Category: 2015

May 4, 2014

Physical Evidence

While it is true that many references to reincarnation were purged in the early church they were unable to clean the scriptures of all evidence. In my two treatises I have presented a large amount of scriptural evidence that is quite overwhelming.

Of course, people with a strong belief system are unlikely to change after reading it no matter what the evidence. In fact most involved in orthodox religion will not even read hem. A number of friends and family actually burned my writings after I gave them copies. They wanted to make sure a thrown away copy didn’t find its way into any reader’s hands.

The interesting thing about reincarnations is that there are multiple ways to prove it.

(1) The scriptures

(2) Logic and reason

(3) Regression where the recollections are verified.

(4) Near death experiences verify it.

(4) Physical evidence.

This later one is interesting and a chapter of my book Eternal Lives” goes into it. Here it is:

 

Chapter Three

Physical Evidence

Not only did my own experiments, experience and study of the scriptures such as mentioned previously help convince me of reincarnation, but there are hundreds of documented cases of people remembering their past lives. I have personally met people who remember past lives with normal consciousness without the aid of any regression techniques.

This conscious remembering is not as rare as many may think and this phenomenon caught the attention of Dr. Ian Stevenson, the former head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia, about forty years ago. Since that time he has traveled the world studying these people and has accumulated about 3000 cases in his files.

Most of the more amazing cases occur with young children just a couple years old who are just learning to speak. As a general rule they remember the past life for a couple years and lose the memory around the age of five or six.

In a typical situation the child may insist that her parents are not really her parents, but that her true parents (and perhaps spouse) are in another city or part of the country). Dr. Stevenson tries to catch these children before they had a chance to visit their home of a previous life and take them there and scientifically examine their response. In many cases the child’s memory of a past life is proven, for the name given out is discovered to be a real person who died. The child is then taken to the home of her past life and will identify dozens of memories that she could have not acquired in this life. If there is some secret hiding place he or she will identify this. If there are favorite possessions, these will be pointed out.

In one case a young girl identified a previous spouse who refused to believe that the little girl was his dead wife reborn. She gave identification after identification of information only the wife could have known, but still the guy was unconvinced. In desperation the little girl pulled him aside and step by step told him exactly what she did to him when they made love as husband and wife. That did the trick. The man was convinced.

Basically Dr. Stevenson likes to get about twenty-four items of identification from the child of things that she could have not known, about the family and circumstances of the past life before he will take it seriously or even write about it.

In 35% of cases he investigated, children who died an unnatural death developed phobias. For example, if they had drowned in a past life then they frequently developed a phobia about going out of their depth in water. If they had been shot, they were often afraid of guns and sometimes loud bangs in general. If they died in a road accident they would sometimes develop a phobia of traveling in cars, buses or trucks.

If the child’s previous life possessed a talent of some kind then the child shows a disposition to that talent as he or she matures.

The child will often express a wish for the type of food she had in a past life.

If the child was a different sex in the past life then the person will often be homosexual in the current life.

This is all the type of information that I and others who have done regression work have discovered, but unable to give scientific proof. The difference with Dr. Stevenson is that he delivers actual proof.

Now some will look at this type of evidence and declare that it is the work of the devil – that some tricky evil spirit is deceiving these children.

This is a poor excuse used since the beginning of time by those who have attempted to escape the power of logic and thought, and has been used against every holy man that God has sent including Jesus. Even with the great evidence of the miracles He demonstrated before unbelieving eyes He was himself accused of being possessed by evil and doing his miracles by the power of the evil one. Also Joseph Smith is often accused of writing the Book of Mormon by the power of the devil.

However, the scriptures give evidence that Dr. Stevenson’s children are not influenced by Satan for it is written:

But behold, I say unto you, that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten; Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given to Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me. D&C 29:46-47

Also: “little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin.” Moroni 8:8

If indeed reincarnation is the “doctrine of the devil” and wrong – or a sinful belief, then according to scripture the evil one would have no power to tempt children under the age of eight (the age of accountability) to remember past lives of actual people.

Scripture also says: “Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times which confound the wise and the learned.” Alma 32:23

This is indeed the case with Stevenson’s studies. The little children he works with have come up with powerful evidence that have confounded the wise and learned of the world.

If the reader is interested in reading numerous case studies Dr. Stevenson has done I would recommend the book: “Children who remember Previous Lives.”

It is available at Amazon.com. HERE is the Link.

Perhaps even more startling than the evidences derived from recalling past lives is Dr. Stevenson’s more recent work on corresponding birthmarks from one life to the next. He discovered that if one has a wound, particularly one that caused death, such as a gunshot, that the person will often have a birthmark in the exact placed where the wound was in a past life. What is even more fascinating is that if the person received a bullet wound which penetrated the body and left an exit hole that the entity will have a birthmark at both the point of entrance and exit.

Even more interesting is that the exit wound is larger than the entrance, and when the corresponding birthmarks are examined he found that the birthmark at the location of the exit wound was also much bigger.

Dr. Stevenson examined 895 children, who remembered past lives, for birthmarks, corresponding to wounds and found related birthmarks on 309 of them or 35%.

The chances of this happening are very miniscule. The average adult has about 17 square feet of skin stretching over his body. That is 2448 square inches. Now the chances of finding a birthmark on the same square inch of the body in a current life as a wound in a past life is 2448:1. The chances of finding a birthmark on the same square inch of both an exit and entrance wound is much greater: 5,992,704 to one, yet Stevenson turned up this startling evidence time and time again.

The interesting thing about the birthmark study is that the “tricky devil:” theory is even more ridiculous. To believe the devil is bouncing around stamping birthmarks on children defies all logic.

One can read much more on this subject of birthmarks and examine the evidence himself from Dr. Stevenson’s book: “Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect.”

In addition to this he has a more exhaustive 2200 page study called “Reincarnation and Biology.”

Another interesting evidence of reincarnation comes through Near Death Experiences (NDE).

Amber Wells of the University of Connecticut wrote a research paper based on her study of the near death experience for her senior honors thesis under the direction of Dr. Kenneth Ring. She discovered that 70 percent of the people who experience NDE believe in reincarnation, and many of them so believe because of something gleaned from the experience. On the other hand, according to Gallup only 23 percent of Americans in general believe in the doctrine. These statistics bear out that there is something about the experience that convinced many who saw a glimpse of the great beyond that there is more than one life.

One event given by many is what is called the life review. Some report being given the ability to review their whole life in detail, but in addition to this many also reported the obtaining of a vision of numerous past lives.

Then others report seeing entities waiting to be reborn or being told that they will have future lives.

Here in the West we tend to look on a belief in reincarnation as a minority belief expressed by a few new agers, but many do not realize that more religious people of the world accept the doctrine than reject it.

Interestingly, many of the American Indians believed in reincarnation. The Dakota tribe taught that man lived at least four lives and in between those lives he lived with the Gods and received instruction in magic and healing. Many of the Indian medicine men claimed to remember past lives. The Indian hunters did not believed they actually killed an animal, but just deprived it of its body for a short time. Often among the Tibetans as well as Eskimos if there is an old man who knows he is going to die he will find a young couple that he likes and ask permission to be their future child. If they accept he will give that couple his personal things that he wants for his next life and then wander off to die. There are numerous occurrences where babies of such couples will claim such articles as their own, and for a short period of time have a recollection of the past life associated with them.

This searching for marks of identification is very common among cultures that believe in reincarnation, and especially among the Tlingit Indians and the Igbos of Nigeria. Various tribes of West Africa make marks on the body of the recently deceased in order to be able to identify the person when he or she is reborn.

All the evidence I discovered helped me to believe in reincarnation, but I did not know it for sure until the day I discovered that I had lived before. This changed my whole life and outlook and opened my eyes to a new world of seeing.

I was amazed and almost wished it wasn’t true because of the problems it could create for my church membership, but for once in my life I realized that an average member of the church like myself may become aware of the truth of many doctrines that neither the prophet or the general authorities know anything about.

If the reader even after seeing all the evidence of reincarnation is still not convinced he should seek an answer through the Spirit as commanded in the scriptures. Ask with a sincere heart and you will receive an answer through the Holy Spirit.

The promise in the Book of Mormon pertains to all true works. Read Alma 32 and D&C 9:7-9 and see if the doctrine of reincarnation does not generate the feelings and results described. You are commanded to “try the spirits whether they are of God.” I John 4:1. Remember you are not commanded to ignore the sprits or claim they are from the devil, or to try and destroy them, but “try them”. It is as Joseph Smith said: “When was the time that I was ever confounded?” This doctrine cannot be confounded or proved wrong because it is true and it is in the scriptures despite the efforts of the Great and Abominable Church to remove all reference to the doctrine. The truth cannot be removed and darkness only lasts during the night and then cometh the day and we see with a perfect light.

***

Agreement

Well, Clay, you say that you do not know how you can be clearer, but you are not clear at all about how you disagree with us. You are clear about your belief in certain universally accepted ideas such as hard work and relying on experts when needed, but that is not a part of any disagreement.

Now most of the group agrees with me on the use of authorities, education etc so I’ll itemize a number of my beliefs on this subject and then to finally be clear to us perhaps you can tell us which ones that you actually disagree with and why.

1. It takes lot of hard work to acquire a difficult skill and we give anyone his or her due praise for such an accomplishment.

Note: You seemed to think we did not realize this for some strange reason.

2. It take a lot of work to get a college degree.
3. Many things learned in college and other schools are very useful and enable the person to perform a good service to his fellow men and women.
4. Some classes are of much more practical use than others.
5. Some courses like engineering, math and physics do not allow much room for bias because the principles are universally accepted. Others can have a lot of bias and illusion creep in such as political science, history and philosophy.
6. If someone has a skill or knowledge that I do not then I will figure he knows more in his area of learning than I do, since I have not studied it.

(A) For instance if I wanted to build a house and had never done any construction then I would trust the advice of an experienced builder.

(B) If I wanted to set up a lemonade stand in the middle of downtown Boise and wanted to know the legalities of it I would figure that an experienced lawyer such as yourself would know more about the law involved than I do.

(C) If I wanted to know more about entanglement in quantum physics I would seek out someone with knowledge of the subject rather than some guy in a Bible study group.

(D) If I wanted to know about the history of Catholic saints then I would want to learn from someone who has studied them in depth.

(E) If I needed surgery I would certainly seek out one who was trained and experienced in the matter rather than the local barber.

BUT… Here is what I would not rely on from the above:

(A) If the builder told me the style and color of the house I should have then I would trust what I value above his tastes for I am the greatest expert on my own tastes.

If the builder was going way over budget and says “trust me. I know what I am doing.” then I would look into the details myself and not just trust him.

(B) If you told me that you could arrange for me to have a lemonade stand on the freeway then I would figure your judgment is so bad I shouldn’t use you for any legal matter.

(C) If the scientist says that entanglement is a true principle yet there is no such thing a extra sensory perception I would figure that the guy is way below me in the ability to synthesis information to discover larger truth.

(D) If the Catholic guy started telling me that I needed to pluck my eyes out the way St Lucy was supposed to have done then I wouldn’t trust him in any matter that required interpretation or judgment, even though he may have lots of factual knowledge.

(E) If the doctor wanted to put me on any kind of drug I wouldn’t trust him even though it conformed to his training. I have proven to myself that most drugs do more harm than good and have had good results in not taking any except some natural ones such as in coffee and wine.

So do you disagree with any of he above points? If so, explain. All of us know that someone with a PhD knows some facts in their field that we may not, but this does not mean we should trust their judgment. Or maybe it does in your mind.

You are just not clear enough to be concisely argued with. Wed like an argument to lead to some resolution and understanding rather than to be an eternal circle.

 

May 5, 2015

Tricky Devil

As expected Ken used the “Tricky Evil Spirit” card to refute the physical evidence of reincarnation. This tricky evil spirit idea has wide use among many Christian fundamentalists and it is one reason they are a legitimate (in this area) laughing stock among scientists and people of reason. Some tricky devil planted dinosaur bones and fossils to make it look like life has been on earth millions of years and that some type of evolution occurred. Then that same devil arranges half life dating to deceive scientists into thinking the earth is billions of years old.

Every time some enlightened soul gets a revelation they do not like then the tricky devil did it. But if some answer to prayer agrees with their belief system it, of course, came from God.

If one of their own heals someone by faith then God did it, but if someone of a different belief system does the same then the healing was done by the tricky devil.

Now the problem with blaming the tricky devil in planting false memories of past lives is that most of those who do recall past lives without assistance are young children. Their memories are most vivid around the ages of three to four years of age. These young children were the main focus of Ian Stevenson’s research and in case after case he verified the past life memories of the kids to be accurate.

I don’t know about your beliefs but some religions believe that Satan cannot temp or influence innocent children until they become self aware. If you believe that God is fair then you would think that he would make such children off limits to demonic possession.

Whatever the case innocent young kids that Jesus said we must become like to enter the kingdom of heaven would logically be the safest ones from being deceived by those tricky devils.

It is inconceivable that the tricky devil could have anything to do with the birthmark evidence of past lives. Let me quote again from my last post:

Dr. Stevenson examined 895 children, who remembered past lives, for birthmarks, corresponding to wounds and found related birthmarks on 309 of them or 35%.

The chances of this happening are very miniscule. The average adult has about 17 square feet of skin stretching over his body. That is 2448 square inches. Now the chances of finding a birthmark on the same square inch of the body in a current life as a wound in a past life is 2448:1. The chances of finding a birthmark on the same square inch of both an exit and entrance wound is much greater: 5,992,704 to one, yet Stevenson turned up this startling evidence time and time again.

So, how did the tricky devil make all those birthmarks appear? Or do you think that everyone with a birthmark has a mark from the devil?

And how about people who learned about reincarnation from a near death experience? Was that the tricky devil at work again?

And speaking of tricky devils, how do you know that your beliefs were not planted in your mind by some tricky evil spirit? How do you know you are even here. Maybe you really live on the planet Xenon and worship a giant goldfish and some tricky devil is just planting this earth experience in your mind as you dream.

Well, maybe not but this just illustrates how ar removed from reality the tricky devil idea can be taken.

God gave us minds and common sense to use and if we do not use them we will kick ourselves in the end and feel pretty silly when the truth is seen.

***

Clay:

I disagree with you on (c) and (e). The scientist is only interested in what they can prove. A good scientist would not say that there is no such thing as “extrasensory perception” but rather there is no hard proof to accept extra sensory perception exist.

JJ

I’m trying to pinpoint where we actually disagree and you don’t really disagree with me on (C). Instead you disagreed with the hypothetical scientist – which isn’t me. In your mind a good scientist may not disregard anything, but in reality quite a few do. So do you disagree with my reaction if a scientist did say there was no such thing as extra sensory perception? Here’s the quote:

(C) If the scientist says that entanglement is a true principle yet there is no such thing a extra sensory perception I would figure that the guy is way below me in the ability to synthesis information to discover larger truth.

Next you disagree with this:

(E) If the doctor wanted to put me on any kind of drug I wouldn’t trust him even though it conformed to his training. I have proven to myself that most drugs do more harm than good and have had good results in not taking any except some natural ones such as in coffee and wine.

To this you say:

I am definitely in favor of taking certain drugs. I have also proved beyond a reasonable doubt that drugs are incredibly efficacious for certain conditions and I think the anti-vaccination crowd is completely wrong headed and are dangerous.

JJ

Even on this you haven’t pinpointed a point of disagreement. My argument had nothing to do with the idea that all drugs are bad all the time (as sometimes they are helpful) but whether or not you will automatically accept every recommendation of your doctor or sometimes question and think and investigate the validly for yourself. So which is it? Do you always do everything every physician has tells you to do without question?

I’m trying to find actual points of disagreement here so we can do more than argue for arguments sake.

 

May 6, 2015

Pain in the Neck

Ken:

I’m going to ask you just one question. If a child was beheaded, would their birthmark be a ring around their neck when they reincarnate?

JJ

According to Stevenson’s research bout 35% of wounds such as gunshots, or knives result in birthmarks in a future life. He doesn’t say anything about beheadings, but I know from personal experience that this can cause a residual effect.

I once regressed a lady who had been plagued with terrific neck pains throughout her life and was frustrated because the doctors could find nothing wrong and could not help her.

Under regression she recalled being a child in an orphanage in England a couple hundred years ago. Apparently it was common procedure in this orphanage that when they had more kids than they could handle to just kill the surplus ones. They took her down to a dungeon like area and cut her head off.

I realized that death traumas from past lives can cause problems in the current one and the solution is to have them face the trauma even though it is painful so I had her review the memory until she could do so without tension. Then when I brought her back to then present her neck had completely left.

I bumped into her a couple years later and asked her if her pain ever returned and she said that they completely disappeared ever since the regression.

As far as memories being passed down through lineage this doesn’t hold water because people often recall memories of living a life in a different race with no family connection.

It is possible to tune into a memory of another entity who is dead but when this happens the person knows that the entity was not him in a past life. When recalling a past life the person generally has inner confirmation it was him or her in that life.

Besides, you believe the soul sleeps at death so there would be nothing to tune into according to your belief system.

Do you believe the same as the Jehovah Witnesses that when you die you sleep with no consciousness and then God will resurrect us all and judge us and those not worthy will be burned up into oblivion?

***

Ken:

well then should we also find examples of birthmark blisters all over the bodies of children who were burned to death? Or how about a child that was eaten by an animal or shark, will we not find birthmark tooth marks all over their bodies? Or how about all the children that died of the “black plague,” did they reincarnate as “black” people? Just how far will you take this reasoning?

JJ

We are not talking about theory here but actual events. It is actually true that 35% of those with past life memories of stabbings or shootings have birthmarks in the wounded areas and that the chances of an entrance and exit mark in the exact spots are about one in 6 million.

Other traumatic deaths do leave a mark of some kind but it is often not a physical mark as in the case the case of the lady I regressed with neck pain. If someone were burned to death they may have a problem with rashes or just a fear of fire.

But all people are different and some handle trauma a lot better than others and some get better restoration between lives. Some can take a lot of trauma and bounce back relatively unaffected. I’m kinda that way.

You never answered my question. Here it is again:

Do you believe the same as the Jehovah Witnesses that when you die you sleep with no consciousness and then God will resurrect us all and judge us and those not worthy will be burned up into oblivion?

***

Clay:

“Wow you read a whole analysis on the measles vaccine!!!! And was that analysis published in a “peer reviewed” journal may I inquire?”

JJ

It sounds like you will not accept any fact that is not published in a peer reviewed paper. With that attitude then personal experiences or the experiences if others would be meaningless.

I just read about crime statistics in the Boise paper this morning. I guess I should not even consider them with my analytical mind because they have not been published in a peer-reviewed paper. You seem to be not only attached to outer authority, but the authority must be super cleaned and scrubbed authorities. It is kind of amazing that you accept Catholic ceremonies or spiritual experiences when they have not been approved in scientific peer reviewed papers.

By the way I the postman just delivered the book you recommended, Meditations on the Tarot and I’m going to start it today, but I do not see any peer reviewed endorsement of it from an authoritative sourced.

So are you going to read Treatise on White Magic?

May 7, 2015

Space News

As most of you know I am a big fan of the space program. Those who share such interest are certainly in for a treat.

First we have the Dawn space probe, which is the first probe to visit two objects orbiting the sun. Its first visit was to the large asteroid called Vesta. It arrived there in July of 2011 and orbited it over a year studying it.

Here is a composite video which gives a great overview of the object.

LINK

Thanks to the first major implementation of xenon ion thrusters the craft had a source of power that enabled it to leave the orbit of Vesta to take off to visit the largest asteroid, Ceres, which is large enough to be called a dwarf planet, the same category that Pluto has been designated.

It has begun its orbit around Ceres and is presently about 8400 miles above the surface. By mid June it will close in at around 2700 miles and draw closer until the end of the year when it will get as close as about 230 miles.

What makes a closer approach to Ceres especially interesting is a couple unusually bright spots that have been photographed there by the approaching craft. These are especially intriguing considering that Ceres gets a lot less sunlight than we do being much further from the sun. Scientists have really been scratching their heads over this and are excited about taking a closer look.

To look at the recent images just Google “Ceres Bright Spot”.

From now until the end of the year we’ll be getting clearer and clearer images and it will be fascinating to get a better view of this mystery.

Each time we visit a celestial body there is something discovered that looks like it could be made by intelligent beings, like the face on Mars, but nothing that proves it for sure. I always thought it would be fascinating if they came up with some picture that provided concrete evidence that could not be denied.

The other endeavor that has my great interest is the New Horizons space probe that is finally, after a nine year journey, reaching Pluto. It will arrive at its closest point for a brief flyby on July 14. I have had great interest in what a close up of Pluto would look like since I was six years old so I am happy I have lived long enough to actually see this happen.

After Pluto they hope to guide the craft to another object even further out.

