earth and you had been selected to meet some wise master awaiting your visit; but first you must follow the old man through an unknown passageway, what would be your attitude?

(a) Assume immediately the old man was crazy and ignore him. (b) Be curious and ask some questions, but not go to the passageway. (c) Ask questions and follow the old man just to see if such a passage exists, but not enter it.

(d) Probably be curious enough to follow the old man into the passageway.

This question is also related to curiosity and the desire to explore, which is the mark of the Synthesizer. Such a person would be curious enough to follow the old man to the cave and courageous enough to enter it and explore. The man with the highly developed intuition would generally know if he was in danger.

Question Thirteen: If an old friend, whom you knew was a bit eccentric, approached you with a sure fire get-rich-quick business venture concerning a revolutionary computer product, requiring a $l,000.00 investment (which you just happen to have at the time), and he tells you that you should be able to get that back tenfold in a month, plus, with a little work, obtain financial security for the rest of your life–you would: (a) Be polite, but express no interest in the venture. After all, the man has a reputation of being involved in useless schemes. (b) Be polite, listen to what the man has to say, then ignore him. (c) Listen to what the man has to say, on the off chance that he may have come across a venture of real value. If the idea sounds good, and further investigation warrants it, I may invest in it. (d) If the man presents me an attractive enough picture, I would take a chance and definitely invest in it.

This question tests tolerance, curiosity and open-mindedness. Also there will be many who may not give a truly honest answer here, for few people will listen or consider the ideas of one who has a reputation of being eccentric. (c) is, of course, the best answer. A Synthesizer has enough sense to not jump at an opportunity just because it sounds good. He will at least investigate it as much as possible. If, however, the idea strikes a chord with his intuition, he may espouse it contrary to what appears logical.

Question Fourteen: If you had a six year old daughter who, as far as you knew, was completely normal, and she came up to you out of the blue and explained that some space people were in contact with her by mental telepathy and that they had a very important message for your family and also for the people of the earth, how would you react? (a) I would feel that my daughter is possessed and take her to my religious authorities. (b) I would feel that she has a problem and take her for professional help. (c) I would ignore the problem and hope it goes away. (d) I would question her with the attitude that her communication may be valid. (e) If the communications seemed logical and intuitionally sound, I would take them seriously

This question is a good test of open-mindedness. Be sure you are honest here. Open-mindedness is the hardest point to prove through a test because almost all people believe themselves to be so. I have never met one person who thought he was closed-minded, yet there are billions of such persons out there.

Question Fifteen: How do you feel about exceeding the speed limits? (a) One should never exceed the speed limit except in an emergency. (b) One should be able to go as fast as he wants without harassment. (c) I look upon the speed limit as a guide and try to make safety the main principle in my driving. I do not feel bad about exceeding the speed limit a few miles if there is no additional hazard.

A Synthesizer always recognizes the shades of grey and obeys laws, rules and regulations because of the good they achieve. If going a few miles over the speed limit creates no harm, then his conscience does not suffer. Those who are bothered about going five miles over the speed limit would have done well under the law of Moses, but missed the concept of the law of Christ.

Question Sixteen: If your mother was cheating on her income tax and the authority (religious, political or otherwise) whom you admired most told you to report her–would you? (a) Yes (b) No.

Again, the black and white type person would answer yes here. This is the type of person who made Hitler so successful. Much of Hitler’s success was due to the good Christian people reporting on each other for indiscretions. The mother of the Synthesizer would have to be guilty of significant harmfulness before he would even consider reporting her to the authorities. He may counsel her in private where he sees it may be beneficial.

Question Seventeen: If your child broke a fairly harmless archaic school rule, which if discovered would lead to expulsion, would you report him if the authority you admired most counseled you to? (a) Yes. (b) No.

The same principle applies here. Many would not report transgressions of others on their own initiative, but would if some authoritative figure told them to–a prophet or priest, for instance. A Synthesizer does not have an authority for his conscience, but the Holy Spirit.

Question Eighteen: If your children were starving and you had a rich neighbor who refused to give you any food and you had an opportunity to steal some bread from him which may save the lives of your children, how do you think God would feel if you stole the loaf?

(a) I have committed a sin because I have broken a commandment. I must be punished. Even though I was in an awkward situation, I shouldn’t have done the deed, nor should I have allowed myself to be put in that circumstance. (b) God would overlook it , as I took the loaf as an act of love.

One who answers (a) here must look upon God in a similar light as the Nazis looked upon Hitler or as the Jews in the time of Christ looked upon their religion. Jesus told them: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have OMITTED THE WEIGHTIER MATTERS OF THE LAW, JUDGMENT, MERCY, AND FAITH.” Matt. 23:23. Mercy, we are told here, is one of the weightier matters of the law that is overlooked in the (a) answer. What is more important, a loaf of bread, or a child’s life?