The rest of the year should have some interesting celestial revelations for us.

In the Sixties the budget for the space program was about 3.5% of our federal spending. Today it has been reduced to a half of one percent and a lot of that is for global warming studies instead of exploration. Imagine where we would be if we had kept NASA well funded.

This is one of our uses of tax dollars that I support, not only because of my interest in the space program, but also because the advances in technology from it have provided a generous return on our investment.

Here are some of them:

LINK

 

***

Here’s what I gather from your comments Ken.

Even though I believe in Christ because I do not believe in your version I will sleep at death and then be resurrected only to be put to death for eternity.

But a Jehovah Witness seems to believe pretty close to your version so they will not sleep but remain in full consciousness with Christ and you for eternity.

If this assumption is wrong straighten me out.

If this is not correct then who else besides you and your bother will not sleep at death? Be specific and don’t just say those who believe as you or exactly as you interpret scripture.

JJ

 

***

May 8, 2015

Clay:

As for Moses actually existing, I am agnostic on the issue, it is possible some figure like Moses was the leader of the Ya faction, but he is mostly a literary creation.

JJ

I had an experience confirming the reality of Moses similar to that of your wife with Jesus and here is some of what I received.

There was a real Moses who did receive commandments written on stone tablets. However, they were not written by the finger of Jehovah, but by his own hand while in a state of oneness with God on a mountain, so after a manner of speaking they were written by the finger of God. He was transfigured and his body glowed just as the Bible says. That doesn’t mean that everything written about him, or is in the Old Testament, is accurate however.

 

May 10, 2015

Spiritual Communion

In response to my post on the Principle of Hierarchy Blayne writes:

You often hear people say God is working in their lives or put it all in the hands of God etc. People with sincere beliefs along this line often do seem to have doors open for them toward the things they seem to pray for, or their life just seems to improve when they take this mindset.

I myself have experienced this to some degree. I have felt God so to speak has orchestrated things in my life especially looking back. Is there some principle behind this or is it just the fact they are focusing their energy in this direction?

JJ

What you are talking about here demonstrates the principle that energy follows thought. If you think positive you will attract desirable things into your life, but if one thinks negatively the opposite will happen.

Think back to someone you know who is positive about life. Maybe you do not see him for a year or so and then ask him how things are going.

The guy with a positive attitude will rarely give you a sob story but will immediately tell you about something that happened or that he is working on that is very fulfilling for him.

Now consider someone you know who is negative who you haven’t seen for a while. How will he respond?

He’ll normally tell you tales of bad luck, and spend more time than you want relating all the terrible things fate as bestowed on him since you last met.

What is the difference in the two? It is in the focus of their thought. You can rest assured the positive one had problems to deal with that he didn’t burden you with, but that was not his focus. His attention was on the good things of life so he naturally drew these things into his sphere of consciousness.

Because we have this godlike power within us to manifest our thoughts we generally do not need some great being on a throne to hear and answer our prayers. Just sending focused thought, positive or negative, into the ethers will bring a response so real that it will seem as if either God or the devil is on your shoulder making things happen.

Here is one of my favorite quotes:

Words are things, and a small drop of ink, Falling like dew, upon a thought, produces That which makes thousands, perhaps millions, think.

Lord Byron

Words and thoughts indeed are things waiting to manifest.

Blayne:

Having said that some folks myself included have at times just felt I’ll go where ever God or the spirit leads and have had good experiences doing this. Is this the higher self prompting or guiding? Or is the Guardian Angel the higher self etc.?

JJ

Most seekers feel some type of guidance taking place in their lives and when the inner voice is followed the person almost always benefits. When it is not there is usually regret.

The guidance we feel comes from a number of sources.

(1) You life plan built into your inner memory.

Before you were born you chose the situation you were to be born into and saw a probable projection of your life and the various decision points. As you focused on your future life and the important forks in the road you did your best to instill into your inner consciousness decisions you wanted yourself to make and paths you wanted to take. If you wanted to take a certain career choice, have a certain mate, go to a specific school you tried to imprint this into your mental body so the path would seen familiar to you when the event would come up in your life.

As you journey through life and find that certain decisions just feel right this is often because you are following a plan you designed when you were in a higher state of consciousness in the spirit world.

(2) Your guide or guardian angel

There is always one fellow traveler that is out of incarnation that has agreed to watch over your life. This person is often called your guardian angel, but is more appropriately called a guide. You are not his full time job but he does check in with you now and then, especially if you are entering a point of tension that creates a wave of spiritual energy he or she picks up. It is not the guide’s job to save you from yourself or your troubles, but to do what he can to make sure you stay on the chosen or best possible path. If you are off course he will try and send you a massage of some kind. He may do this by sending you an impression. If one is too dense to register this he may enter one of your dreams as a character in it and give you a message. Then too he may arrange for some signs to show up in your life.

If your life is going as scheduled you may go long periods with no communication from your guide, but he will be consistently aware of you and keeping an eye on your progression.

(3) Your Higher Self

The seeker does not have much communion with the Higher Self until he achieves a measure of soul contact. After this is achieved he becomes more sensitive to his whole self and obtains a strong sense of purpose about his life and what he can accomplish with it.

(4) A Master or an advanced spiritual life.

You only hear from an advanced entity when you are to be involved in a work that will affect a significant number of people outside of your personality interests. If such contact is made the seeker will feel a very intense vibration on a high spiritual level. He will know he is not imagining things.

(5) The baptism of fire.

This is powerful affirmation brought about by a point of tension in the seeker’s life. It is a powerful endowment of spiritual fire sent to confirm a spiritual direction that needs to be taken by the pilgrim.

Blayne:

I have often wondered about this. And even argued with folks that God is not micromanaging their lives when they insist everything that happens in their life is Gods will for them. I have argued that one must take initiative on his own etc…?

JJ

Yes, our lives are far from being micromanaged and we are expected to do all we can on our own so we can obtain maximum learning from life. Some of our greatest learning comes from mistakes and often all the gods and angels will just stand by and observe as we make them. Then there are times that a choice may take one on the road of retrogression. In this case effort will be made to signal to you to not take the path, but we always have freedom to ignore all spiritual communication and go our own bullheaded way.

The rule of thumb is that the more the seeker pays attention to and follows the spiritual communications the clearer and more helpful they will become.

 

May 11, 2015

Back to Synthesis

Way back in the mid Eighties I put a lot of thought into working synthetically with enlightened groups. I shared my thoughts with my Nephew Curtis and we brainstormed together and wrote the Twelve Principles of Synthesis. We did what we could at the time to interest enlightened people and groups to work together synthetically but did not receive much response.

Today with the internet and instant communications the situation and opportunity is much different and the possibility of making this happen is more of a possibility.

Now Stephen felt some inspiration in this direction and tried to link us up with Allan’s group which didn’t work out that well, though it was an interesting experience.

Thee were two problems with that endeavor. First, our approach and beliefs are widely different in important areas, and secondly we wound up too much is each other’s space.

What got me thinking in this direction again were some words I recently read again in Treatise on White Magic. Here they are:

On the physical plane, without any exoteric organisation, ceremonials, or outer form, there is integrating—silently, steadily and powerfully—a group of men and women who will supersede eventually the previous hierarchical effort. They will supersede all churches, all groups, and all organisations and will eventually constitute that oligarchy of elect souls who will govern and guide the world.

They are being gathered out of every nation, but are gathered and chosen, not by the watching Hierarchy or by any Master, but by the power of their response to the spiritual opportunity, tide and note. They are emerging out of every group and church and party, and will therefore be truly representative. This they do, not from the pull of their own ambition and prideful schemes, but through the very selflessness of their service. They are finding their way to the top in every department of human knowledge, not because of the clamour they make about their own ideas, discoveries and theories, but because they are so inclusive in their outlook and so wide in their interpretation of truth that they see the hand of God in all happenings, His imprint upon all forms and His note sounding forth through every channel of communication between the subjective reality and the objective outer form. They are of all races; they speak all languages; they embrace all religions, all sciences and all philosophies. Their characteristics are synthesis, inclusiveness, intellectuality and fine mental development. They own to no creed, save the creed of Brotherhood, based on the one Life. They recognise no authority, save that of their own souls, and no Master save the group they seek to serve, and humanity whom they deeply love. They have no barriers set up around themselves, but are governed by a wide tolerance, and a sane mentality and sense of proportion. They look with open eyes upon the world of men and recognise those whom they can lift and to whom they can stand as the Great Ones stand,—lifting, teaching and helping. `They recognize their peers and equals, and know each other when they meet and stand shoulder to shoulder with their fellow workers in the work of salvaging humanity. It does not matter if their terminologies differ, their interpretations of symbols and scriptures vary, or their words are few or many. They see their group members in all fields—political, scientific, religious, and economic—and give to them the sign of recognition and the hand of a brother. They recognise likewise Those who have passed ahead of them upon the ladder of evolution and hail Them Teacher, and seek to learn from Them that which They are so eager to impart.

This group is a product of the past and upon that past I will touch; I will also indicate the present situation and forecast somewhat the general lines along which their association and future work will run. That such a group is forming is true and holds a good augury for the coming decades. In quiet and subtle ways they are already making their presence felt but theirs is as yet primarily a subjective influence.

Treatise on White Magic, pages 399-401

It would be a good idea to read on here as he continues to discuss this group. He talks about the importance of spiritually minded people and groups being in contact with each other and sharing information. He seemed to think that by now some significant progress would have been made in this direction, but it appears very little has. There are a lot of groups seeking to spread enlightenment but I don’t see any of them significantly reaching out to other groups with some type of exchange. It is as if all the so-called Aquarian Age groups are still clinging to Piscean Age separateness.

If we take the step of reaching out to other groups with the attitude of synthesis and spreading the light then we definitely need some criteria to follow that will aid us in finding others in points of harmony. Obviously some groups would be a waste of time, such as fundamental religious organizations, though some individuals within them are good synthesizers. Take the Mormon church for instance. The LDS hierarchy are a million miles from working with Aquarian groups, but individuals on the outskirts with a following may be.

Here are The Twelve Principles of Synthesis intended to be a guideline for gathering groups.

 

THE TWELVE PRINCIPLES OF SYNTHESIS

1. We believe in the equality of men and women, the equal rights of each race and in the sacredness of all life.
2. We believe that we have the capacity to see Eye to Eye with each other through the application of the principles of non-deception, open communication and contact of higher intelligence that lies within.
3. We accept the responsibility of maintaining our bodies, emotions and minds in a state of maximum health and vitality. We Seek not to hurt but to heal.
4. We believe in the principle of Harmlessness, for when we harm another person, we only harm ourselves. We shall not inhibit, restrain, or oppress the free will or privilege of any individual to explore new concepts and philosophies.
5. We believe in the principle of Free Agency, and that there is a power within that enables us to proceed with purpose and accomplish many great and important works pertaining to the coming Age of Enlightenment.
6. We desire to initiate a New Age of Peace, prosperity and spiritual attainment through the intelligent application of the principles of Love, Knowledge and Wisdom.
7. We acknowledge the Christ-God-Consciousness as the single creative source manifesting through the Universe, and that this Power lies within each one of us.
8. We affirm that the power of Love is the greatest unifying principle and send only the pure Love of Christ/God to all.
9. We believe in the principle of Service, for when we serve one another, we serve ourselves. We retain only that which we have given away.
10. We disclaim all totalitarian and secular controls over our lives, and affirm the power of the people to enjoy a free, democratic society with maximum liberty for the individual.
11. We promote World Peace through the complete elimination of nuclear and doomsday weapons, international aggression, and the eradication of world hunger and poverty.
12. We seek not to be separative and isolated but to unite and join hands with all spiritually-minded groups and individuals who desire to bring Peace on Earth and Goodwill to all Humankind.

 

There are several things we can do to help in synthesizing the groups.

(1) First we must find them. There must be hundreds of possibilities.

(2) We can create an internet newsletter giving out information on the various groups concerning their teachings and event.

(3) We can encourage shared events.

Once we make some progress the possibilities are endless.

As I said the first step is in finding the various groups. Three that come to mind are the Lucis Trust, publishers of the Alice A. Bailey books, and the University of the Seven Rays. I think several here have taken classes from them. Then Duane Carpenter participates in an online discussion group that studies the Bailey books.

In addition to groups famous individuals with a following could be helpful such as Shirley McClain, Rain Wilson, Oprah and others.

So here is the next assignment to get this started. Anyone who has some time can surf the internet and search out spiritual non dogmatic groups and their contact information. You can either post the information here or send it to me in a private email.

Also, if you have ideas of how to best proceed with this endeavor give us your input.

 

May 12, 2015

The Birth of Souls

Clay writes:

I do believe in reincarnation as there does seem to be some pretty fascinating stories and from some personal experience that seems to verify its truth. There is however one major problem that keeps coming up for me and that is the issue of the rapid population growth that the world has experienced over the past hundred years. It is estimated that the world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960.[70]Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, according to the United States Census Bureau, seven billion in March 2012.[69] The United Nations, however, estimated that the world population reached seven billion in October 2011. Where in the world ( or worlds) are all these new people coming from? We can’t all have past lives, especially having multiple past lives (like Allan) For example, back in 1 AD, the time of Jesus, there was only a population of 231,000,000. So that would severely limit the number of people who could be alive today that lived back then. This seems to be a major flaw in the reincarnation argument, as for almost all of human history populations were relatively stable or experienced small growth year after year, but the rate of growth has been simply unprecedented in all of history. I have never seen this addressed by proponents of reincarnation and was interested in the forums thoughts on this.

JJ

Good to hear from you again. Glad we haven’t scared you off yet.

Good question and one that is raised by many critics of reincarnation.

DK tells us that there are 60 billion human monads designated for this planet. Then there were 30 billion additional ones that refused to participate in the human incarnation process.

Right now the population is about seven billion so that would mean that there are 53 billion monads that are still available as surplus.

The human monad goes through two births. The first is a birth as a soul which is then overshadowed by a solar angel that nurtures it until it reaches the end of its earth journey. Not all the monads are born as souls at one time but enter soul bodies as needed in the incarnation process.

As the population has increased more monads have entered into soul life and the periods between incarnation have also shortened. I know this from the numerous people I have taken back. Entities have definitely incarnated more often in recent times than in past eras.

Not only are 60 million human monads available, but if necessary a soul can project himself into two physical bodies at one time. This means technically that more than sixty million human lives could be in incarnation, though I expect a reduction and stabilizing of the number of souls here in the future.

Robert Monroe, who was famous for his out of body teachings, tells us that when out of the body he once met an advanced entity who told him that his soul had another entity in incarnation and asked if he would like to know who he was so he could look him up. He declined as he thought it would just be too weird to meet another one of him.

Michael Newton regressed about 3000 people into the between life state had numerous people recount that at times their souls had two projections into physical incarnation. This is the exception rather than the rule.

Self conscious humans have been in the earth for 18 million years and many civilizations have come and gone so there has been a lot of opportunity for those available to incarnate.

I doubt if we will ever see more than 30 billion people on this planet at one time as I think we need half of us back in the other realms to balance things off. If there is ever a need for additional souls they could be pulled from other planets. Right now a small handful are from outside of this solar system, but that could change. If we turned this earth into a peaceful paradise a lot of extra terrestrial souls would volunteer to come here.

***

JJ,

If we turned this earth into a peaceful paradise a lot of extra terrestrial souls would volunteer to come here.

Blayne

So if we do all the hard work a bunch of free loaders will come and reap the benefits of the paradise we created… 😉

JJ

That is kind of what happened with the USA. The founders went through blood sweat and tears to create a great country and then when they are born in this age they discover that it is taken over by freeloaders that have no idea of what real sacrifice is.

I would think that government in the higher sphere’s works much better and the only outsiders permitted in would be those who have something to offer rather than just something to take.

The 30 billion refused to incarnate because of the great difficulties they saw ahead in the great struggle. They wanted to wait until the pioneers turned the earth into a paradise and then incarnate after the hard work had been done. But the tables were turned on them and they are denied the privilege of incarnating for millions of years. Goes to show that one needs to beware of what he asks for.

 

May 13, 2015

More Synthesis

I did some surfing on the web and gathered contact information on a couple dozen groups that may be good to work with on the synthesis project. Then I stumbled across a way to gather many hundreds of possible groups and influential people. So far only one person has expressed interest in helping with the project.

I’ve been thinking of the best way to put this together and thought of doing something like a Huffington Post for New Agers instead of politics. If someone associates with us they could post their writings, videos or events on the web page. If it became popular we could sell ads. Perhaps lwk will have some thoughts on putting this together.

We tried something like a Drudge Report for New Agers and that didn’t take off, but it is likely to be more successful if we can draw others in to participate.

I’ve been thinking of the simplest criteria possible for maximum inclusiveness while still being a draw for lights. Here are a couple.

(1) I do not condemn anyone who does not subscribe to my belief system but am as inclusive as possible to all sincere seekers of the spiritual path. Another seeker may have a different approach than me but still may be making significant progress.

(2) I realize that some true seekers are conservative and some liberal, some believe in reincarnation and some do not and have a variety of beliefs about God and spiritual things that differ from my own. I can still love them and work with them on points of agreement.

(3) I realize that the most important qualities for fellow seekers are that they follow the highest they know, love their fellow men and women and are sincerely seeking to serve others so they can do their part in improving this planet for generations to come.

May 17, 2015

Interesting. I’ve never really thought too deeply about time.. So how do different speeds of time coexist? Is it just relative to whom is experiencing it in their element? Can we experience time slowed down or sped up in the human form?

Thanks

Leasel

JJ

It is not that different speeds of time co-exist, but it is the different registrations of time which do so. You and the fly co-exist, but register time differently. You register time differently in sleep or meditation because how your grasp of passing images and sensations has changed. You can slow down or speed up time in meditation if you go deep enough.

***

Leasel:

So how do different speeds of time coexist? Is it just relative to whom is experiencing it in their element? Can we experience time slowed down or sped up in the human form?

JJ

It is not so much that different speeds of time co-exist, but that different states of consciousness that register it at different rates exist.

Have you ever watched time-lapsed pictures of a flower unfolding? Here you see two or three days of time in maybe a minute. This gives you an entirely different perspective of time speeding up. Here is a great video using time lapsed photography that gives us an idea of what it would be like living in a state of consciousness with time having been greatly sped up.

LINK

Now imagine living in the same state of consciousness as our planet earth where one heart beat equals about 25,000 years. You would then see that the solar system is not just some static creation, but a living one with planets and moons interplaying with each other. A billion year time lapse of the solar system would be interesting to watch.

On the other hand, tiny lives move so fast that they would be a mere blur for us to watch. An example would be some marine life. In this video a photographer had to use high speed photography and then put together frames to slow down time about ten times so we in our time frame can see what is happening. Take a look:

LINK

Now if we could photograph an atom we would have to slow time down more than a billion times to see anything that is happening within it.

Scientists are perplexed at how so much happened in the first second of he Big Bang. What they do not realize is that the consciousness of God adjusted itself to time in the microcosmic world and it went through billions of years of time in that first second. That is how the complicated foundation of our universe happened so quickly from our perspective.

We can experience time in different modes in human form. As I said you are in a different time mode when you sleep or enter deep meditation. Time is also altered by your heartbeat. The faster your heart beats the slower time goes. If you want to test this just time yourself running (accelerating your heartbeat) for ten minutes. After you do this, rest on the couch for ten minutes. Then ask yourself, didn’t the ten minutes of running seem to last longer?

 

May 19, 2015

New Heaven and Earth

“If we overcome all things concerning the lower nature then we can qualify to live in this new heaven and new earth.”

Ruth:

Is this new Heaven and Earth established, when the Earth dies and reincarnates again?

JJ

That was not what I was talking about, but that is one of he interpretations of the scripture. One day, billions of years from now the earth will die and be reborn and there will be literally a new heaven and new earth.

As it is I was talking about a future time on this earth where the scripture allegorically comes true as follows:

After those who have not manifested the God within have been removed from the earth and no longer incarnate, a new heaven (consciousness) and new earth (government & organizational structures) manifests.

 

May 21, 2015

Questions of Light and Dark

Ruth

I have a few more questions in regards to Hitler………

1. a) you have said that the Dark Lord of Atlantis overshadowed Hitler in Atlantis.

JJ

I have said that Hitler was overshadowed by a dark lord and that Hitler was an enemy of light in Atlantis. I do not recall saying he was overshadowed in Atlantis though he could have been.

I believe the Dark Brotherhood have mostly evolved from this planet though they may have some contact with dark intelligence from other systems.

Ruth

So where did the Dark Lord of Atlantis come from? Another planet, or was he the fallen Angel from Venus or was he from the previous Earth and Universe, or was he the head Jewish leader who was on Earth before the Ancient of Days, or was he the head Serpent of the Serpent race?

JJ

The main fallen Lucifer, or Son of the Morning, came here with the ancient of days and his kingdom basically consists of fallen earth entities. Anything beyond this I cannot give any details.

I believe that the overshadowing Lord of Hitler was the fallen Lucifer, or Angel of the Morning.

 

Ruth:

Why was he allowed to be on Earth and walk the Earth, in a physical body at the same time that the Brotherhood of Light Masters walked the Earth in physical bodies?

JJ

Any being who is designated for this earth can incarnate when he wants to provided a body is available to meet his vibration. If one takes the dark path then his vibration may become too low to incarnate unless the vibration of the planet is lowered.

Ruth:

3) Did the Brotherhood of Light “create” the Dark Lord of Atlantis, because they interfered too much with humanity, and then because they gave out too much soul “magic” knowledge, then this had the reverse effect, and created a monster, which turned against them, and that is why they lost the War in Atlantis, something like they helped too much by giving out higher principles too soon, which then developed black magic because it was infused with the Lunar Lords’ energy or vibrations?

JJ

We all create our own fate but the dark lords did use much of the knowledge given out for their own selfish ends.

Ruth

When do we get to know the real truth? (about Atlantis and ancient history)

JJ

Each of us can only do so much depending on where we place our focus. In this life I place my focus on principles that can be implemented for the further evolution and security of the race. I haven’t placed a lot of attention on our ancient history, but may do this in a future life when the planet is more stable. There is lot of false information channeled about our history, but it is quite possible someone may come forward with one that is truly accurate. I would guess that DK will give additional details when he teaches again after 2025.

You ask who is the voice that spoke to Hitler and the voice of God when it speaks.

The fallen Lucifer most likely worked through Hitler and he thought this was God. A person’s own Higher Self usually represents the voice of God to him.

Ruth

It seems that for centuries the Brotherhood of Light has been trying to “seal the door where evil dwells”, which was opened in ancient Atlantis, perhaps? And who let evil in?

JJ

It is the consciousness of humanity that allows the door of evil to be open. Even though we are not perfect the door is under control when the teachers of light dominate, but this situation has been rare. What will close the door is the rising of the consciousness of humanity as a whole. This is the present goal.

Ruth

You know JJ, if you wrote the real story about Atlantis, this book would become a best seller.

 

JJ

It will be written some day and it will indeed be a best seller.

 

***

Reaping and Sowing

Ken:

Concerning karma? Why does everyone have to stand before the “judgment seat” of Messiah IF they are to be judged by or through “karma” in making up for or being rewarded for everything they did while existing in the flesh?

JJ

If you think the judgment consists of, first dying, then going into oblivion until God reconstructs the righteous and the wicked to literally stand before him and then watch the wicked after being shamed and burned back into oblivion by fire then you are going to feel pretty silly after you die, discover you are not unconscious, and that those who do not believe as you will not be dissolved.

We are judged after death by our own Christ-linked souls which are linked to God. So it is true that we are judged by Christ and God, but not in the literal way imagined by Bible literalists.

Ken

So again, WHY is there a belief in “karma” when it clearly states that all will be raised to Stand BEFORE Elohim to be judged according to their works?

JJ

We die and then are judged according to our karma, which is merely the principle of reaping what we sow, and then, after a period in the spirit world, we are sent back into another body to fulfill that judgment.

Here are some comments on this subject:

 

WHATSOEVER A MAN SOWETH

Paul tells us plainly that all will not attain the resurrection of life. He said “the wages of sin is death”. When we sin we need correction so we are sent to the resurrection of KRISIS where we are again in mortal bodies subjected to death. Paul further said: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God (sin), him shall God DESTROY; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” I Cor 3:16-17.

Those who continue to sin and suffer the resurrection of KRISIS are reborn and live a mortal existence where their temple of God (their body) dies or is destroyed. Interestingly “destroy” comes from the Greek PHTHIO which means “to waste, spoil, or decay”. That certainly describes the mortality we experience in the resurrection of KRISIS.

It is only fitting that Paul said that “the last enemy to be destroyed is death.” I Cor 15:26. This is because we are born again and again into the resurrection of KRISIS until we have corrected all of our mistakes. The very last correction we make is when we overcome death and “put on immortality”.

Jesus admonished us to follow in his footsteps: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, EVEN AS I ALSO OVERCAME, and am sat down with the Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21 If we are to overcome as did Jesus then we must obey the injunction: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Matt 5:48 I do not know of even one person who has attained perfection and overcome all things as did Jesus. Consequently, the only way the scriptures can be fulfilled is for one to be physically born again until he can live a life without sin just as Jesus did. Those in the kingdom of man must literally be “born again” to enter the kingdom of God.

When that happens the promise will be fulfilled where Jesus said: “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and HE SHALL GO NO MORE OUT.” Rev. 3:12 We will have to “go no more out” of one physical body into another- one when we have overcome all things.

Until that time Jesus tells us that “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, (of physical bodies), and find pasture.” John 10:9.

After we go in and out and find pasture the time will come when: “he that overcometh and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I GIVE POWER OVER THE NATIONS: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: EVEN AS I RECEIVED OF MY FATHER.” Rev. 2:26-27

These scriptures we have quoted make it very clear that there are two resurrections. We enter the resurrection of KRISIS each time we fall short of the glory of Christ. When this happens God causes our bodies to be destroyed. He asks us to “overcome” “even as I overcame”. Obviously we cannot overcome AS he did unless we will eventually live a perfect life as he did on the Earth.

Jesus said that we will do “greater works” than he did. John 14:12. To this day I know of no one who has done greater works than Jesus, but when the time comes that some of us are living our last life to “attain” the resurrection of life, then will the world see these greater works. At that time we will come to the “knowledge of the Son of God, UNTO A PERFECT MAN, unto the-measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” Eph 4:13. When one becomes “a perfect man” he then receives “power over the nations” as promised.

Reincarnation is merely the result of the law of cause and effect as pointed out by Paul: ‘if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden. Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that SHALL HE ALSO REAP. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh REAP CORRUPTION (the resurrection of KRISIS or rebirth in mortality); but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap LIFE EVERLASTING” (or the resurrection of life).. Gal 6:3-6.

Again we have here a vivid description of the two resurrections. The word “corruption” here comes from the Greek PHTHORA which is derived from PHTHEIRO the word that is used when Paul said that God shall “destroy” the defiled temples. PHTHORA indicates a state of “decay”. Thus Paul is simply telling us over and over again that if our mind is centered on carnal things we will return not to some state of immortality, but will “reap corruption” or decay.

Paul even goes so far as to warn us to not be deceived for God is not mocked on this matter. He further says that “flesh and blood CANNOT inherit the kingdom of God; neither doeth corruption (obviously referred to here as flesh and blood) inherit incorruption.” I Cor 15:50.

Here the “corruption” that we reap is, identified as “flesh and blood”. This is only logical since all flesh and blood is proceeding toward death and decay. After all Paul said that the corruption would be reaped “of the flesh”.

Since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God that simply means that if we fall short of it we will be “born again” in this state of “corruption” or flesh and blood. Flesh and blood is the resurrection of KRISIS and we must come back again and a gain and inherit this corruption until we have “corrected” all of our mistakes and attain the resurrection of life or “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” Eph 4:13

Jesus was subtly referring to the resurrection of KRISIS when he said: “Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.” Matt 5:26

No orthodox Christian has ever answered this question: If we reap according to how we have sowed and if we “of the flesh reap corruption” and we die before we have reaped all that is due us, then how can we reap “of the flesh” with no flesh? How can we reap corruption if there is no corruption?

The only answer is reincarnation. We must return to mortality if we are to reap corruption in the flesh. Is there another way to fulfill the scripture without mocking God? Verily no.

The principle of reaping as we sow is repeated many times in the Bible. Jesus said: “ALL they that take the sword shall PERISH with the sword.” Matt 26:52. Now it is obvious that many people in history have slain with the sword, yet died a peaceful death. Why then did Jesus use the word “all”? Why did he say these words to Peter in an effort to get him to put away his sword and cease his attack on the angry mob? Obviously, if Peter went forth and killed with the sword then he would have to reap what he sowed and come back (even if it was a future life) and reap destruction by a sword or some similar destructive weapon.

This is confirmed in the thirteenth chapter of Revelations where we are told about the Anti-Christ who will slay all those who will not worship his image and will have power over the Saints. Here the saints are told why they must suffer: “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: 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

In other words, the reason the patience and the faith of the saints is tested so is because of mistakes they made in past lives. In previous lives they killed with the sword as Peter wanted to do. They also lead others into captivity even as did Paul before his conversion. Thus when the saints are persecuted they are often reaping what they have sowed in previous lives. This answers the eternal question as to why some of the best people must suffer so. They are paying off debts from a past era when they were not so good. When one becomes a disciple of Christ he must pay the “utter most farthing”, for Jesus said: “Everyone shall be salted with fire.” Mark 9:49

This principle was further emphasized by the Lord’s own mouth to Noah: “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, BY MAN SHALL HIS BLOOD BE SHED: for in the image of God made he man.” Gen 9:5-6

Of course, there have been many who have shed blood who have not reaped what they have sowed. But remember “God will not be mocked” and let the person escape the punishment he has decreed. He will be reborn and “of the flesh” reap his just reward with interest.

The principle of rebirth also helps us to understand the dialog that God had with Cain: [God said to Cain:] “A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth… [And Cain said:] I shall be a fugitive and vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that everyone that findeth me shall slay me.” Gen 4:12-14

Notice here that Cain expects to be slain more than once. Also study the Lord’s response: “And the Lord said unto him, therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him SEVENFOLD. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.” Gen 4:15

There are several things that do not make sense here without re incarnation. First, Cain was told he would be a fugitive and vagabond in the earth, but instead the scripture tells us that he settled in the land of Nod and built a city named Enoch. (See Gen 4:16-17) It sounds as if Cain was fairly settled in that life. One would have to stretch the imagination to call him a fugitive and vagabond in the earth so how could the decree of God be fulfilled? Reincarnation is a possible answer. It’s quite probable that Cain has been reborn a number of times and has been a vagabond in the earth more than once.

Cain also made the interesting statement: “Everyone, that findeth me shall slay me.” indicating he expected to be slain more than once. But the scriptures give no indication that Cain died other than a natural death in that life.

Finally we are told that whoever kills Cain will have vengeance taken on him “sevenfold”. The question arises: How do you take seven fold vengeance on murder? If a killer is put to death then the vengeance is merely onefold; yet, short of torture, that is the worst punishment that can be inflicted. Taking this into consideration how else can the Lord take vengeance “sevenfold” on murder unless the man gives his life seven times?

In other words, if a man kills Cain, or possibly one of his descendants, thinking he deserves it then he would have to forfeit his life in seven different lifetimes to pay for the deed. That seems like a stiff punishment, but we probably do not know the whole story here.

We are told that a terrible reaping will be given out to those who change the revelations of God: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book (the book of Revelations), If any man shall add unto these things, God shall ADD unto him THE PLAGUES that are written in this book. Rev. 22:18

Now for an interesting question… Why did John warn those in the first century that if they added extra words to his book that they would suffer the plagues, which plagues would not come upon the earth for another two thousand years? How could a scribe living in the first century (who commits the sin of adding words to John’s book) suffer the plagues unless he were here reborn thousands of years later?

The plagues from the Book of Revelation include such things as men dying of waters that are polluted, men being killed by the symbolic beast, men being scorched by the heat of the sun. people receiving sores over their bodies and numerous others.

How could a person from the first century possibly receive these physical plagues unless he is here, born again in a physical body???

We also find that those who have shed the blood of saints and the prophets in past ages will come back and suffer the plagues: “And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and upon the fountains of waters; and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. FOR THEY HAVE SHED THE BLOOD OF SAINTS AND PROPHETS, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.” Rev. 16:4-6

It seems only fair that those who have shed the blood of the prophets through the ages will have to come back and reap the harvest of their deeds by drinking blood in a future lifetime.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

April 25, 2015

JJ in the Sky

Clay:

I don’t hate it JJ, I just don’t ignore history and pretend that we are the greatest country to ever exist and our shit does not stink.

JJ

Well, you sure had me fooled because you sound like you loath this country and everything it stands for. You say that I should moved merely because I think the taxes are to high, but you have nothing good to say about this country so it leaves me wondering as to why you would stay and which nations you see as more desirable. You obviously would never move to Germany. To hell with the idea of what they are now, but their past with Hitler and Bismarck are much worse then ours and with your mindset they must ever be seen as evil. You wouldn’t dare want to look at the progress they have made.

You couldn’t move to Australia because they mistreated the aborigines similar to how we did with the Native Americans.

You couldn’t move to England because by comparison they were a greater evil than us that we had to fight against to free ourselves.

You say you do not ignore history. Well, you do not ignore any history of the United States that is written with a jaundice eye putting everything in the worst possible light. You are ignoring the good half of our history that has established a beacon of freedom that until now the oppressed people of the world are willing to risk their lives to come to.

So if we are so bad why do you not leave? I answered your question on this so how about answering in return?

Whereas you ignore the good in America I have examined the good and evil and seek to assist in more manifestation of that which is good rather than dwelling on past mistakes which are no longer applicable..

Sure we have made mistakes, slavery of blacks being a big one, but what good does it do to mope around hanging our heads in shame when we have moved beyond it? You seem to want us to spend out time wringing our hands weeping over our past sins that we have moved beyond. What does that accomplish?

Nothing.

Clay

Sarah also warned me that Mormons, ex or currently practicing where hyper conservative and very anti-government and very pro-business, so I guess I should not be surprised by any of this.

JJ

If you see this as a Mormon site then you are seeing incorrectly. Maybe a quarter of the members have some type of Mormon background, but many here do not such as Ruth, Dan, LWK, Alex and others. Most of the members with a Mormon background are like your wife and have moved on to higher things.

Clay:

Man she is not wrong about anything. Look If I could give you all Wyoming or some state like that and all you libertarians could go there and create your Galt’s Gulch I would be all for it.

JJ

The only way to know if an alternative plan would work would be to test it. Unfortunately, with having all nations and territories tightly controlled the testing of new systems is next to impossible. That is what made America such a land of opportunity. It provided the means to test new forms of government,

That would be great if we had all of Wyoming to carry out experiments and then go with what works and drop what doesn’t. If led by those with an understanding of freedom and brotherhood it would be the envy of the world within two generations.

Clay:

I would like nothing more to be rid of this nonsense about theft, slavery and how unfair life is from privileged middle and upper class white people I would be thrilled.

JJ

You used he most insulting wording possible. What we would like to do is prove that life in an environment of maximum personal and group freedom is much more successful than one in a tightly controlled environment with way too many laws, overspending, borrowing and regulations.

Clay

Ruth would be SOL

JJ

You seem to be obsessed with worrying about Ruth. Maybe you ought to help her out to assuage your conscience.

Clay:

JJ the entire problem with your entire solution is the problem of human selfishness and free-riders. … Your entire system, just like Marx, totally ignores human nature and is therefore totally and completely unworkable. You totally do not or have not considered the problem of free riders, and they are what makes involuntary taxation absolutely necessary.

JJ

You need to quit arguing with some crazy JJ in the sky and talk to me. All my solutions deal with human selfishness and factor it into the equation.

Where have I not done this? As usual you will probably refer to some teaching that I do not promote rather than referencing something I actually say or teach.

When you first came on board here you seemed to be pretty fair in responding to what I actually was saying, but now you seem to only respond to some illusionary JJ conjured up in your imagination. What’s going on with you? How about taking a breath and coming back to reality. I don’t mind a good argument, but that JJ in the Sky is getting in the way here.

Clay:

You simply can not have a modern civilization without taxation.

JJ

If you read my book, Fixing America you’ll not be able to find anywhere there where I advocate doing away with taxes.

Clay

I hate the gas tax, I hate all tax and would not pay a dime in taxes if I was not compelled to.

JJ

Well we differ there. I love the gas tax as long as it goes to our road and highway system. I would voluntarily pay that tax.

Clay:

you are demonstrating this very tendency in humans by wanting to eliminate all involuntary taxation. JJ, your ideal community would not last a decade.

JJ

I would not eliminate all taxes. Again you’re arguing with your imaginary JJ.

Clay:

So what type of taxation do you support JJ?

JJ

Ahh. Finally after many false assumptions you at least now are asking what my real views are.

I would support any tax system that is approved by the majority of those who actually pay the taxes. That doesn’t necessarily mean I would agree with it but I realize hat I will not always get my way.

Clay

So I do question the spiritual aptitude of people who seek extremes as opposed to balance.

JJ

You sound liked one with a lot more extreme positions than I have. I think it is extreme to see nothing of value in Rand’s teachings. I find something of value in most everything I read from both sides of the equation. I have even written a book on balancing the extremes – The Lost Key of the Buddha.

Clay

I never subscribe to either side, ideology is a shortcut to critical thinking. Always look for balance

JJ

This does not appear to be the case. You seem to side with an extreme black and white approach on the pacifist side. You also seem to side with the socialist big government view, but you haven’t given out many details. I haven’t seen any balance in factoring in the good that comes from free enterprise and capitalism.

***

Clay… You keep comparing my views to that of Ayn Rand when I rarely use her writings as a reference for anything. Our basic point of agreement is on the principle of freedom and if freedom of the human spirit is a problem to you then you indeed have a burden that may follow and plague you for lifetimes to come.

I just emailed you a copy of my book Fixing America so you can actually see what my views are and respond to what I think rather than what I do not think.

You seem to think that my views do not differ from Rand’s. Take a look at this parable I have written and ask yourself if it is something Ayn would have come up with.

Parable of Abundance

LINK

***

Positive and Negative Liberty

There is no such thing as positive and negative liberty. All you represent there is a creative play on words. The positive and negative poles are liberty and enslavement or restriction.

If I am free to move my arm to take a drink and no one will stop me you call that a negative liberty. That is not negative put positive.

If I acquire the means to buy food and go about doing it you call that a positive liberty, but it is no different. They are both liberties of the same kind – a liberty that exists because of no restriction.

Perhaps you want to go to further extreme and say a positive liberty is when you steal a dollar from Jim and give it to Kate. Now Kate has the freedom to spend the dollar. Well she already had freedom to spend whatever comes into her hands, she just never had the dollar and Jim lost any positive freedom so there was no gain in freedom any way you look at it.

Kate already has the freedom to spend whatever dollars comes into her hands. Giving her a dollar just adds a dollar to her account. It has nothing to do with free will. It only gives her this extra choice to make: “How does she spend the dollar?”

Now if you start telling her what she has to do with that dollar then you are dealing with real freedom.

***

Clay:

You are awfully presumptuous to believe that you are on “the side of light” aren’t you. How do you know that you are not on the side of darkness wrongly believing it to be the side of light? That is why I don’t play sides,

LOLROTFWL@#$%^

Wow. You play sides as much as anyone I have met. We have never had such a side player come on this forum. Your side is the ultra left and the ultra left only. Then, as all do from the left, you will backstep now and then and claim to look at both sides and be in the middle.

For instance, you will completely condemn Ayn Rand but then backstep and claim that you embrace some of her teachings on free enterprise and capitalism.

So far, except when you respond to socialist accusations, you only lean to the extreme left, much farther than I go Right.

Clay:

I don’t know what is best, so I seek to balance the two opposing sides.

JJ

If you do not know what is best then why do you keep telling us what is best for us? Does not compute. You obviously think you know what is best and not best about Rand’s teachings.

Clay:

Both sides have excellent points

JJ

You keep saying this but then only preaching leftist doctrine and condemning anything from the Right or the middle (libertarianism).

Clay

and it has nothing to do with serving “darkness” or the “light”. This is the entire problem with all faith systems from the Abrahamic traditions, they separate humanity into a “god’s people” which always happens to be the side you are on, and “”the people of darkness” which always happens to be the side you disagree with.

JJ

That assessment is crazy talk and does not apply here. We are not some fundamentalist black and white group. You seem to be making a huge effort here to paint Keys members in the worst possible light – creating a great distortion in your mind.

Clay:

If this forum really separates out people based upon serving light or darkness guess who you serve, it is most definitely not who you think it is.

JJ

Every decision advances one in one direction or the other. To say discernment makes no difference is plain silly. Even though we recognize this is the case and there is truth and error out there, most of us are pretty tolerant of other views and do not condemn anyone as evil just because they think differently than us.

I don’t think anyone here thinks of you as evil. Just somewhat mislead, but sincere in your beliefs. I knew you did not agree with me on numerous things when I invited you here. Would I do that if I thought you were some dark guy on the evil side?

Clay

I can not stand this type of we are righteous servants of God and our opponents are servants of darkness nonsense. Both sides have good points

JJ

Then why do you put yourself out as the one who is right and Rand is so wrong you would fight her with your life’s blood? You are doing the separating thing much more than I am. And what good points did Rand have then?

Clay:

and just because you disagree with someones politics does not make them a servant of darkness, or the political aims they value, values of darkness.

JJ

You need to look in the mirror here because you are the one who is showing the greatest resistance to opposing views. I have never met a person who hates Rand so much and talks about her like she is some dark lord.

Clay: I thought this was a spiritual sight, not an apocalyptic end of times, Children of Light versus the Sons of Bilal nonsense.

JJ

It sounds like you would fit right in such a site as you have a condemning attitude much more than most here. In fact you were originally attracted to Allan’s site which does have apocalyptic views. We do not and think the world will end but will continue for millions of years.

***

Clay:

Well JJ according to every political philosophy department in the world, you are wrong. If you want to be taken seriously as a philosopher and a thinker, you need to know these things. JJ, even libertarians acknowledge that there are two forms of liberty. I am done here JJ. Now you are just being obtuse because these ideas conflict with yours. There are two types of Liberty JJ.

JJ

With some creative thinking i could give you seven different types of liberty but such diversion would just obscure the truth. Instead of just unthinkingly going along with what some authority says we need to look at the underlying principles involved. True freedom merely involves making a choice and then moving forward to carry out that choice avoiding if possible unwanted limiting obstacles forced upon you by your fellow human beings. Thus a citizen in North Korea faces a true challenge to freedom for he indeed has great obstacles placed in his path by other designing humans.

Remove human tyranny from any group of good will inhabitants and you will soon have a productive society even if they start with nothing – none of your positive freedom would be needed.

***

You keep calling me an extremist but the only thing extreme you can come up with is a distortion of my views. I challenge you to find one quote from my actual words that is an example of political extremism.

I can find several from yours.

You are an extreme pacifist in that you would not take one life in a situation where you would with surety save 50. I’d say that less than 10% of the population would side with you on that one.

On the other hand, almost all my political writings, on a case by case basis, reflect majority opinion.

You complained that we as a spiritual group are talking politics, but you led us in this direction. I was posting on spiritual principles before this round and plan on returning soon.

 

April 27, 2015

Freedom and Judgment

The problem we have when dealing with accusations and confrontational dialog is that explanations given out are in bits and pieces and the reader often has difficulty in making heads or tails, not only about what is true, but about the real positions of the accused.

We have been portrayed here as black and white right wing extremists and such is not the case. Something to consider is that members here vary in their political thinking. Some are more to the right or to the left than others so in speaking of political views I speak for myself.

It is interesting to observe the distorted reaction of the left when I criticize big government, enforced socialism, high taxes, excess regulation or other problems with authoritarian government. A critic will often immediately assume I am against all government, all social programs, all taxes, all force, and all regulations. If one such as myself then speaks positively about any of these things they will often shout out “hypocrite!”

Why do they react this way?

The reason is because they are black and white in their thinking and see no middle way; and the funny thing is this is the way they see their brothers on the right. It is as if they are looking in a mirror and accusing themselves.

Many things to them has to be all good or all bad. Every ingredient in big government, despite its flaws is necessary and not to be eliminated. All taxes are to be kept in place. All social programs are desirable. All regulations are needed. If any changes are to be made it is to add more of these things, not take away.

Clay seemed to fall into this trap as when replying to me he seemed to make the erroneous assumption that I am against all force, all taxes, all socialism, all regulations etc.

This is far from the case but I have found that when you have a partial disagreement with most people (speaking in general here) that they immediately assume you are in total disagreement. They seem to want to classify others as either a total friend or foe and it’s difficult to see you as a foe if they see 80% agreement and 20% disagreement. The tendency then is to focus on the 20% disagreement as well as assuming disagreement status on the other 80%.

If two people can find points of agreement and work from there they can often wind up seeing eye to eye, but such is not desirable to one who wants to make his brother into a foe.

Even though I have written much about my views on government, freedom, taxes etc I will briefly state my approach again, an approach supported by many here who follow my teachings.

To understand my thinking on any subject that requires action it is essential to understand that I do not see the best course of action to be on the left, the right or exactly in the middle. Instead one must look at both sides and then make a judgment that will generally turn out to be in between the two extremes. Such a judgment will be different in each circumstance.

Most people do not want to weigh both sides and make a judgment because they are mentally lazy. Lazy people want things to be black and white so they can be all in or all out – no thinking required for individual circumstances.

Using this key of judgment then here is the short version of my views.

Freedom

I am a big believer on the principle of maximum freedom, but not freedom in all circumstances. When an act takes away more freedom than it gives then it violates the principle. For instance, if the thief steals your money it does give him some extra freedom, but in the process these is more loss than gain. The victim has not only lost his money, but the thief has lost part of his soul.

There should be no restrictions on actions that will create more good than harm.

Laws and Regulations

I think there are way too many of these and the problem is when any of them do not work the solution is always seen to create more laws and regulations instead of reducing them.

Even so, I do believe that a certain number is necessary. I believe that sensible and sound law will lay the foundation for the Age of Peace which has yet to come.

Jessie Ventura presented a good idea in handling the massive laws and regulations on the books. He thought that once every three or four legislative sessions lawmakers should focus on laws and regulations that need to be eliminated rather than added.

Taxes

Right now the average taxpayer pays more than 50% of his income in taxes when all of them are considered. I think that is way too much and most people agree with this when they become aware of all the taxes they do pay.

Our representatives seem to think it is their job to tax us and spend the money. We need to change their job description so they understand that it is their main job to actually represent us. I support taxes for essential services agreed to by the will of the people.

The problem today is that even though our government is called a representative one that taxpayers are not being represented. This needs to change and how to accomplish this is in my book Fixing America.

Force

Force is often seen as an ugly word, but it is sometimes needed. If there is a law then force is needed to back it up or it is useless. Because the use of force needs to be kept to a minimum then it follows that laws requiring force need to be the essential ones. Some laws are agreed upon by most such as those against murder, rape and theft. Other laws are quite controversial and can cause many problems for harmless citizens.

Socialism

Because I am a big advocate of freedom and free enterprise some will automatically assume I am against all things labeled socialism. This is not true. I have presented a number of social ideas I advocate in my writings.

I do not believe I have ever said that I am against socialism. Any time that I have ever spoken against it I have qualified my statement by stating that I am against socialism by force, or enforced socialism.

All social programs, loved or hated by the people, always emerge out of good intentions. What many do not realize is that an ideal which may be very good turns into a great evil when implemented by force.

All tyrants in history thought that they knew what was good for the people and used force to make people do what they thought was the righteous thing.

Big Government

I am not against government, but I am against big and wasteful government. Our bloated government has borrowed us into very dangerous territory that we will have great difficulty emerging from.

Overall, I support those things that give our civilization structure and security, but am critical of the lack of judgment of our approach. What is needed more than any other thing right now is for government to cease violating the will of the people and to accurately represent them. To this end I have made a number of proposals for reform that will work without any altering of the Constitution.

***

Ruth:

If this is the true story of humanity, then why doesn’t JJ teach us this, instead of what he has been teaching us?

So who is right? JJ or this guy who writes about God being a genetic engineer?

Why wouldn’t JJ just write it out plainly for all of us, like this guy does, if this is what is true?

Because if JJ doesn’t teach us the truth, then what are we learning?

And if your guy is telling the truth, then that makes JJ out to be a liar, and if JJ is a liar then how would any of us trust him ever to teach us the truth?

Therefore, I will stick to JJ’s teachings and the DK teachings, because they sound much more logical and true to me.

JJ

Let me make it clear that there are many truths that I have not taught, especially in relation to our history. I have placed my attention in this life in the discerning of true principles and how to apply them much more than attempting to read the Akashic records of the planet and its history. Therefore there are many things in history that I do not know. If someone teaches something that I have not yet taught this does not mean that they are incorrect. And even if they disagree with me does not mean they are wrong because I am not infallible. Each if us must always check with our souls.

There are a number of things that the Raeleans that Alex subscribes to with which I disagree but each of us needs to examine all teachings presented by me or anyone else in the light of their own souls and common sense.

***

Jim:

Poor JJ., ……….imagine how God must feel by now? But JJ said he isn’t God, a Guru, or doesn’t even claim to be a Deacon. Claiming to be a Teacher allows one to teach all teachings of others with out ever needing to defend any original invented concepts,

JJ

To describe me as “poor” does me a disservice. “Blessed” would be a more appropriate word.

I am happy and able to defend anything I teach and have done it and can do it through the use of historical truth, scientific truth, logic, reason and the Law of Correspondences. The final verification is through soul contact.

***

Extremism and Reality

Clay:

I am not the extremist in my thinking. My beliefs fall pretty much dead center politically. An extremist viewpoint on my part would be an adoption of Marxism/Leninism. That is the extremist position for those on the left of center.

JJ

I haven’t labeled you an extremist on all things. That would be impossible as I do not know the full extent of your belief system. I wouldn’t have noted any of your extremism at all except you drew first blood in the accusation so I figured you need to take the beam out of your eye so you can more clearly see the mote in mine.

Unlike your approach I supplied specifics of your extreme views on pacifism and negative emphasis on our mistakes many decades ago. On the conservative side you have revealed an extreme position on abortion equating anything after conception as murder.

In examining extremism one has to go issue by issue, for many like yourself may have a combination of extreme positions on both the political left and the right and a test may a reveal an average that doesn’t present a clear picture.

Clay:

Far Left extremist position – Total socialist control, no free market at all, total state control of all means of production.

That is the extremist position.

JJ

It is so far extreme that not one of our elected officials claims to support it. By your definition here then no elected official in the U.S. history has ever been an extremist on the left. I would guess you do not feel this way about the right.

Clay

The Far Right Free Market position is no centralized control, no involuntary taxation, no government regulation or oversight, total Laissez-farire capitalism. JJ, you hold an extremist libertarian position and you only support voluntary taxation, and believe that any taxation that you do not personally approve to be tyranny and slavery. That is an extremist position.

JJ

Yeah, that would be extreme if that were my views. I’ve corrected you several times on these things and it didn’t seem to sink in so I wrote a post yesterday clarifying them and you still distort my thinking to fit your mindset. Why are you doing this?

Blayne also called you on this. If you want to discuss or criticize my views then please use my views, not your JJ In The Sky myth.

If you continue to mischaracterize my views that I have clarified I will have to conclude you are just being mean spirited and attempting to deceive.

Clay:

You try to tone it down by stressing that people will be so enlightened in your ideal society all these good social programs will still remain, but you have zero, zero proof that this would be the case.

JJ

I do not recall saying anything about current social programs remaining but there is a lot of proof that if a thing is good and efficient that it will endure whereas that which is not good and efficient will be replaced.

Clay:

So my position for taxation and oversight by the government is not extreme in anyway shape or form.

JJ

I never said it was. You are fairly in line with the typical Democrat on this.

Clay:

People on the right have so dominated the discourse that any disagreement over the proper role of government, and any support of mandatory taxation, gets labeled as extreme.

JJ

Can you give me an example of this by any elected official? I cannot think of any.

Clay

It is not, I adopt a fairly balanced approach between the balance of positive and negative liberty. Your total rejection of the value of positive liberty also demonstrates your extreme belief structure.

JJ

I haven’t rejected the value of what you call positive liberty. I have merely said that what you call positive liberty is just as play on words. I could also creatively claim there is a positive and negative abortion, but you would disagree with that use of words.

Clay

Even Libertarian political theorist recognize the distinction, they just place more value on Negative liberty.

JJ

And the vast majority of people would prefer to have one bad guy taken out to save 50, but that majority view has no effect on you.

I understand what you mean by positive liberty, but just think it is a creative division that is not necessary and obscures what true liberty is.

Clay

Without the material support to exercise your freedom (such as moving away and starting your own society) you are not able to fully realize your freedom. That is exactly the point of Positive Liberty. Yes I may be totally free from government interferece in my life if I move to the wilderness, but what good is that freedom if I am starving to death and freezing due to a lack of material support. That is positive liberty JJ.

JJ

If I have liberty and am freezing to death in the wilderness then I just move back to civilization. Problem solved.

It sounds like if I had the positive liberty you speak of then the government would buy me my own island. If they are that stupid then I’ll go ahead and take it.

Clay

So again, I am by no means an extremist, I support capitalism when it comes to producing consumer goods, I am for socialism when it comes to providing for the public welfare.

JJ

You are distorting again. I did not call you an extremist here as about half the country thinks this way. I’d say that you have to be in the 10-20% range of thinking to be in the extreme.

The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I am calling you an extremist in the view under discussion.

Clay:

I do not place as high a value on Negative Liberty as JJ and other forum members do,

JJ

Unfortunately your positive liberty you desire requires citizens to lose the liberty of deciding what to do with their own money and fork it over to authorities for redistribution or go to jail. Like I said, the majority do not mind paying a fair tax, but most taxpayers have to pay for social programs beyond that which they are willing to support.

Here is just one example of many that the majority would oppose as taxpayer theft.

Illegal Immigration – The $113 Billion Dollar Drain on the American Taxpayer

LINK

http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org/illegal-immigration-a-113-billion-a-year-drain-on-u-s-taxpayers/

***

Clay:

I don’t like the results so of course the test is biased. Please JJ, I posted three different test and one by the Pew research center. That is the problem with people like yourself, when you don’t like the results, you denigrate academics, you denigrate the testing and you denigrate the results.

JJ

What? Are you a mind reader now? Where do you get the idea I do not like the results? By orthodox thinking of what is right and left I am right of center and libertarian as the test indicates. I like that just fine. The result that I may take issue with is that it lumped me in with liberal pacifists.

I take issue with their selection of questions and the wording to get the results they want. The questions could have been worded better and so a persons true views could have been more accurately reflected. Then they could have provided an analysis of the person’s political thinking rather than just a number.

For instance, on the liberal side you are an extreme pacifist (which you now admit) and on the conservative side you are extreme on abortion views. The two extremes pretty much cancel each other out and put you in the middle. In reality the two views do not place you in the middle.

I only threw the extreme view back at you because you were in the attack mode accusing us of being extremists and I wanted you to realize that this unnecessary attack can go both ways. You finally admit you have extreme views so you should now realize you were the pot calling the kettle black.

Clay

You libertarian score definitely falls into the extremist range, so seems that I was right.

JJ

Where do you get that idea? I scored 4.98 out of 10 on the libertarian side. That places me as a moderate libertarian, not an extremist one. I would have thought I would have scored higher though for if there is one thing I may be extreme on is in defense of human liberty. I have a lot of company though because most everyone desires maximum liberty, but just have different ideas how to achieve it.

Clay:

I told you repeatedly that my beliefs were not extreme. Yours are.

JJ

You’ve already admitted you are an extreme pacifist. Tell me. Which actual view do I have that is extremist? To answer this do not quote your JJ In The Sky, but find some actual words that I have written that espouse a political view that would be accepted by less that 20% of the population. If you cannot do this then you should immediately cease with your accusations.

After all, who is called “the accuser if the brethren?” We wouldn’t be having these unproductive endless rounds of debates if you hadn’t changed from a contributing participant in the forum to an accuser.

Clay:

Also JJ, you are not Jesus,

JJ

I never said I was. Please respond to what I say, not to what I do not say.

Clay

I despise Rand, but I recognize her for the genius she is, she is much more intelligent than I am,

JJ

If she is really more intelligent than you then it is likely that she is more correct in her views than you.

If you really disagree with her or anyone else you are really telling the world that you are more intelligent than your opponent in that area of thought.

I hope you are about done attempting to prove that the group is a bunch of right wing mindless extremists so we can move on with exploring some new ground in spiritual principles. I hope you do not see your focus here as a monitor of right and wrongs that need to be set straight. No teacher can be productive with someone like that in the class.

I think you have a lot of good qualities that can be helpful here if you focus on moving forward rather than looking for areas to bring up accusations that require hours and hours of time wasting defense. And keep in mind that most of the wasted time on my end has been attempting to clarify my views that you have distorted. Defending my actual views can be productive, but being called upon to defend views I do not have is a waste of time.

***

Answer to Clay

Clay:

For example, I took your test and it is highly biased against Atheist and Agnostics, who in all things irregardless of religious belief, tend to be very open minded, but according to your test, they would score terrible because they do not believe in God.

JJ

The test was design to find those on the spiritual path who are synthetic. There are many good people who are atheists and agnostic, but they are not interested in the spiritual path as they do not even believe in the unseen spirit. The test wasn’t some unconscious biased against them, but just purposefully ignored them as a category. Why look for those on the spiritual path who do not want to be looked for?

Clay:

Please tell me who are your spiritual role models and do they endorse the use of deadly force, mine do not, so I think I should try to emulate my spiritual superiors.

JJ

Of Jesus it is written:

“and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.” Rev 19:11

The last I heard war involves the use of deadly force. There is a time and place for all things.

My spiritual role models are Jesus, Moses, Djwhal Khul, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Nicola Tesla, Isaac Newton, Pythagoras, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Joseph Smith and a few others.

Clay:

Post you graph, I want to see it, my understanding is that you are 5 points below the mean which should place you down at the bottom of the chart for libertarian beliefs. Which test did you use and post your graph.

JJ

Don’t see a way to post a graphic here and the link to my score is long gone. On the libertarian side you can score from 0-10 and I was rated 4.98. You don’t need a graphic to see where 4.98 is in between 0-10. According to the test I would be a middle of the road libertarian.

Clay:

Well you seem to support all of Blayne’s very extremist positions – his wanting to do away with all licensing, opposition to federal income tax, and overall support of laissez-faire capitalism.

JJ

“Seem” is the key word here. Blayne and I disagree on a number of political ideas and we have had some heated discussions that has lasted hundreds of posts. Fortunately, we have emerged as friends with respect for each other. I would hope we will also.

There is diverse thinking here so you need to judge each person by what he says, not by what someone else says.

So far you have done more arguing with what I do not believe rather than what I do believe. Use my words, not someone else’s when responding to my thoughts.

Clay:

However, based upon what I have read, you fall far down the libertarian position, I could be wrong.

JJ

I am a strong libertarian, but also disagree with some thinking that is popular among those who call themselves libertarians.

JJ Quote

I never said I was (Jesus). Please respond to what I say, not to what I do not say.

Clay:

You implied you were.

JJ

Yeah, sure and I have a bridge to sell you cheap. And If I said Obama and I both eat carrots you would probably think I was claiming to be like him. Terrible logic you are using there.

Clay:

I also think Lenin and Mao were much more intelligent than me, Same with Rothbard and Von Mises, incredibly intelligent people disagree with each other all the time.

JJ

You underestimate your intelligence. I think you are smarter than Mao. You could accomplish what the other guys did if you were inclined in the same directions.

JJ

Keynes is more intelligent than you and you disagree with Keynes. Paul Krugman is much more intelligent than you, but you disagree with him. I disagree with Friedman and support Krugman’s viewpoint.

JJ

Keynes was intelligent in many ways and would probably be seen as a conservative in today’s world. It is an insult to be compared to Krugman who never saw a truth he could not distort an is not close to Keynes in intelligence. If you judge intelligence by the ability to perceive truth from error then most 5 year olds could best him.

You probably know I am a handwriting analyst. If you want to send me some of your handwriting I’ll take a look and see just how much intelligence is there. I’d also be happy to take a look at Sarah’s.

Clay:

You want to limit it to spiritual discussions, that is fine with me as well.

JJ

That’s what we were doing before you diverted us. Hopefully I do not have to respond to many more political clarifications so we can get back to discussing spiritual principles which is the subject of my next book.

Clay:

you only seem to want to correct and argue with my political viewpoints…

JJ

My main direction has been to clarify my views that you have distorted. If you argue with what I actually think we may be able to get somewhere.

Clay:

Why does it bother you that I possibly find your libertarianism extreme? I am perfectly comfortable admitting my pacifism is extreme. My brother who is an extreme leftist knows that his views are extreme.

JJ

That would be fine if you used my actual beliefs, but when you make things up (such as I do not believe in taxes) then you are just calling something I do not believe extreme.

I challenge you again. Give an actual quote from my actual words that present an extreme political view that would be accepted by fewer than 20% of the people.

 

April 30, 2015

Principle 60

The Principle of Hierarchy

Today, as never before, there is the idea advanced that the ideal is that there should be no leaders or followers, no teachers and students and no hierarchy at all. Everything should just work because people cooperate.

Reality seems to contradict this idea for every organization does have its hierarchy of management of some sort.

Let is take a closer look at this principle and consider these questions.

(1) Can a successful organization exist without hierarchy?

(2) What is the negative and positive use of hierarchy.

(3) Why do you suppose that some are so opposed to the idea of leaders, teachers, managers, etc.

(4) Does the implementation of hierarchy hinder the opportunity for cooperation or enhanced it?

(5) What is the best way for a hierarchy to be created and maintained? What is the worst?

***

JJ what exactly is the difference between “channeled” and telepathic communication. Because most the current crop of channeled material, the channel is completely conscious during the communication and claims direct communication, not where like Cayce and others went into trances. The Michael Teachings and the Cassiopeans both operate no differently than Bailey, they just call themselves Channeled material, but it is no different than the Course or Bailey at least from what you are telling me. Cassiopaea Lame Ass Neale Donald Walsh claims he talks and receives messages directly from God itself.

JJ

Both the Michael Teachings and Cassiopaea teachings were initiated with a Ouija board and carried on with direct voice through the trance state. That is not mental telepathy. Neale Donald Walsh received his material through automatic writing. That is not mental telepathy.

Mental telepathy does not receive material through a Ouija board, the trance state or direct voice. The person receiving through telepathy does not need another individual to write down the words but will usually write them down themselves as the words or thoughts come into the mind just as I may write down your thoughts should I pick them up. There is no possession by another entity.

DK could not possess Alice A. Bailey because he was in his own physical body at the time.

In the beginning Bailey received the teachings by telepathy but as time progressed she became more sensitive to DK’s mind and received through what is called, “The Science of Impression.”

I personally do not discount anything because of who receives it, how it was received or what the person’s reputation is. I judge each work by its content. If I didn’t have this attitude I would probably still be confined to Mormon Doctrine as my sole guide.

***

Clay:

There seems to be a new “telepathic” communication from aliens, angels, ancient gods, Jesus, what have you, ever other week, so I am not going to put too much of my faith in any particular source like this.

JJ

I try and check out all materials that claim to be enlightened and am not aware of this being true at all. Can you name something that has come out in the past year, for instance? The only writings of note that were given telepathically in recent times were A Course in Miracles and the Bailey writings. Trance channelers are coming out with something every other week, as you say, but not those who work with telepathy.

Now I am not saying that one should trust a teaching because it is delivered by telepathy or even by some being who is said to appear in person, but the masters rarely use trance channelers, but do use telepathy and to find someone who is in contact with them we should look for the use of higher forms of contact.

I have read quite a few trance channeled materials and if read through the light of the soul some good things can be found, but as far as use of time is concerned one page of DK through Bailey is equal to sifting through a channeled book.

***

Clay:

There seems to be a new “telepathic” communication from aliens, angels, ancient gods, Jesus, what have you, ever other week, so I am not going to put too much of my faith in any particular source like this.

JJ

I try and check out all materials that claim to be enlightened and am not aware of this being true at all. Can you name something that has come out in the past year, for instance? The only writings of note that were given telepathically in recent times were A Course in Miracles and the Bailey writings. Trance channelers are coming out with something every other week, as you say, but not those who work with telepathy.

Now I am not saying that one should trust a teaching because it is delivered by telepathy or even by some being who is said to appear in person, but the masters rarely use trance channelers, but do use telepathy and to find someone who is in contact with them we should look for the use of higher forms of contact.

I have read quite a few trance channeled materials and if read through the light of the soul some good things can be found, but as far as use of time is concerned one page of DK through Bailey is equal to sifting through a channeled book.

***

Clay:

There seems to be a new “telepathic” communication from aliens, angels, ancient gods, Jesus, what have you, ever other week, so I am not going to put too much of my faith in any particular source like this.

JJ

I try and check out all materials that claim to be enlightened and am not aware of this being true at all. Can you name something that has come out in the past year, for instance? The only writings of note that were given telepathically in recent times were A Course in Miracles and the Bailey writings. Trance channelers are coming out with something every other week, as you say, but not those who work with telepathy.

Now I am not saying that one should trust a teaching because it is delivered by telepathy or even by some being who is said to appear in person, but the masters rarely use trance channelers, but do use telepathy and to find someone who is in contact with them we should look for the use of higher forms of contact.

I have read quite a few trance channeled materials and if read through the light of the soul some good things can be found, but as far as use of time is concerned one page of DK through Bailey is equal to sifting through a channeled book.

 

May 1, 2015

Soul Oneness

Jim:

Does any Keyster subscribe to Allan’s hypothesis that males must become females by being married before they are able to become pure enough to contact their higher soul selves?

JJ

Allan is right to the extent that it is quite advantageous to have a mate that you can be one with. Of course there are two types of oneness. The first is that you just find yourself agreeing on important items or tuning into the same thoughtform and the second is that you have both achieved some degree of soul contact and share spiritual energy together.

Does this mean that you will be spiritually flatlined (to use Allan’s terminology) if you are not one with your mate?

Heavens no. My first marriage was a terrific struggle and my wife fought against every new spiritual discovery I made. Was my progression flatlined?

No. In many ways it was accelerated. Leaning to focus on inner peace where the outside world was in fiery conflict was a big help in advancing me forward. We often advance more in the midst of conflict than peace.

When I was young I often prayed for wisdom and spiritual progression, but in my older years, where I finally have a little outward peace and a great relationship with my current wife, I am much more careful what I pray for.

Becoming one with your soul does not depend in you finding a soul mate and becoming one with him or her. However, the next step after obtaining soul contact and spiritual oneness within yourself is to find oneness with others who have soul contact. This is very difficult but the reward is great. It is very advantageous if one can do this with a spouse, but if the spouse is not ready then you can focus on others, male or female, who are in tune with you.

Many seekers are lucky if they can find one other person in the world with who they can share deep soul energy and oneness. My goal is to find twelve males and twelve females who can do this and create a human molecule as described in my book The Molecular Relationship. A soul oneness achieved by 24 individuals will be a marvelous thing to participate in.

Forums such as this demonstrate how difficult it is to achieve oneness through the spirit. When two disagree they are reluctant to seek the same source of truth together, but concentrate on standing their ground based on their separate belief systems.

***

Clay:

What annoys me is when semi-talented people want to use the examples of Tesla, Einstein, and people like Matt, to compensate for their own lack of education.

JJ

And who is doing that? No one here. You seem to have the habit of manufacturing division so you can have a good argument. For instance, you recently said that I was equating myself with Jesus which was completely untrue. Saying that you are following the example of another person does not equate you as being on the same level as that person.

Clay:

That is like a decent basketball player saying he does not need to play college ball and he should go straight to the professional league because that is what LeBron James did. … I am just so fed up with this devaluation of formalized education where every man and woman thinks they are more knowledgeable than trained professionals who have spent countless hours in study and training to acquire this knowledge. But someone spends a few hours reading books or researching over the internet and suddenly they are on equal footing with a PHD who spent thousands of hours studying.

JJ

The use of the mind and intuition to obtain skill in the perception of truth is a much different thing than obtaining a skill at sports. A person with common sense and read one book and know more true principles on a subject than one with little horse sense can obtain with a lifetime of study. Sure the guy may have more data in his brain, but data in the brain does not make one see the truth.

You, for instance see that there is a Higher Intelligence in this universe but most scientists who have spent a lifetime studying evolution, cosmology and other sciences have concluded that all creation materialized with no higher intelligence involved.

Because you disagree with these educated scientists does this mean you think orthodox education is useless?

Of course not.

Psychologists have a higher than average suicide rate, educated ministers corrupt the truth, many lawyers abuse the law, politicians do not represent us, many doctors do not know how to stay healthy, financial experts are outdone by a monkey in stock picks, etc. To trust a professional just because he is brain educated is insane. One has to verify everything that comes across his path or his life will be a miserable one. Mine certainly would have been if I did not question authority.

 

May 2, 2015

Using Information

Clay:

I guess it comes from personal experience where I am inundated with client’s who think they are experts and qualified to tell me how to do my job. Time after time I have a client show up at my office with volumes of papers they have printed off the internet of totally irrelevant and inaccurate information which they believe is highly relevant. I can not tell you the number of times I get clients in prison telling me how to conduct their case based upon what their cell mate told them about the law. They draft these ridiculous motions that they want you to submit to the court that are completely inadmissible, and when you try to explain things to them, politely as possible, they get furious with you and accuse you of working with the prosecution and trying to rail road them. I like client’s to participate in their cases and I am more than happy to take the time and explain everything that we are doing and try to explain why we are doing it and if they have any good ideas that I might have missed I am always willing to take their feelings and desires into account in how we proceed. But you can not imagine the degree of outright hostility we run into with clients who know little or nothing about how the court systems, laws of evidence, jury selection, and other aspects of law function, getting furious and filing complaints simply because we won’t do everything they ask or conduct a defense the way they want. It is beyond frustrating and the internet has made this almost an epidemic. If I ran my practice the way my clients desired me to run it I would probably be disbarred in a coupe of months and lose every single case I take. So I apologize, this is a personal issue to me.

JJ

I agree with you 100% from the angle of vision with which you are speaking. For instance, I recall as a real estate agent entertaining clients who had read a get rich quick book on buying real estate and had very unrealistic ideas about how easy it would be to buy with nothing down and flip properties or make them pay for themselves. I have people contacting me about publishing their book thinking they have best seller material with very unreasonable expectations for what they have to work with.

Then again there are those ordinary folk who have read up on real estate or publishing that are impressive in their knowledge and judgment.

On the other hand, you may not be seeing the other side from the angle that I do and when you do we may not be that far apart.

First, let me clarify this point. I am in no way diminishing the value of a trained professional. The services of a trained dentist or doctor when you really need them can be a godsend. There us no way I would attempt to fill a cavity in my kids mouth unless I had sufficient training and equipment.

The fact is that most people can be taught many skills that I have not trained in or may have memorized materials that I have not memorized. That does not make them smarter. All it means is that they have training that I do not have. It doesn’t mean that their judgment in the use of that knowledge or training should not be tested or their judgment checked.

I would assume that every attorney in the country knows more details about the law than I do. They would have to, to have passed the Bar Exam. Does that mean I would just trust any attorney with my life if it was on the balance and he told me to not worry?

Hardly.

I have worked with attorneys that I felt I could turn things over to and they could be trusted to be competent. I have met others who I wouldn’t trust with my gerbil.

Orthodox learning can be very helpful, but it doesn’t mean their judgment is good. lwk spoke well when he said:

The fact is there are a lot of folks with degrees out the yin yang who may have accumulated a lot of facts about a specific and narrow field of study and have little or no real ability to make wise judgments in general. Even people who have studied logic and philosophy for years and who can stun students with their brilliance in the classroom will still make the stupidest imaginable judgments in real life.

A case in point is the occurrence with our friend Tyler. The doctor thinks he has a thyroid problem so he automatically prescribes Synthroid, the worst possible and most destructive and expensive alternative. About ten minutes of research on the matter by someone with some judgment will reveal much better alternatives than the doctor’s 12 years of education came up with. Most regular medical doctors are biased against natural alternatives and generally push the expensive synthetic direction.

Scientists are also biased. For instance, even though it took scientists working all over the world more than 10 years and about $1 billion to, not create, but to just sequence the human genome most will think that no higher intelligence was involved in its creation.

There are two extremes that can be taken when dealing with a recognized expert that may or may not have good judgment.

One is to argue with him when you do not know what you are talking about. This often happens, but rarely does so here on the Keys. The other is to argue with him when you do know what you are talking about.

To intelligently disagree with a highly educated person does not require that you have all the knowledge that he has. It only requires that you have a knowledge of what is actually involved in the argument. When you both have the same facts available for the argument then the one that will come out on top with be the one with the best judgment and reason.

I have never found someone so educated that I could not examine his beliefs and intelligently and legitimately decide whether I agree or disagree.

Clay:

I only had to “memorize a bunch of facts” in biology class.

JJ

Wow. Where did you go to school, in Neverland? Out of all the hundreds of classes I have taken I cannot think of one where that did not require me to study and retain some type of facts in my memory.

Are you saying that I could take the Bar Exam and pass without having read any books and retained any information? Does not compute. Some courses are more data driven than others, but all require some retention of information that is conveyed.

***

Clay:

but when it comes to specific subjects, I do value an expert’s opinions more than a lay persons, in general. Again I am only talking about general rules, and theses are just general principles to me. I have also met “martial art instructors who could not fight their way out of a paper bag, that is why it is valuable to find a “qualified expert.”

JJ

Nothing to disagree with there. Like I say, when we see each others points of view I would think we would agree. Since you are trained in law I would trust what you say is legal more than my guess at it, but if you told me not to file taxes because the system is not Constitutional I would ignore you as it wouldn’t be worth the risk.

***

Ken:

You start out with a wrong concept about Judgment and dying. Judgment can only begin once death has occurred, and THEN, to be exposed to the Light, so that proper Judgment can be rendered. True Believers were the FIRST to enter into Judgment, as Peter states: 1Pet 4:17 For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of Elohim: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the Gospel of Elohim?

JJ

Most feel this scripture was fulfilled when the temple was destroyed and the Jews scattered which happened in this world not the next. You talk as if there is just one judgment but there are many judgments of various types. Moses had men in his circle that were called judges and judged the people. The scriptures say that God gave out his judgments on Sodom and Gomorrah, the people at the time of Noah and Jeremiah.

As I said in my treatise one has to look at any scripture in its context to see what the author was trying to say and nothing of what you say discounts anything I have written.

Ken

Now JJ, as you explain, what is the outcome of all who have never been given the opportunity to be exposed to the Light, and come under Judgment? Do they need to be reincarnated over and over again? NO, absolutely not. Their Judgment will begin (after their death), WHEN they are RAISED up AFTER the 1000 year reign of Yeshua and His Body (Rev 20:5)

JJ

Rev 20:5 says nothing about judgment. We need to go by what the scripture or the spirit says, not by what it does not say.

Ken:

ALL of those who were never exposed to the Light of Truth (in THEIR one and ONLY incarnation) will be given opportunity on the Eighth Great Day (The Last Day, the last 1000 years) to enter INTO Judgment as they are THEN exposed to the True Light and Glory of Elohim WHEN they are RESURRECTED, not reincarnated.

JJ

If you are going to argue with me from the scriptures then use them instead of your opinion. The scriptures do not support you here.

Ken:

Ken

Didn’t Yeshua speak of multiple “ages” in referencing the sin against the Holy Spirit…neither in this age nor in any age to come?

JJ

He spoke of two ages there but there are millions of them in eternity.

Ken:

You also appear to have another mistake with your explanation of the Greek word “ALLA.” Do you have a Greek manuscript that uses the Greek word-G235 (ALLA) in Hebrews 9? I would be interested to see it.

JJ

Looks like you are correct here. The correct word is DE, but it has a similar meaning so nothing has changed.

Ken

And finally, your explanation of the Greek word KRISIS, and making it to mean that you need multiple lifetimes to correct your errors, or to correct the state of death, is quite remarkable. When Yeshua spoke of KRISIS, and what would happen to the Prince of the world, are you suggesting that Satan is given many lifetimes to correct his errors (Jn 16:11 Of judgment (KRISIS), because the prince of this world is judged.?) Or when Yeshua is speaking about KRISIS here (Mt 12:36-37 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment (KRISIS). 37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”) Is He suggesting multiple lifetimes for your words to “Justify” or “Condemn” you? Which lifetime’s WORDS will condemn or justify, the 1st or the 50th lifetime? JJ, your understanding of KRISIS and reincarnation does not compute with Yeshua’s Word, and the Day of KRISIS.

JJ

I don’t get your point. Here is what I said about the Greek word KISIS

The modern English word “crisis” (which is derived from the Greek KRISIS) is a more accurate rendering than the Bible translations. The actual Greek word implies a decision that brings correction. If it is used in connection with the word “judgment” the idea of a corrective judgment should be implied.

My use of the word was right on the mark. Why would you think otherwise?

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

April 13, 2015

Does the End Justify the Means?

The Question;

We often hear the statement that a certain act was a “necessary evil” in order to produce a good result.

Is an evil action sometimes necessary to produce a good result? And if the end result was good, was the action then really evil?

Good comments on this. I’m short on time tonight and can’t do them justice so I’ll just say a few words on this subject.

A belief held by many is that the end does not justify the means, but when you think about it, this is just not true. To say the end does not justify the means is to say that cause and effect does not work. After all, the means is a cause and the end is the effect. The end is always brought about by a cause that works the same for everyone, making it just.

If this is the case then why do many say that the end does not justify the means?

They say this because they are looking at the middle, not the end, a piece and not the whole.

Let us take an example.

Mary cheats on tests and manages to graduate from college with honors. She gets a good job afterwards and all seems well. This good end did not seem to justify cheating.

The problem here is this is not the end of the effects her cause set in motion. Cheating and deception is now built into her character and will create numerous ends that will plague her in this life and possibly lifetimes to come. Because of her good grades her boss may think she is more capable than she truly is and give her assignments in which she is doomed to failure. She may lie and cover up digging a deeper hole for herself leading to depression and even ill health.

Here is another example:

Ron seals some money from funds he holds in trust to bet on a sure thing in the horse races. He wins and then puts the money back in the trust. No harm done, right? An evil action seems to have produced a good end.

Again, the problem is that this is not the end. It never is for a gambling thief. Just ask Bernie Madoff. He stole billions from investors thinking he could pay the funds back with profits and for years it looked like he would never get caught. Now he is ending his life in jail, his son committed suicide, he is separated from loved ones and hated by most everyone. Again we have to look at the real end of the causes put in motion and it is indeed just.

The next question is whether there is such a thing as a necessary evil, This is another phrase thrown about quite often.

This problem occurs when there is a fork in the road and both decisions seem bad. The example previously given of the crazy guy with the bomb is a good one. Is it a necessary evil to kill one bad guy to save fifty?

Actually people look at this the wrong way. If you can save fifty by killing one and you know this to be the case then you are doing a good deed, not an evil one. You’ll find that all fifty people whose lives are saved will agree with this.

Let us take a nefarious act less drastic than taking a life, like stealing. Is this ever justified?

Here is a great story from the Aquarian Gospel, chapter 132:

A MULTITUDE of people thronged the streets. The officers were on the way to court with one, a man accused of stealing bread.

2 And in a little while the man was brought before the judge to answer to the charge.

3 And Jesus and the twelve were there. The man showed in his face and hands the hard drawn lines of toil and want.

4 A woman richly clad, the accuser of the man, stood forth and said, I caught this man myself: I know him well, for yesterday he came to beg for bread.

5 And when I drove him from my door, he should have known that I would harbour not a man like him; and then to-day he came and took the bread.

6 He is a thief and I demand that he be sent to jail.

7 The servants also testified against the man; he was adjudged a thief, and officers were leading him away.

8 But Jesus standing forth exclaimed, You officers and judge, be not in haste to lead this man away.

9 Is this a land of justice and of right? can you accuse and sentence men to punishment for any crime until they testify themselves?

10 The Roman law will not permit such travesty on right, and I demand that you permit this man to speak.

11 And then the judge recalled the man and said, If you have any tale to tell, say on.

12 In tears the man stood forth and said, I have a wife and little ones and they are perishing for bread, and I have told my story oft, and begged for bread; but none would hear.

13 This morning when I left our cheerless hut in search of work my children cried for bread, and I resolved to feed them or to die.

14 I took the bread, and I appeal to God, Was it a crime?

15 This woman snatched the loaf away and threw it to the dogs, and called the officers and I am here.

16 Good people, do with me whate’er you will, but save my wife and little ones from death.

17 Then Jesus said, Who is the culprit in this case?

18 I charge this woman as a felon in the sight of God.

19 I charge this judge as criminal before the bar of human rights.

20 I charge these servants and these officers as parties to the crime.

21 I charge the people of Capernaum with cruelty and theft, because they heeded not the cries of poverty and want, and have withheld from helpless ones that which is theirs by every law of right;

22 And I appeal unto these people here, and ask, Are not my charges based on righteousness and truth?

23 And every man said, Yes.

24 The accused woman blushed for shame; the judge shrank back in fear; the officers threw off the shackles from the man and ran away.

25 Then Jesus said, Give this man what he needs and let him go and feed his wife and little ones.

26 The people gave abundantly; the man went on his way.

27 And Jesus said, There is no standard law to judge of crime. The facts must all be stated e’er a judgment can be rendered in a case.

28 You men with hearts; go forth and stand where stood this man and answer me, What would you do?

29 The thief thinks every other man a thief and judges him accordingly.

30 The man who judges harshly is the man whose heart is full of crime.

31 The courtesan who keeps her wickedness concealed by what she calls respectability, has not a word of pity for the honest courtesan who claims to be just what she is.

32 I tell you, men, if you would censure not till you are free from sin, the world would soon forget the meaning of the word, accused.

The bottom line is that good judgment must be used. You would only lie, steal or kill with justification if good judgment was involved and the end would be an overwhelming good to which almost all fair minded people would agree. You wouldn’t be justified in stealing to get the latest iPad, but you could be justified in doing so to save your family from starvation as related in the story.

Solomon spoke a great truth when he said that there is a time and season for all things. Seeing that time and season takes good judgment.

***

Jim

No need to wait until 2010 to get on a floating city. I have been on this one and its Sister, and there are more being built as we speak! I was on He Oasis 12 straight days sailing from Ft. Lauderdale to Barcelona, Spain. These Cities are State of The Art, Self Contained.

LINK

JJ

A ship and a floating city are two entirely different things though some ship are large enough to carry the inhabitants of a small town.

The floating cities will be different in these aspects.

(1) The residents will be permanent.

(2) Dwellers will own their own property.

(3) They will have their own government

(4) They will expand indefinitely.

(5) They will work at their trade while there rather than considering it vacation.

***

Latuwr:

Joseph John Dewey, do you believe that you yourself are an immortal soul? If so, what is the source of your believe? In other words, whose Rhema have you heard and believed?

JJ

The soul is not Immortal, but that which occupies the soul or Higher Self is.

In our comments I only see an explanation of your views on the scriptures similar to what a Baptist would put forward and nothing that appears to be any revelation from God.

***

Latuwr

I fully agree that the spirit within our souls is immortal, but I deny Allan’s teaching and your apparent teaching that each of us have a higher soul which is immortal.

JJ

I do not know about Allan, but I have never said the Higher Self was immortal.

Latuwr

I actually do not know what Baptists believe, but in seeking to understand concerning them, I discovered that Mormons believe that a human soul is the combination of spirit and body (D&C 88:15). With this, I agree.

JJ

The word soul is used a number of different ways by different belief systems. Some use it synonymously with our eternal spirit essence which is different than the way I use it as well as most Theosophists and Bailey readers.

There is soul energy and the soul which is the higher self. Soul energy is created by the interplay of spirit and matter. We thus become a living soul (or manifesting soul essence) at birth when spirit and matter are united and interplay creating physical life.

The Higher Self is focused in a world that lies between the physical and the spirit and thus is often called the soul, because its energy body is created by the interplay of the higher and the lower. This itself is still a vehicle for a higher and eternal part of ourselves that comes from God and is one with the One Great Life.

Latuwr

I am moved to respond right now to your words to my Brother, ImAHebrew. I am actually surprised that you would so quickly threaten to act so as to prove Allan to be a prophet concerning us and our relationship with you on this forum.

JJ

I’ve already placed both of you on moderation in the past because your posts were way off the direction of the class. If he predicted moderation then that has already been done. You both seemed to be more cooperative so I took you off and now you are going more and more off topic again.

Imagine if you took a class in Spanish and some student kept trying to teach the class math. Even if what he taught was accurate it would still not be appreciated and be a distraction and irritation. The class would tell them to save their ideas for a math class.

Even so it would seem that you would be a lot happier in a forum that sees the scriptures as God breathed and tries to interpret them. This is not that forum.

We see the scriptures as just another book containing truth that is to be used as the soul approves or is appropriate. Most of us see the Bailey writings as much more enlightened overall.

Also, I think all members but you two accept reincarnation. The acceptance of reincarnation is pretty important to get anything out of this class because so many teachings revolve around it. Many of us have received actual proof of the principle and we do not want to spend time arguing about this, but accept it as a foundation belief for moving on to higher things.

Now you do not have to believe as I do to be a good member of this class but you do need to not be a distraction and do the equivalent of force feeding us math when we are trying to learn Spanish.

 

April 14, 2015

The One Life

After stretching is head around thoughts of God and the universe Adam asks:

JJ, did the character Joseph in Book IV see anything beyond what is explained there? He saw a grouping of 7 Universes in the larger Multiverse, but Joseph made no revelation about how big or expanded that larger Multiverse might be. I encourage a spoiler of a future book.

JJ

Actually I did. You need to read more carefully.

First the seven refers to the foundation number of this universe not to any number of universes. Beyond this universe are enough universes to supply particles to create greater universes. The number boggles the mind – and they are all a part of just this group of physical universes we inhabit.

In other dimensions there are more universes still and the multi dimension universes are unusually called the multiverse. Many believe there to be an infinite number, but I tend to believe they are twelve or less.

Now getting back to our universe in our dimension there are at least 49 planes of being. Let us just say that there is enough going on in creation to keep us occupied for some time to come.

Joseph Smith worded it well when he said we would have eternal lives on eternal worlds.

Adam:

Is it possible that spontaneous eruption of intelligence (eternal though it be) may have happened (in non-time, of course) with other points in space/non-space – unrelated to the One God of which we are parts?

Could we eventually bump into another wholly independent Multiverse in the course of time as we reflect and expand Ad Infinitum?

JJ

To answer your question again it is important to look at the principle involved.

All lives have their separate and distinct nature and qualities yet also form a part of a greater whole.

An atom in your body has its own individual existence yet is a part of a greater life we call a cell. A cell again has its own distinct life yet is a part of the greater life which is you. You have your own distinct life but you are a part of the greater life, which is all of humanity on planet earth where all share the same oversoul.

Humanity again is a group life and is a part of a greater life which is the life of earth itself. The earth has its own distinct life (living in a different time reference than us) and is a part of the greater solar life. This process continues until all the lives in the universe join to manifest one great universal life. When this life which is our universe discovers other universes it will join with them. This process goes on until creation ends.

Wherever there is more than one life and the two discover each other evolution will eventually bring them into unity to share in one greater life. When the evolution of all there is, is complete it will be discovered that there is only one life of which all the lesser lives are a part.

And the greater life will not be lonely because it can identify with any of the trillions of lives within its body. Fortunately for us we serve the purpose of bringing fulfillment to lives greater than ourselves.

***

Jim:

Some how, this appears to be a Paradox that almost sounds ridiculous, when I imagine being connected with some of the 600 lb. fat asses that have made fast food their God, and don’t ( can’t) work to support them selves, so whine about their food stamps able to cover their daily Cheeseburger and fries. That’s only one extreme example. But who really wants to be any one else then our selves?

JJ

The scripture says:

Luke 12:6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?

Luke 12:7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

JJ

The Logos is aware of all that goes on in this planet but those in error cannot disturb his peace. An imperfect example would be the internet for us. One can be aware of all kinds of disgusting things going on in it but do not focus on it unless there is some purpose in it. The Spiritual internet of the Logos can access the number of hairs on our head if need be but he doesn’t lose sleep dwelling on it.

***

Blayne:

So do these atoms and cells think they are the center of the universe like most of us Humans do? Or is it only lives who are self aware that tend to think this?

JJ

The principle to look at is this. The evolution of the Life of God on the physical plane proceeds from the small (the microcosm) to the large (the macrocosm). Also much more time takes place in the microcosm than the macrocosm – for instance the heart of the earth only beats once about every 25,000 of our years.

Thus the evolution of the cells and atoms have advanced on their plane to a much higher level than we have on our plane and understand that their lives are enhanced and stabilized by seeking the good of the whole rather than just the unit. We humans have a ways to go to reach this understanding and most seek to serve self above the whole.

 

April 16, 2015

Clarification Time Again

Jim, when you came on board here you were friendly and seemed happy to share some of your knowledge and experience with us. I realized that there were some differences in philosophy, but that is okay. Members can disagree with me and still be civil and contribute some good material for consideration.

You are a good writer, good entertainer and have a pretty wide knowledge so I saw a potential for you being a valuable contributor. I know many teachers out there would be threatened by you as you may come across more knowledgeable than they. Not me. If you know something I do not then fire away, just as long as you do not distract us with quotes and teachings removed from the interest of the members here. Like I say. If one is attending a class on Spanish then the student doesn’t want someone there trying to teach math.

Overall you came across as one who would be a friend and when someone comes across that way I accept them as presented until something surfaces to the contrary.

Now it appears that you are changing your mode from friendly to unfriendly and seeking to knock me off of some imaginary pedestal that you falsely believe that I have perched myself on.

This is very disappointing as I had hopes that you would return my hand of friendship and share with us in a positive way.

As it is you have distorted me as a person and what I teach and then attacked a false strawman. Now one more time I have to set the record straight on a number of items.

First, tithing.

You say mockingly:

How many years would a sincere Tither to JJ’s Molecule Zion Organization need to Tithe in order to advance past all of his/her Ring-Pass-Nots between Boise, Idaho to reach the Biggest of the Big Kahunas of Multiverses of all Multiverses?

There is no Molecule Zion Organization and no one here is asked to or required to pay tithing to me or anyone else to qualify them to participate with us here. I am not offering any type of salvation for money.

As far as right use of money goes for the spiritual aspirant here are my views. I agree with Jesus that your heart is where your treasure is and instead of working to store up treasure on earth that only benefits self that it is advantageous to labor in the service of humanity and their progression. It is good therefore to dedicate your time, talents and excess money you may have to something you deem to be beneficial that goes beyond the desires of the lower self. Each server needs to determine who or what is to be the recipient of that energy. It could be a charity, a benevolent or spiritual organization or he could just pick out individuals to assist. Or one may work, as is Dan or Blayne, on developing projects that one thinks will help his fellow men and women. Each server must use his best judgment in making sure his donations of time, talent or money is sent on a positive and helpful direction.

The willingness to freely give of himself is one of the signs of a true servant and when a molecule is created that is one of the qualities that will help us achieve soul contact as a group, a rare thing indeed.

Secondly you say this:

I have never hid behind any “Cloths” other than my Dhoti , on occasion.

Well the trouble with your post (#74554) is that you seem to be hiding your true thoughts behind a screen of words – one moment exalting me to the perfect guru and the next warning of false gurus (like me) that are leading their group astray because they themselves are in the dark.

Now correct me if I am wrong but when we remove the curtain here is what it sounds like you are saying.

I, JJ, am a mislead guru seeking for followers and money. I am the blind leading the blind and these poor mislead Keys members are following me down to hell. They need to abandon me and seek a true guru (possibly yours?) who knows what he is doing and that can truly save them.

So, does this represent your thinking? If so then just come out and say it and quit beating around the bush. If you think I am in error then tell me where the error is in a civil manner and we can discuss it as men working in the light of day.

That said let me add this.

I have never claimed to be a guru.

I have never claimed to be infallible or that any of my teachings should be trusted any more than that of any one else – unless they are verified by a person’s soul or his own reasoning and common sense.

We do not have positions here. We are all in a classroom and a class is a place of learning and that is all.

I do not take responsibility for anyone’s salvation. That is not up to anyone outside of the person himself. If they find my teachings, or that of anyone else here useful, then fine, and if not that is fine also.

If nothing else we are having a good time exploring truth and seeking true principles.

No one here speaks for me, but me. Neither I, or the members here are perfect. We are all struggling to do our best. If you treat others here with respect you will generally be respected in return.

You seem to believe you have found a perfect guru that can save us. Okay, fine, you have told us about him and if anyone wants to follow him that is fine. The Brown brothers also offer their brand of salvation and if anyone wants to follow them then more power to them.

BUT – this is a classroom where people come to learn what I have to teach as well as share with each other. We are staying with the class agenda and will only divert temporarily to other subjects that are not of general class interest.

We look at other teachers and teachings from time to time and discuss their pros and cons. Sometimes a member will move on to another group and we wish him well. Each has to follow the path of their own soul and we support this.

In the meantime the agenda here is the discovery of true principles. If you or anyone else has one they want to explore then put forward your suggestions for class discussion. Otherwise, after distractions have passed, I will lead the class to the next one to learn.

***

Clay:

No that is the Randian Objetivist ideal society. Oh wait we already have that. Never mind.

JJ

We were not close to Ayn Rand’s vision of the ideal society when she was alive and much further away now for we have taken a number of steps away from her view toward the Marx’s view.

My ideal is somewhat different than hers but hers is much better than what we have today. It is too bad it has never been tried (as has Marxism) so we could have an accurate contrast.

***

Jim:

Thanks for your explanations. I never unfriended you. Hope likewise? Friends never tell friends what only what they like to hear. They tell each other the truth,…..as they see it. If they see each other sinking in Quick Sand, they will quickly offer a hand to pull each other out even at the possibility of being pulled in them selves.

JJ

If you were trying to tell me some truth about myself then you were far from clear as I had to read your long post several times to figure out what you were trying to say. If you disagree with me or think I am astray then just come out and plainly say it, but when you do explain the reasons why rather than just making veiled accusations.

I am glad you still consider me a friend as my friendship is always extended if reciprocated.

***

Clay:

JJ I always believe that any ideological belief system is not fit for all problems. Capitalism does some things incredibly well, others things not so much. Socialism does some things well, in others areas not so much. You can not fix every problem with a hammer, nor can you fix every problem with a screwdriver. It is about find ing the right tool for the objective at hand. Rand prescribes one tool for all problems, Socialist another. They are both right for some areas and completely wrong in others. As a friend a mine likes to say, the Bird requires both wings in order to fly, if it becomes unbalanced, it falls to the ground. Wisest statement I have ever heard.

JJ

I basically agree with you and my solutions are a combination of both systems (but without the use of force). One problem we have in seeing the whole is we have good examples of socialism and Marxism, but none where Rand’s philosophy or pure capitalism prevailed. All most of the public have in their minds are demonized strawmen.

***

Larry:

Consensual Sex vs Rape is the primary example: obviously beautiful with consent but one of the most heinous crimes when consent is missing.

JJ

Great point Larry. Even so, some social ideals of sharing are very virtuous and beneficial when supported by the free will of the people so one can freely enter into or withdraw, but becomes a great evil when enforced against majority will by force. It then becomes social rape – something very repulsive to its victims.

This is why capitalism, even though it appeals to self interest, is a lesser negative in today’s world. It doesn’t have the direct power of government force to implement its desires and force us to buy its brand of hamburger or cars.

I do not think we disagreed on the principle behind natural rights. I recall that the only controversy was the way I defined the term. A disagreement of a definition is much different than a disagreement in how a principle is carried out. It is often no disagreement at all.

 

April 18, 2015

Mind Boggling Questions

Adam:

I’ve consolidated and edited my previous questions, as well as a couple of additional thoughts/questions, if you feel inclined. Thanks.

JJ

You are doing the right thing here. If I seem to overlook a question, then just ask again. Actually I didn’t forget and was about to get back to you.

Adam:

1. Is our present Universe once, twice, ten, or a gazillion times removed from the ultimate Multiverse-Alpha/Omega? Or is this unknowable/unknown at this time?

JJ

Our universe is merely a sub atomic particle in as yet an unorganized Universe of Eight. Some science fiction writers and philosophers have guessed that we may be a particle in greater organized universe and may be part of a pimple on some guy’s nose, for example. This is not the case as the greater universe is as yet unorganized. This universe built on the foundation of seven rays is where the organizing power of God is focused on the physical plane.

So in answer to your question the greater universes to come are a gazillion times greater. I wouldn’t use the word “removed” however.

JJ stated:

In other dimensions there are more universes still and the multi dimension universes are unusually called the multiverse. Many believe there to be an infinite number, but I tend to believe they are twelve or less.

2. This loses me slightly. Can you maybe clarify? I hate to be using my idea of dimension and Multiverse, if you mean something quite different.

JJ

This universe and dimension consists of 49 planes known to the masters and seven of which are in the Cosmic Physical which concerns us. There may be more but there is enough to discover in these 49 planes to keep even the Christ occupied for an eternity.

In addition to this dimension containing these 49 planes there are other dimensions. How many we know not but there are a handful of out of body travelers as well as specialists in the spirit world who have learned to travel to different dimensions.

There is a widely accepted new age belief that there is a different dimension for every possible decision to play out. For instance, in another dimension you would have married someone else and Romney would be president instead of Obama.

The reason some believe this is that thoughts do create things and when powerful decision points are reached thoughtforms are created around them. In the spirit world one can tune into these thoughtforms and see what would have been the result if a different path were taken. This is a much different thing than a different universe, yet because some psychics pick up on these thoughtforms they conclude that there is an infinite number of universes where you wound up marrying every girl you liked and following every decision you can imagine. In reality we just live in this one universe, but where all possibilities can be explored.

Adam:

3. Joseph communed with the Alpha point (Eleven), which is the same “entity” as the indwelling “entity” of our Universe. We understand this “entity” to be the One God. If Joseph could have communed with the indwelling entity of the Multiverse, I assume IT would be the same “entity” as the other Alpha points below?

JJ

The greater universes to come are as ye unorganized and thus a vehicle for the incarnation of any life is as yet not available. The Greater Life is just getting started in handling incarnation in this physical universe.

 

April 19, 2015

Essence of the One God

Adam:

What I had hoped to clarify is that the ESSENCE of the One God of our Universe is, in fact, the ESSENCE of the One God of All that Is and will ever Be?

JJ

As usual it is best to go to the core principle for understanding, but because we are talking about the second greatest mystery it takes a little stretching of the consciousness to grasp.

Each atom, human or even universe contains the whole of the life of God and yet is a part. The tiniest particle contains the intelligence and life of God as it has evolved in this system of creation. This life which has achieved relative perfection in the microcosm is seeking for even greater perfection in the macrocosm. As it expresses itself through an atom, you or a universe it finds that it can manifest greater and greater parts of itself while still incorporating the whole as potential.

You are a more complete manifestation than the atom and the universe, when mature, will be a much greater one than you. Even so, the life of the universe is far from representing the completeness of God. The life from the universe of Eleven will not completely manifest in this Universe of Seven, as this universe is limited compared to what is to come. Much greater and more complete manifestations are yet to come in the universe of universes, but that is so distant it is not productive to speculate on it for all the lives of God pertaining to us are now centered on this universe and this is where the highest manifestation of God can be looked for on a physical level.

The most complete life of God from universes past has not yet caught up (on the physical plane) to its highest point from the past in this universe, but is gaining new intelligence as it ascends. The life of God in the macrocosm is the same life as in the microcosm, but just in the process of moving toward its projected aim.

***

Dan:

Okay, I’ll bite 🙂 If that’s the SECOND greatest mystery, what’s the FIRST ?

JJ

Yeah, I might as well of put out this question with big neon letters: “What is the greatest mystery?” Well, I have written about it a number of times so let us throw out the question again to see who was paying attention. What is it?

***

Adam:

The greatest mystery is why and how anything exists at all.

JJ

Yes, when you think about it that is indeed the greatest mystery of all. Why is there anything in existence, you, me, God, a planet etc? As I have said before, even if there was just one rock that was in existence it would be a marvelous thing. The fact that we are all here, illusion or not, is wondrous indeed. We are just fortunate that all there is, Divine Space, decided to be.

***

LWK:

The problem is that Socialism is all about using force. If it doesn’t use force, then it is not Socialism. Then it is about morality (helping others voluntarily) vs being forced to do what others consider to be moral.

That is where JJ misses the boat, in principle.

JJ

Whether or not I missed the boat depends on how one defines socialism. If you define it as collective efforts that use force then it would seem that I am missing something. But if you include collective efforts that are voluntary then I have not missed the point for I do include voluntary collective efforts in my use of the word unless otherwise noted.

This illustrates why it is always important to understand which definition a person is using with various words. Usually, the context will reveal it, but not always.

The word socialism is a tricky one as it is used with several dozen different applications.

In my view any use of socialism should be voluntary. That way we can see what works and what doesn’t and discard that which is hurtful.

***

There can be social collectives where you can all pool your resources, yet maintain the option to voluntarily withdraw yourself and your assets if you should become dissatisfied. There have been 40 different recognized definitions of socialism. Here is a quote from one of my articles on it.

Why is it that ideologues are all over the map in their discussions of socialism? The problem was pointed out in the introduction of the Historical Dictionary of Socialism by Peter Lamb & J. C. Docherty – 2006

Hide message history

“Despite its importance in history since the early nineteenth century, socialism eludes simple definition… As G. D. H. Cole suggested in the first volume of his monumental History of Socialist Thought (1953), the early socialists opposed the individualism that had come to dominate modern thinking and stressed that human relations had an essential social element that needed to be emphasized. Then, as now, there was no single agreed-upon definition of what socialism actually was. Variety has always been an outstanding feature of socialism. In his Dictionary of Socialism (1924), Angelo S. Rappoport listed forty definitions of socialism.”

Read more HERE

 

 

April 19, 2015

The Abortion Question

Olivia:

As one who has chosen to abort myself, I can say that it is something that stays with you for the rest of your life.

If we did not understand the full implications then, we certainly have more of an understanding of that now.

In my opinion unless you have been faced with that decision as a pregnant women in extremely difficult circumstances everything else is a judgment call with out informed experience to reach your conclusion.

JJ

Every action has consequences and for many females like you and Ruth, I’m sure the decision was a terrible one to make, one that men often do not have to face. Abortion, especially in the first trimester is nothing on par with murdering a fully developed human being. The soul does not even enter the body and often hasn’t even committed to it until after about five months. With the over population we have on the earth at present there will be plenty of opportunity for all who are willing to seek birth opportunities.

But let us suppose one did abort a baby who was designated by a soul. What would be the repercussions?

To understand just imagine how you would feel if you had picked a mother and she aborted you for reasons that seemed justified to her. Then compare that to how you would feel if you were an adult, having invested 30 years into your life, having family responsibilities with things looking great and some guy kills you because he hates your guts.