Question Nineteen: Do you favor laws that would make harmful cults illegal? (a) Yes. (b) No.

The black and white person would be likely to answer yes here, but this is a fairly dangerous way of thinking, similar to that of the leaders in the Roman Empire in the days of Christianity. They thought Christianity was a harmful cult, made it illegal and put many Christians to death. There are laws already on the books defining what is lawful. If a cult disregards these laws, then it can be dealt with according to the law, but to define certain cults as illegal may suppress a new inspired religion that may arise in the future.

Question Twenty: Which is the worst sin?

(a) Doubting the word of God

(b) Robbing a bank.

Doubting the word of God is not a sin. How can one even know if a statement is from God unless he doubts it first and examines it logically and through the Spirit?

May 31, 2004

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

The Synthesis Test – Analysis, Part 2

Question Six: What do you think of religions other than your own? (a) Some of them may have been inspired by God. (b) They are either the creations of men’s minds or from the devil. (c) Some may contain some sound doctrine, but God recognizes only my religion.

(a) This answer rates a positive score, for it shows open-mindedness and the ability to see a larger part of the elephant than the mere leg he is holding on to.

(b) Again we have an extremely closed view. This person thinks the elephant is like a tree.

(c) This person is open-minded enough to see some truth in other religions, but is blinded to the fact that God is willing to work through them as well as his own.

Question Seven: What do you think of scriptures other than the Bible, such as the Koran or the Buddhist scriptures?

(a) Inspired by the devil.

(b) All could have some inspiration from God in them. I’d have to read them and see.

(c) I do not even have to read them to know they are not true.

(a)&(c) are extremely closed-minded. It is very unlikely that one who answers such could be a Synthesizer. (b) reveals open-mindedness.

Question Eight: What do you think of the devil?

(a) No semblance of any such being exists. (b) He is a being totally evil that puts all my evil thoughts in my mind. (c) There is a devil, but most of my evil thoughts are my own. (d) The devil is a symbol of the evil that confronts us, no such being exists. (e) The devil is indeed a symbol, but there is a reality behind all symbols and beings of great evil do exist, but they are not responsible for all the evil we do

(a) This attitude is closed-minded. To the Synthesizer, anything may be possible.

(b) This answer reveals great ignorance and even contradicts the Bible:” But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” James 1:14.

“When He (God) made man He made him straightforward, but man invents endless subtleties on his own.” Eccl 7:29 New English Version.

Man is responsible for his own thoughts and evil intentions, not the devil.

(c) This is closer to the truth, but only rates two points, as it reveals no great insight.

(d) This person is closer to the truth than (b) but his mind is still closed to the possibility that such a being exists. We should be open to all possibilities.

(e) It is logical that the “devil” and “Satan” as described in the scriptures are often symbolic, but, on the other hand, it is also reasonable to assume that beings of great evil do exist in this universe and the battles of good versus evil continues on a cosmic plane higher than our own.

The word devil as it is used in the Bible comes from the Greek word DIABOLOS. This word is used in the following scripture: “Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.” Matt. 4:1. But the word literally means “accuser” or “adversary”. What then was the adversary that tempted Jesus? Was it an evil being, or his carnal self?

DIABOLOS is translated in the King James version to other words than “DEVIL”. Paul advised: “The aged women likewise, that they be in behavior as becometh holiness, not false accusers…”Tim. 2:3. The Greek word for “false accusers” is the same DIABOLOS.

If DIABOLOS were translated consistently then we have Paul here telling old women not to be devils. He uses the same words concerning wives in I Timothy 3:11. It is there translated: “slanderers”.

The word “Satan” comes from the Hebrew word SATAN and similarly means “accuser, attacker or adversary”. SATAN is not translated literally in a number of passages. If it were, the Christian world would look upon the word in a different perspective. In several instances in I Kings Chapter eleven, we have God Himself stirring up the devil: “And the Lord stirred up an adversary (From the Hebrew ‘SATAN’) unto Solomon.” I Kings 11:14 “And God stirred up another adversary (SATAN) Rezon the son of Eliadah.” Verse 23 “And he was an adversary (SATAN) to Israel all the days of Solomon.” Verse 25.

The most amazing antithesis to the accepted meaning of SATAN is found in the story of Balaam: “And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the ANGEL OF THE LORD STOOD IN THE WAY FOR AN ADVERSARY (SATAN) against him.” Numbers 22:22.

First we have God stirring up Satan and then we have an angel of the Lord actually becoming Satan. It is obvious that the word has come down to us with a distorted meaning, thanks to the crude belief in the devil that was common during the Middle Ages when the King James Version was produced.