The second person with a much greater investment in his life  has much more to lose and the one taking such a life would suffer much more karma. The aborted baby can often find another mother quickly and not suffer much of a loss.

In fact souls generally know which mothers will abort their babies and usually they are not even designated to such fetuses. Why would a soul attach itself to a fetus that he knows is going to be aborted?

Again the key to understanding is the use of judgment. Each situation is different. Abortion is not the same as murdering an innocent breathing person and murdering an innocent living person is much different than killing a thug in self defense. We will all be weighed and judged according to the circumstances we are under and the main judge will be ourselves through the eyes of our own souls.

April 20, 2014

Cause of Existence

Adam:

The only problem with this question is that it demands a REAL answer, at some point, else life is so precarious as to be absolutely meaningless and purposeless. And without meaning and purpose, I can see no reason or possibility for existence. Existence demands meaning and purpose. Existence itself would seem to guarantee an explanation for its own reality. Accepting big questions as unanswerable is practical in a given moment in time, but from a larger point of view, it is also supremely lazy, defeatist, and counterintuitive to the principle of life itself, IMO. All should be knowable in due course.

JJ

I touch on the answer in my next book. Here is the link to the chapter.

In addition to this the reason all things exist is quite simple. That which is eternal is the interplay of Yin and Yang. There is always duality of some kind whether we are talking about form or in subtle levels of formlessness. Their eternal interplay creates intelligence and universal intelligence is God. The intelligence of God then manifests purpose and the intelligently projected purpose creates all things.

 

April21, 2015

Cause and Effect

JJ:

I touch on the answer in my next book. Here is the link to the chapter.

“All things created from form have a beginning and end whether it be a galaxy, a sun, a planet, the human body, a cell or an atom. Intelligence, which is the essence of God and man has no form but merely uses form. That which is formless does not exist in time and is therefore eternal with no beginning and end. Thus the formless intelligence of God has no beginning because it does not exist in time.”

Adam:

I realize that the bolded sentence has been taught a lot here and elsewhere, and I certainly want to buy into it. But, I’m not sure that I can square it, given the account of Joseph’s journey into the microcosm.

JJ

The Grand Tour in my book only concerns the physical universe which is indeed complex and majestic enough for most. Time and space rule here in both the macrocosm and the microcosm. The higher planes and the formless worlds were not even touched upon in the book. It is here where we incarnate into space and time as we understand it.

Adam

Is it fair to say that while perhaps we can’t know for certain, right now, either the 3 is the first Singularity point of creation, not created from prior Universes and singularities, OR at least the 3 contains the eventual true Alpha particle not dependent upon a prior Singularity/Universe?

JJ

No one knows for sure the true beginnings of physical creation which was long before this universe began. But remember we are talking about physical reality, not the formless worlds from whence all things came.

Adam

In either case, that is the only point that I can see where we might arrive at true formlessness.

JJ

We do not arrive at formlessness by exploring this physical reality, but ascending to planes beyond it. We start this process by seeking soul contact and pulling down principles that are from the higher planes.

Keep in mind that which is called formless is not “no thing” for intelligence always exists in all spheres and intelligence can imagine forms which will later become physical.

JJ:

In addition to this the reason all things exist is quite simple.

Adam:

Good gravy! You’re kidding, right? 🙂

JJ:

That which is eternal is the interplay of Yin and Yang. There is always duality of some kind whether we are talking about form or in subtle levels of formlessness. Their eternal interplay creates intelligence and universal intelligence is God. The intelligence of God then manifests purpose and the intelligently projected purpose creates all things.

Adam:

I’ll have to ponder this long and hard. Are you saying that these answers actually are THE answers to the mystery of “why and how does anything exist?” I can see that you are describing the creative process of variations of existence. But I can’t see how it explains the fact the intelligence or Yin and Yang or Duality even exist in the first place.

JJ

Intelligence and life could not exist first. Therefore there was no purpose behind existence itself. Existence just IS. There is no purpose to it.

BUT

Beyond time existed the polarities, cause and effect, inbreathing and outbreathing, yin and yang, etc. There was no first cause. There has always been cause and effect and this just exists with or without purpose. They have been without beginning and their interplay created intelligence and life and intelligent life created all things and infused them with purpose. Because of the three we have purpose and meaning, but cause and effect just existed. Intelligence directing it creates purpose.

Cause and effect, Intelligence, and Life have always been and will always be, but purpose and meaning comes from the three working together.

 

April 22, 2015

The God of the Old Testament

Clay wanted me to comment on his views that Jehovah seems to be a cruel God that doesn’t deserve to be worshipped. He says:

“If any other God acted in such a way we would justifiably condemn it, just as we do for Allah in the Koran. But because we have all been so brainwashed as children we do not just make the very obvious conclusion, the “Abba” of Yeshua is not the YHVH of the Israelites and the Jews of Yeshua’s day absolutely knew it.”

Actually your thoughts on this agree with Madame Blavatsky. She gave an interesting interpretation of this scripture:

John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The orthodox interpretation of this is that Jesus accused the Jews of having the devil as their father because they had evil thoughts and rejected him, but Blavatsky gives a different twist.

She says that the acknowledged father of the Jewish leaders was Jehovah of the Old Testament and this was who Jesus identified as being the devil, or adversary.

Here is my view of the situation. Moses did penetrate the veil and received divine revelation, but the vision he saw was way beyond the consciousness of the people who wanted to revert back to worshipping the golden calf. He therefore developed two sets of teachings. The higher he taught to a select few who he thought may be able to appreciate them and the lower he gave to the people. Some he gave out directly to them but mostly they were given out by those he personally taught.

Moses did not give out laws and commandments that represented a cruel God, but he did have to step down his teachings as the people he worked with were primitive in thinking when compared to the people of today.

Jesus had this same problem in his day. For instance, he made no effort to free the slaves in his day because the consciousness of the people just was not prepared to do anything about it.

Even so, Moses had to plow with the horses he had and taught the people the highest they could receive. I believe he felt kind of discouraged near the end of his life in how little he was able to raise the people up.

Within a generation or two after Moses departed his teachings became corrupted and carnal men assumed leadership. Most of the prophets and priests after Moses controlled the people who thought they were receiving revelation from God as did Moses but were really receiving revelation from the lower group soul essence of the people. This produced a group consciousness that spoke to the priests and gave them teachings that seemed right to them, but were not of a high spiritual nature. This God of human creation was the adversary spoken of by Jesus. It is the outward God that always takes the place of the inner God that speaks from the higher realms.

This carnal god gave them the commandments of animal sacrifice and told them not only to go to war, but to kill men women and children of their enemies.

They also rewrote some of the history to suite their altered teachings.

This corruption was to be expected, but even though the revelations seems cruel and primitive the Jews were still a cut above most of their neighbors in righteousness. At least they did not sacrifice their children to their god as did many other people of that era to their gods. And when they conquered a people they either enslaved them or killed them quickly, whereas many people of that era delighted in torturing their enemies to a slow painfully prolonged death.

From Moses to Christ a number of true prophets did surface such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Amos, and a few others. These attained true spiritual contact and usually they were rejected by the leadership and the people.

Jesus indeed spoke truly when he said:

Matt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Matt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Matt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Up to now it has always been the case that only a very few are willing to listen to true words of light and love, but this is beginning to change. Today more people than ever before in recorded history are in touch with the voice of the soul and truly hunger after truth and seek for true brotherhood.

Hopefully each of us can do or part to speed the process.

 

April 23, 2015

Freedom and Selfishness.

Clay wrote me a couple emails and my response to them may be of interest to readers here. I’m posting this with his permission.

Clay:

I think that anything that encourages our sense of selfishness, and encourages our separation from each other and feeds our desires to accumulate more and more stuff, and then protect all our stuff is definitely not a benevolent or useful ideology in the spiritual quest. I honestly could care less about my “private property” or my tax rate as I don’t really view any of this as mine anyway. It is all on loan from god and I am prepared to give it all up the moment he desires. Rand encourages us to cling tightly to our attachments and our possessions and establishes materialism as our soul basis as identity and I think she promotes an incredibly dangerous ideology. At least she was honest about her despising Christian values and all mystical and religious institutions, so I am truly disturbed that so called “christian groups” and spiritual seekers have latched onto Rand. Spiritual Satanist and those of Anton Levay’s Church of Satan have been long time advocates of Objectivism and it disturbs the heck out of me that Objectivism has infilitrated mainstream christianity. Satanist love this stuff, I suggest you look it up.

Sarah plans on giving them a read when she gets some free time. She actually keeps asking me about your books which is rare for her as I read books constantly and she rarely asks me what I think of them.

JJ

I view the support of taking away freedom of others as much much worse than selfishness for about 99.9% of the people have some degree of selfishness – much higher than those who support the tyranny of taking away freedom so they can support their own little wills.

Rand put too much emphasis on selfishness, but to her credit puts emphasis more in the aspect of self interest than greed, two entirely different things. We are told that even Jesus was acting in self interest when he went to the cross. The important thing is she did support individual freedom of choice which is the main point of demarcation between light and dark. To act to take away freedom is the ultimate act of selfishness. To enslave another to get what one wants in extremely selfish – even if it is for an apparently unselfish ideology. This she was unselfishly against unlike those who follow the dark path as the Satanists you mention. It takes a love for your brother and a degree of unselfishness to advocate as much freedom for your neighbor as you do for yourself, for the truly selfish person is happy to take away the freedom of another if it benefits him or his mindset.

Clay

JJ have you ever read the political and social theoritst John Rawls? I truly believe that Rawls proposes the only fair and equitable organization of society and it has nothing to do with taking away freedoms of others.

JJ

I haven’t heard of him until now, but did read some of his material today and so far the only thing I get out of it is that he advocates fairness and justice in society, but doesn’t even clarify what they are or how they are to be implemented.

Does he desire his ideas be implemented by force for the whole nation or does he want to start with voluntary groups to see if his ideas work first?

I have no problem with social experiments if they are established through free will. Then if they are not satisfactory the participants can withdraw any time they choose.

He wrote most of his ideas over 40 years ago. Have any of them been tested?

Clay:

What you and others are failing to realize that our entire society was founded upon taking away the freedom of others and that freedom is far from equally distributed in this country.

JJ

Are you joking? When this country was established it was the freest nation on the face of the earth and outside of slavery, much freer than it is now.

Freedom is not a commodity that is distributed. Goods and services are distributed. Freedom comes through non interference in the will of the individual and the people.

Clay:

Please be patient with me and at least read my following example, also I did not come up with this example, a friend of mine who is working on his masters in economics told me about it. The professor had 5 student play a game of monopoly and normally each player starts out with $1500 to begin the game. What the professor did though was have each player start out with a different amount of money. The first player received $6000 dollars, the second received $4500, the third player received $3000, the fourth $1500 and the fifth player received only $500. There were 4 separate groups of 5 students who played. In each and every game the winners were those who started out with $6000 or $4500 dollars, without exception. The student with only $1500 and $500 were always the first out and honestly never stood a chance of competing with those who had more. This fairly simple analogy clearly demonstrates what any child can instantly recognize. If you were to start 5 children off playing like this they would all protest loudly that this was incredibly unfair and that the ones with the least amount had almost no chance of winning. Why is it that as children we all instantly recognize how unfair such a “game” would be, but somehow as adults we try to justify the exact same system as “fair”. Just something to think about.

JJ

I do not mean to insult your friend, but that is really an illogical example. There is little correspondence between Monopoly moves and the realities of life.

Why?

Your moves in Monopoly are made by a random throw of the dice and the player has absolutely no control over what will come up and where he will land next.

In life our moves are not made by random luck, but by intelligent choice. If this Monopoly idea represented reality then no disadvantaged people would ever succeed, but many who started out poor and with big disadvantages have been wildly successful.

John D. Rockerfeller went from being a poor kid raising turkeys and selling potatoes to becoming the richest man on earth. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs came from middle class households. These and others shatter your friend’s Monopoly teaching.

Clay

John Rawls theory of social justice is based on an idea of a “pre-incarnational” constitutional system. Essentially Rawls proposes that the only “fair and equitable” system is one that would be developed before human souls incarnate in bodies. We all meet together prior to birth and in this state none of know how we will incarante. We have no idea what sex we will born as, what race, what ethnic group, whether our family will be filthy rich or dirt poor. We have no idea if we will be a genius, average, or low intelligence. We do not know if we will be born healthy or struggle with sickness our whole life, we have no idea whether we will be ambitious or lazy, sane or suffer mental illness, and so on and so forth. Only a system that all souls could agree on prior to incarnation would be a fair system that worked for the best benefit of all members, since no member would willingly chose a society when they have no idea if they might be born as the lowest member of the society. This society would be geared to granting the most equality while protecting liberty.

JJ

Actually we do choose our situation, sex and we know what our intelligence is before we were born, but do not see what this has to do with his theory.

How do you grant equality without taking away liberty? North Korea is working with this idea and anyone who disagrees gets shot.

Clay:

Our current system and the “ideal” system as Rand proposes totally lacks heart and is the worst ideas of “social darwinisn” held out as ideal all over again. I truly find Rand a monster and it has nothing to do with taking away freedoms.

JJ

Our current system does not reflect Ayn Rand’s thinking, but has moved dramatically toward your idea of fairness through redistribution.

Whereas there has never been a nation using Rand as a model there have been several using the fairness ideas as taught by Marx such as the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba and China under Mao. China has been smart enough to incorporate some free enterprise into its system and has managed to escape some of the pitfalls that plagued other Communists nations.

Clay

Rand would have no problem with children dying and starving on the street, as they were prior to social service agencies being set up.

JJ

Have you read her books? I have and see nothing that tells me you are correct here. If people are allowed maximum freedom then the poor will come out much better than becoming wards of the state.

Clsay

The poor houses, the houses for orphans and the so called “religious charities” that took care of the poor in this country prior to social services were abysmal,

JJ

You overlook the fact that the situation of most of the people in ages past was abysmal and their resources were much less than now. It would have been impossible to create a welfare program then as we have now.

Unfortunately, there is not a place on earth we can point to that has the economic and individual freedom that this country had 150 years ago. If it existed and had use of today’s technology you would see a nation of prosperous happy citizens that would be the envy of the world. Switzerland isn’t perfect, but the people there are relatively free and life there is quite good with the poor being well taken care of through free will assistance.

Clay

and Rand’s society only provides opportunities for those most able to “compete” at a high level.

JJ

You have no evidence of that whatsoever.

Clay

That is social darwinisn justified as “freedom”.

JJ

Rand was an anti-socialist and anti social engineering.

Clay:

To me that is no freedom at all, it is ego inspired greed taken as ones highest value.

JJ

If the ability to make your own decisions is not freedom then what is??? It sounds like you think freedom is being restricted from making your own choices and having some dictator who knows better make them for you. You should clarify your position here.

The greatest tyrants have always been those who thought they knew what was best for the people forcing their ideals upon them.

Clay

I will be vehemently opposed to Rand’s vision of a “just society” till my last breath

JJ

But you are ambiguous as to what it is about Rand that you do not like. Her central teaching is freedom. Are you against that? You do not like her teachings on self interest, but you also have self interest. You have an ideal that you are extremely interested in seeing materialize. Rand just thinks you should have the opportunity to make it happen as long as you do not take away the freedom of others.

Clay

and hold out Rawls vision as the only truly “equitable” system that has ever been proposed.

JJ

But how would it be implemented – by force or free will? And if it is so good why is no one trying it out on a small scale to demonstrate its veracity?

Clay:

I really hope you take a look at Rawls and his vision of the “just society”. I guarantee you, that is not a single soul in Rawls system that would agree to Rand’s system.

JJ

It sounds like Rawl would be against individual freedom then. As I said, I read quite a few of his writings today and can’t see how he could implement his ideas nationwide without the use of force and loss of freedom. I couldn’t find any suggestion from him where he advocates free choice gathering of experimental groups to prove his ideas.

Clay

We only agree to a Randian society when we are privileged from birth, whether through rich parents, a high IQ, overwhelming ambition, or good health.

JJ

I grew up about as disadvantaged as you could get and I certainly support the principle of freedom advocated by Rand. I do have social ideas that she would not agree with, but she would not prohibit me from trying them out.

Clay:

The game is rigged from the start JJ and we are sliding into Oligarchy.

JJ

What we are sliding into is totalitarianism and freedoms are being restricted by government, not business or the wealthy.

We need to reverse this trend and seek for maximum freedom over the maximum selfishness of those seeking to obtain the wealth of others by force.

There are always obstacles in life, but the deck is never stacked. There is always a way to improve your situation. Energy follows thought.

***

Force and Free Will

Clay:

Ruth plain and simple, in JJ’s world you get ZERO, count them ZERO benefits, and would be entirely reliant upon charity.

JJ

This is totally untrue. You are using the Allan approach of stating fictional accounts of what I teach rather than going to the source and accurately portraying them. As Ruth said, if I truly taught such a thing then she wouldn’t be here. And why is she here? Because she actually does her best to respond to my actual teachings.

You need to argue with what I say and teach not with what I not say and teach.

Here is your problem with understanding me. You are looking at various teachers in terms of black and white. Instead of looking at Rand as maybe having some things right and some wrong you just write her off as totally evil that must be opposed by your life’s blood.

Because I find something I like with Rand you categorize me and others as acolytes that accept her every word as gospel. Such is not the case. Most old timers here are not black and white, but synthetic, and if you are going to argue with them you need look at their actual words instead of categorizing them as totally in some evil ideological camp.

I referred you previously to my teachings that would take care of people like Ruth. Here us the reference again:

LINK

Ruth has read this and has voiced no objection to the plan. Keep in mind that this is not my vision of Zion, but a step in making this country work as it should.

The main thing I like about Rand’s teachings is her support of the principle of freedom but we do not use her writings as any handbook for building a future society.

I also do not look at those opposing Rand, such as Rawl as totally wrong without good points. More fairness and justice would be a good thing. But how to achieve it could be attempted by good or evil means. The devil is in the details.

Clay:

it absolutely no different than the Communist utopia envisioned by Karl Marx.

JJ

My ideas are much different in that Marx supported the use of force in establishing his ideals and I do not and neither did Rand. That is a huge difference.

Clay:

I would take today’s society over life 200 years ago without a second thought and if people were truly aware of social conditions back at that time, they would to.

JJ

You overlook the fact that most of the improvements in society are due to technology, not government. If we keep the improvements of civil rights and go back to the economic freedoms of the past then the country would be much better off than today.

When I compare today vs yesterday almost all of what I enjoy comes from technology, not socialist government.

Clay:

If you get a single social welfare benefit Ruth you are truly a hypocrite for subscribing to this belief structure.

JJ

To be a hypocrite you have to go against what you believe. Ruth is following her beliefs; therefore, she is not a hypocrite.

I think the Medicare system is totally wasteful and much inferior to what could be but am not a hypocrite for using it because I was forced to pay for it and believe in getting my money’s worth from my investment. I also do not think all insurance companies are totally efficient, but if I have an accident I am not a hypocrite for collecting from them. We are forced into the current system and thus have to make the best of it with as much integrity as possible.

Clay:

In order to have freedom from we also need freedom to.

JJ

As Dan says, you have it backwards. Except for our god given “freedoms to” positive freedoms are a result of having freedom from forced constraints.

Clay:

Did you know that 1% of the population controls 50% of the worlds Wealth? That leaves 99% of the world fighting for the remaining 50%!!!! How in the world are lower taxes on the wealthy supposed to help anyone? This is just monstrous to me.

JJ

You are talking about a strawman not even focused on here that would take a book to examine. But the fact is that it doesn’t hurt me if Bill Gates has billions. My concern isn’t how much someone else has, but how much freedom I have to achieve my own dreams. We are making progress as a whole. More poor people are becoming prosperous and assisted than any other time in history. Time to see the glass as half full.

Clay:

JJ this nation most definitely was not founded upon “freedom” it was founded upon freedom for a very limited group of people, upper class property owning white males.

JJ

You’re not making any sense. All people benefitted from the foundations of this country. The freedoms enunciated there even led to the freedom of the slaves and better treatment of native Americans. Your idea that only wealthy white men benefitted is crazy talk with no foundation whatsoever. Most of the problems faced by this country were in place before 1776.

Clay:

While negative liberty is usually attributed to individual agents, positive liberty is sometimes attributed to collectivities, or to individuals considered primarily as members of given collectivities.

JJ

Your illusion is you lump together all positive liberties as a good thing. Using your criteria then the South was right in fighting to keep their positive liberties. They claimed that their positive liberties (the liberty to do) brought about by the establishment of slavery which was essential for such liberties for the free man. They felt they could not be maintained without slavery.

We have the same problem today. Many believe we need to place lots of forced redistribution on, not just the wealthy, but all the producers and force them into slave labor so a few extra people can have some positive liberties.

The term positive liberties here certainly gives an erroneous projection of thought.

For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money. For thus saith the Lord GOD, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause. Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed. Isa 52:3-5

The majority certainly howl because of being forced to support all kinds of things against their will. We can attempt to establish greater fairness by force as did the old Soviet union or by free will as did the Founding Fathers. That which had the greater success is obvious.

Clay, do you really believe it is desirable to force the majority into slave labor to support the minority? Why do you really think force works better than free will?

***

Clay:

I see socialism and capitalism as both being very necessary for the efficient functioning of society. Again, I am not the one advocating a single tool for the job, capitalism.

JJ

Again, you need to read my actual writings for they do advocate the use of both of them. My main emphasis is on the principle of maximum freedom for only in a spirit of freedom can either side be tested appropriately.

It sounds like you oppose me because I am against tyranny. Perhaps this reveals a flaw in your thinking and I am sure tyranny is not your intention. But of course those who supported Castro and the revolution had no idea that they were working for the implementation of a totalitarian regime, worse than that which they toppled.

 

April 24, 2015

Slavery or Not

Clay:

I never said it was entirely just, I just find it offensive to every real person trapped in human slavery to have taxes compared to slavery. Taxation is more of a pain in the rear, but not slavery.

JJ

You are really being black and white with your view of slavery. It appears that the only definition you will accept is something that exactly describes a slave in the Old South on a plantation. This is simply not the case.

Here are three common dictionary definitions of “slavery”

(1) the practice of owning slaves

(2) work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay

(3) the state of being under the control of another person

If you have to work extra hours against your will to pay what you consider taxes to which you think are excessive then you are under the control of another entity. This fits the definition of slavery.

You can’t use the same black and white definition to fit into all circumstances.

The slaves in ancient Rome were in a different situation than those in the Old South. That certainly doesn’t mean they were not slaves.

It was common in Rome for the slave to manage his own business and pay the slave owner a tax of one third of his income and keep the rest and spend it how he wanted.

Because this was rarely the case in the South does not mean that the Roman Slaves were not slaves.

There were also slavery systems in ancient times where the slave was free to leave. Instead of leaving they stayed as servants because conditions there were better than they could secure outside of the slavery conditions. Because he could leave did not mean he was not a slave.

The current taxpayer pays over 50% of his income in taxes, when all of them are considered, so the Roman slave was able to spend more of his earnings than the current taxpayer.

No one is saying that all conditions of slavery are exactly alike as you seem to think should be the case.

But any time one is required to work or pay for something decreed by others that runs contrary to his will then we have the condition of slavery to some degree.

That doesn’t mean that all taxes are slavery. If the actual taxpayers, as a whole, feel the tax system is fair and support it with their free will then such taxes would not be slavery. Excessive taxation contrary to free will would definitely qualify. Most people would support a tax system that is not excessive and where they receive close to their money’s worth in benefits. For instance, most people are happy to pay a gasoline tax if the money is actually spent on roads.

FDR proposed a tax that exceeded 100% of income for the wealthy. Surely that would qualify as slavery conditions.

Then you say:

Sorry guys, America is your family and you just don’t like how it is being run so you want to take your toys and leave, but not really leave, because you still want all the benefits that society has produced due to effective civil government. *** If your liberty is so important, just leave.

JJ

This is a strange statement considering that you seem a lot more disgruntled with the United States than the average Keys member. You are definitely much more dissatisfied than me as you appear to hate this country which you say has an evil foundation and existence, has negative liberties and capitalism you do not like and is not socialist enough for you.

If there was a better place to go and we had the power many here would do just that. Most other countries either have high taxes or ruled by a tyrant. Somalia, as you suggest, is certainly not desirable. There is nowhere to go for those who just want to be left alone as a group, but eventually such a place will be made.

The only place I can think of that may be more desirable than the United States is Switzerland but the draw is not so great as to cause me to go to the inconvenience of pulling up stakes and moving away from my loved ones.

Instead, I am creating proposals for positive change for this country while it is still possible and have written a book on the subject called Fixing America.

If we had reform according to my proposals about the only ones who would complain would be those who want more legal theft available for their own selfish interests.

To read last years writings go HERE

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

April 2, 2015

Entering the Body

There are a lot of questions and comments in which to respond and I am short of time so I’ll just pick one subject and try and catch up later.

The group has been discussing when the soul or life enters the body so I’ll give you my views.

A soul will sometimes know who will be his mother long before the baby is even conceived and he may have a spiritual link with her. Other times he may not know who his next mother will be until a conception occurs. Sometimes at conception a link will be established but he will not enter the body. More often than not the mother is chosen by the soul some time after conception occurs, usually around six months into the pregnancy. Sometimes a choice is made and the entity finds a better opportunity and switches with someone else. This has to happen before entering the body.

Once the pregnant mother is chosen by the soul he or she can enter the body any time, but most are not interested in dong so until about six months into the pregnancy. If they go early it is to assist with the development of the body.

When the soul does enter it only partially does so. Then at birth when it takes its first breath it is anchored more firmly, but still only partially present.

There are two reasons for this.

(1) It is kind of boring to be in the womb as well being a baby and a full presence is not needed.

(2) It takes time for the soul to adjust to the body and the personality life forces which will influence him or her.

After birth the soul anchors itself more firmly and takes complete possession around the age of seven or eight.

Even here part of your soul essence (your Higher Self) remains back in the spirit world, but the full allotment of soul essence designated for a particular life is endowed around this time.

From the time of full anchoring to around the age of twenty-one the entity awakes to the level of basic consciousness and intelligence that he had in his past life.

 

April 3, 2015

The Gathered Monads

Many believe that the universe was created by God dividing Itself. Actually, the opposite is true. God expanding and multiplying, not dividing created the universe.

This truth was revealed in the symbolism of recent discoveries in astronomy. Scientists not only found that the universe was expanding, but the rate of expansion is increasing. This increase of the crate of expansion has really baffled scientists and they have no good explanation as to why it is happening. They have come up with theories of dark mater and dark energy to explain it.

When the mind of God decides to create it does so with a ever increasing rate of expansion.

Look at us humans who are made in the image of God and examine our history as creators. We are expanding this power of creation at an ever increasing rate. We’ve made more gains in the power to create in the past 200 years than in all of recorded civilization.

After the last universe ended it collapsed down to a singularity that we could call the one monad of God, or all there is. Within this monad all rested in subjective consciousness for it contained the monads of all lives that ever were from the past creation. The monads of you and I were there resting in the bosom of the Father and after a great pralaya we decided it was time to create again and to manifest new vehicles for the next great adventure.

The first thing we did was create space, not space as we know it for all that we were existed in a much higher plane than the physical. We will call this divine space for it was a vehicle to contain the creative thought of all there is. This thought was the result of all the monads in existence working as one, expanding the mind of God like a Big Bang of cosmic fire.

Within this divine space were reflected the monads of all living things that slept which now were awakening as points of light or intelligence. The points which were beyond the ability of present human consciousness to number began to merge and blend and create greater monads and the greater joined and created greater ones still until monads of potential humans and even greater potential lives began to manifest.

The One Great Life, which was a composite of all lives, then reflected on all possibilities that could manifest in all new creations. This created the plane of divine ideas which projected still downward until all planes came into manifestation, the last of which was the physical in which we now live.

Divine space reflected itself down to space on the physical plane first created by geometric points and then the manifestation of monads.

The first monadic expressions created the foundation of the atom followed by monads that created atoms. These atomic monads gathered and created greater monads until all types of ideas began to take form.

Finally, after the creation of stars and planets monads gathered and created plant life. The plant monads gathered and created animals and the animal monads gathered and created humans.

Human monads are created from many lesser monads. In turn, human monads will gather and create greater lives still until all lives join to create a manifestation in the physical realm of the One Great Monad or Life in its fullness. When this occurs the adventure of this cycle of existence will be complete.

Each of us, which are many, are a part of the One Great Life but as single individuals we not this great life. Nevertheless by sharing the consciousness of lives greater than ourselves we can experience the greater life as if we were the totality of this life.

Even so, lesser monads have joined to create the human monads which then created the projected human lives. Humans, who are in the image of God, are created from monads which are composites of many lesser monads Just as the One Great Monad is a composite of all that is within.

The creation of the universe is like the creation of many types of great music. There are many songs. Each song is like a great monad. The chorus and verses are lesser monads. Lesser still are the measures, the chords and the single notes.

A song has a beginning and end to its manifestation in physical existence but the song existed in subtle realms for an eternity before and will for an eternity after it was heard by the ears of the sons and daughters of men.

You are one of the songs of God, the creation of many parts. Play yourself harmoniously to your brothers.

 

April 4, 2015

Future Happiness

One of the big problems had by many when contemplating our future after this life and far beyond is that any description of life that is much different than we are now experiencing or want to experience may seem distasteful.

This is one of the problems people have in accepting reincarnation. Many people have had a tough life and the prospect of coming back again does not appeal to them at all. The idea of living forever in the presence of God, experiencing peace and love with no worries from then on seems appealing.

This was the case with my mother. I tried a number of times to explain reincarnation so she would understand and look forward to a future life, but no matter how I presented it she would reply something like this.

“One life is enough for me. It has been a very difficult life and I do not want to go through these things all over again.”

I explained to her that even though she may have a very peaceful existence in the spirit world that sooner or later she would want a new challenge and desire to come back. I told her that not all lives are difficult and some are very rewarding.

It didn’t matter. She rejected reincarnation mainly because she had a difficult life and felt that one life had all the lessons she needed.

We as humans dream of our future state and often formulate what we think we will be doing and experiencing in relation to what we desire at the present time rather than just being open to what it will be no matter what the truth is.

For instance, many Moslems dream of a paradise where they will have luxurious circumstances with plenty of fine food and drink and seventy virgins to serve them and fulfill their every wish. The believer doesn’t want to consider a future much different than this.

Let us examine what we do know of for sure from our limited earth experience. Think back to when you were a child or a teenager and how you dreamed your life would be . In many cases we wind up doing things we never considered when young. And some of these things tend to be quite enjoyable contrary to what we may have once thought.

Now consider how much more difficult it would be to get a correct picture of what you may enthusiastically pursue 100, 1000, one million or a billion years from now. If your far future self were to come explain to you what he is enjoying doing or experiencing it is quite possible you might be somewhat disappointed or even horrified.

The thing to keep in mind is this. This life is a part of your eternal lives and if you want to get an idea of what you will be pursuing for fulfillment in the far future then look at what you are doing now.

And what are you doing now?

Whatever you choose to do based on choices available.

And what brings you happiness?

Nothing beats the accomplishing of something that you think to be worthwhile.

And this we will continue to do in many various circumstances, forms and incarnations. We will seek to create something interesting and enjoyable. The difference will be that our capacity to achieve and enjoy that which is achieved will continually expand.

***

Jenny:

Has JJ talked about this (the virgin birth) before?

JJ

I answered this earlier but it seemed to have disappeared into the ethers.

Here is what I have taught in the past. Mary did indeed conceive of the Holy Spirit in that Joseph was overshadowed by a Divine Presence during lovemaking when Jesus was conceived. She was not a virgin as taught by the establishment.

***

The Soul and Truth

Clay:

I am just curious to why such credence is given to Blavatsky and Alice Bailey.

JJ

It is not that we give credence to any individual so much as we give credibility to teachings that are verified by the soul. Verification through the soul is the closest that regular mortals will ever get to infallibility.

Personally I get more verification through the soul from one page of DK writings through Alice A. Bailey than a thousand pages from many teachers out there that have followers jumping up and down with excitement. And you’ll find that most people who have actually read the Bailey writings and contemplated them feel the same way. Many have come on board here never having heard of Bailey and after checking out the writings have concluded that my assessment was correct.

I have read quite a few of the Upper Triad teachings mentioned a few days ago and see that they are largely based on the Bailey writings.

Now you seem reluctant to consider the Bailey writings, but do you know what you are not considering? Have you read even one entire book of the teachings?

I would recommend you start with Treatise on White Magic.

The reason her writings have so much light is they were dictated by a Master who is around 300 years old and knows whereof he speaks. I do not think the writings are infallible and still we need to run them by our souls, but they are the highest exoteric light I have personally discovered.

Blavatsky had some help but she put together her books using her own intelligence and writing style. There is a lot of truth in her writings but it has a fairly dry presentation. And she does not go into principles the way the Bailey writings do.

Clay:

I am pretty well convinced that while Blavatsky was a highly intelligent woman and an excellent synthesizer of Eastern and Western Knowledge, I think it has been quite reasonably demonstrated that she engaged in a number of fraudulent activities and her “channeled” masters were actually identifiable human beings.

JJ

She was definitely a flawed character, but when examining the teachings of any writer I go by what my soul says, not what someone says about the character of the writer. Truth is truth even if spoken by the devil himself.

On the other hand, Bailey’s character was beyond reproach. Does that mean that we should mindlessly accept her writings?

Of course not. Neither should we mindlessly reject Blavatsky.

Clay:

Similarly with the Bailey readings. We are fortunate to have a actual Tibetan Buddhist monastery where I live, which opens up to the public for certain events, and I have engaged in several discussions with some high level lamas and they assert that what Bailey and Blavatsky profess is in no way true Tibetan Buddhism and is a figment of their highly developed imaginations.

JJ

Of course they would say that. Many Tibetans are very primitive in their knowledge of the truth. Just like an orthodox Mormon will think my teachings are nothing like real Mormonism many Tibetans will think the teachings of a Master such as DK are out to lunch.

You can’t evaluate the truth of a teaching by what others think. You have to run them by your soul and see what it thinks. If nothing else run them by your own mind to see what the highest part of your personality self thinks.

Instead of categorically rejecting a teaching the best thing to do it pick a teaching and examine it. I even do this will Allan. If I just dismissed all he says because of supposed flaws then I would be dismissing the occasional time that he gets something correct.

Clay:

I just thought I would share this because while I find Blavatsky good for introducing some Eastern ideas to the west, I think she packaged them in a way that Westerners could embrace, but were really distortions of the East’s spiritual dharma.

JJ

Neither Blavatsky or Alice A. Bailey were trying to present the “East’s spiritual dharma.” They were just trying to present the additional truth regardless of what the source may be. Blavatsky said that her religion was truth. With this statement we are in agreement.

Clay:

it seems that many people want to adhere to these new teachings just as dogmatically as the religions they left behind.

JJ

Are you saying that the people here are dogmatic about their beliefs but you are not about yours? I do not see such a superior detachment from dogmatism for you to make such a judgment.

The best way to free oneself from dogmatism is to follow the guidance of the soul wherever it leads. That is what most of the group is attempting to do.

Clay:

I think all teachings need to focus more on personal development and practical methods of development than discussing improvable, and ultimately irrelevant complicated metaphysical systems.

JJ

We are not into personal development that involves me or anyone else set up step by step instructions telling the group what to do next. That has the potential for a beastly type authority. I have given out a lot of information on the principles behind soul contact which is by far the most important step to take. We are into the discovery of principles and how they work and lead us to truth. When new principles are discovered through the soul then personal development will come naturally for the seeker will know what to do.

There are plenty of personal development programs out there for those who are interested. There is no sense in reinventing the wheel. We are moving on to new types of wheels not presented before in wholeness.

Clay:

Forever does not exist, forever is everlasting time, time does not exist, it is a construct of the human mind, there truly only is an Infinite Now.

JJ

So, are you saying that for the billions of years that there was no human on this planet that there was no time? If there was no time then there was no earth. If there was no earth then where did the pre-human rocks come from that are billions of years old?

Now if you would have said that the registration of time by humans is a construct of the human mind you would be correct.

Clay:

Time as passing only exist upon reflection, which is an abstraction from experience. Time is a thought, it does not “exist”. When have you ever experienced “the past”, when have you ever experienced “the future”.

JJ

You are playing word games here that do not represent reality. For one thing, we in human consciousness never see the true present. We are always a portion of a second behind the present in registration so we see only the past. No one has ever seen anything on earth in true present time.

Look around you. We not only see the past but all things we see are were created in the past showing that the past was a true reality that occurred.

You said you didn’t want to talk about things we could not prove yet you cannot probe that time does not exist.

Clay:

Time is a thought, reality is current experience which is infinite, beyond time, without time.

JJ

On the contrary, my friend. There is no experience without time. Time creates experience.

There are three worlds of form and where there is form there is movement and where there is movement there is time. Time is the registration of movement. If every particle in the universe stood still and did not move the universe would disappear and there would be no registration of time and no universe. Time is not only the registration of the movement of form but also the movement of consciousness. If your consciousness has moved from one state to another or one thought to another then time has been registered.

In some of the higher and subtle states of being the passage of time is not registered and some who touch upon this state feel that time doesn’t really exist. This is not quite correct. When divorced from time, time still exists in the worlds of form. Just because you cannot see the squirrel at your door does not mean the squirrel does not exist, and the fact that your consciousness may be divorced from the registration of time does not mean that time does not exist.

We incarnate in and out of time just as we incarnate in and out of various bodies. But while out of the body or time, bodies and time still exist.

 

April 5, 2015

Question

Jenny:

Thank you for your answers. I have the same question as below, “why was there needed an overshadowing? Couldn’t the father have done so any time with Jesus individually?

JJ

I remember the exact moment my firstborn son was conceived. It indeed felt like I was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. He’s a great kid, but he is no master or Jesus. I can only imagine what it would have felt like at the moment of the conception of Jesus.

It is quite possible that the Holy Spirit that overshadowed both Joseph and Mary was Jesus or the Christ to make sure the conception got off to a good start to insure that Jesus would have a physical body with the balance necessary to permit the spiritual flow for his mission.

***

Good common sense comments Clay. Here is a scripture giving more evidence to the fact that Jesus was not a black and white Ebonite:

For neither did his brethren believe in him. John 7:5

Now James was famous for being a strict Ebonite and it is quite possible that James and brothers did not believe in Jesus when he was with them because he did not go along with the belief system.

April 6, 2015

The Logos of a System

Cornall:

I believe I heard you refer to the heart, as the place the animal resides in the human monad. Does this have a relation to the heart chakra? If so what form of entities reside in the other six to form the composite?

JJ

All the seven chakras are lives unto themselves but of a different type of consciousness than the human. In addition each of the twelve petals of the heart center is composed of a deva life or lives of differing qualities combining as a whole to make a greater life.

The heart, the throat, the solar plexus, the sacral and the base centers are all vehicles in which the animal, the plant and mineral parts of ourselves incarnate along with us and share our consciousness. Each different body we receive has a different assortment of lower lives. Keep in mind we simultaneously exist in three worlds of form (physical, emotional and mental) and each of them are composites of numerous lower lives.

The Ajna center between the eyebrows and the crown centers are linked to high deva (angelic) lives and other lives higher than human. When these two centers open the individual becomes more than human and opens the door to the kingdom of God,

The heart center has a reflection of itself in the crown center and thus becomes the bridge between our animal nature and our Divine Nature.

Cornall:

Recently I was reviewing the book Eternal Words. Looking at a section I found to be my favorite in the series. The part I refer to is the communion with the ancient of days. There is a point in the journey where it appears to relay information saying to the effect, that there is no gathering of intelligence ready to take on the incarnation of a galaxy. that an intelligence at the helm of a series of 7 solar systems (or constellations i have forgotten and don’t have the book handy) is the highest we have yet. Then only a few pages after this, he is able to have a conversation with the universe. This seemed somewhat contradictory to me. I assume I either misread something, or have a lack of understanding on what is meant.

JJ

Good question. The confusion comes because there are two different lives who are referred to as the Logos of a system. For instance, Sanat Kumara, the Ancient of Days, is often referred to as the Planetary Logos, but technically he is not. Instead, he is the representative of the Planetary Logos. He is an advanced human whose consciousness has gone way beyond human. He with total awareness shares in the consciousness of the whole planet which includes all life understood by us, and much more.

The actual Planetary Logos is the life of the earth itself and as a life which has incarnated into an entire planet it has not progressed nearly as far on its level as the Ancient of Days has on his. When the Logos of the earth reaches the end of its evolution then it will be a much higher life than the advanced humans here.

The same goes for the Solar Logos. Its representative is much further along the path than is the Ancient of Days, but the life experiencing physical incarnation as a solar system is not so far along.

In this universe as advanced humans move forward seeking to encompass greater systems with their consciousness fewer and fewer are able to take the job as a representative. The highest logos representative known is called THE ONE ABOUT WHOM NAUGHT CAN BE SAID and is the representative of the Logos of seven groups of solar systems.

The Higher up we go the younger is the indwelling Logos and the Universe is just a child in its evolution and without a conscious representative to speak for it – for as yet there is no one to speak to.

Now these great Logi also have Higher Selves and on higher planes