The only other word with the connotation of “devil” is Lucifer. This is mentioned only once in the entire Bible in Isaiah 14:12 and this is not intended to refer to some horned devil, but to the King of Babylon! The word itself comes from the Hebrew HEYLEL which means “the morning star” or “the day star”, It has an implied meaning of “lightbringer”.. The planet Venus has often been called the morning star and that may have been the original Lucifer.

In speaking of Lucifer, God told Isaiah to “take up this proverb against the King of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! The golden city ceased!” Isa 14:4.

The ancient Babylon spoken of here is both literal and symbolic. In one sense it refers to that ancient city Babylon that fell, and also to that materialistic system at the end of the age, epitomized by Hitler, that is to fall. This Babylon was to fall in a symbolic period of “one hour” according to Revelations Chapter 18. It was to be utterly destroyed. For further enlightenment, read this whole chapter. It has many similarities to Isaiah 14

The ancient Babylon was indeed the morning star of the earth at one time. Daniel saw it in his image as the head of gold, or the morning star of all the political kingdoms of the earth. The original Babylon or Babel was built by Nimrod contrary to the commandment of God to spread abroad on the face of the earth. All of the various kings of the literal and symbolic Babylons are exemplified in Lucifer: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” Isa 14:12.

Hitler, a modern king of Babylon, fulfills this description. He weakened the nations, but was cut down. As one reads the whole chapter, one can see how Hitler or other characters of an Anti-Christ nature can fit this description.

The symbolism could also extend to the heavenly spheres. Perhaps there is a great Babylon challenging the heavenly realms with a morning star, Lucifer, at the helm.

A possible reference to this is found in the book of Revelation: “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 that 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.

This does not mean that there were real serpents and dragons and medieval devils involved here, but there do exist beings that are best described with this symbolism. We are told that these beings are right here on the earth. Is it not logical to assume that many of them have the bodies of men walking around in the flesh? Are not men themselves capable of being great adversaries, accusers, and devils? It is true that many similar beings may exist in an unseen world, but you have to go a long way to find a better devil than Hitler, for instance.

The Victorian concept of the devil is not correct, even by Bible standards, but there are adversaries (Satans) to the truth on every hand that must be defeated by the word of truth.

Question Nine: How do your religious beliefs compare with the way you were taught as a child?

(a) I am still a member of the same religion. (b) I have changed religious beliefs. My philosophy is much different now than I was taught as a child.

(c) I have changed religions, but my basic philosophy of life is about the same.

A Synthesizer is one who can change and adapt as truth is presented to him. He never reaches the plateau of self-satisfaction; therefore his basic philosophy will often change several times in his life. He may even find himself in the position of Winston Churchhill, who went through all the political parties and added one of his own. Many of his peers, observing this change, thought him to be a traitor to their cause. He had enemies within the whole round of political belief because they could not understand the motivation behind his constant changing. An enlightened person will usually change philosophies several times in his life and never find an ultimate truth to keep him permanently satisfied. On the other hand, as he undergoes this change he will sift the good from the bad, the true from the false, and keep that which is beneficial, discarding the unusable.

Question Ten: What do you think of evolution?

(a) It is a doctrine inspired by the devil. (b) There is no truth to it at all, (c) It could be basically true and still not conflict with the Bible. (d) The Bible and evolution cannot both be true.

It is interesting to observe people’s reaction to the word “evolution”. Those who answer (a) or (b) usually are not even aware of the definition of the word, which is “The process of unfolding or gradual development.” We can even use the word in connection with the origin of the Bible, for this book was not created by some spontaneous means by God, but was gradually compiled and evolved. Thus, the Bible is a product of evolution. However, because a feeling person is likely to associate evolution with Darwin alone he may not be caught dead using the word favorably at all.

We shall not go into a dissertation on the truth of evolution here. All thinking people realize that some points of Darwin’s theory is a fait accompli, proven beyond argument. By selective breeding scientists have caused both the plant and animal kingdom to evolve better strains and higher quality species.

The Bible even directly tells us that God did not create by a direct spontaneous creation, as many fundamentalists suppose. It is written: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind…” Gen 1:11. Here we see that God let the earth itself “bring forth”, or evolve, the plant kingdom.

We are told that the fish and bird kingdom came from the waters: “And God said, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.” Gen 1:20.

Again we are told that the earth brought forth the animal kingdom: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” Gen 1:24.

Contrary, then, to the belief that God directly made all living things, the Bible tells us that he had the earth and waters bring them forth, or evolve them. This is in harmony with scientific thought.

The only thing that God claimed to make Himself is man, and this idea may explain the missing links in man’s evolution. It is quite possible that God-like beings from other planets visited the earth in earlier times and left their seed upon it. Whatever the case, the thinking person will not discard the logical elements of any theory. A Synthesizer must be open-minded.

May 31, 2004

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE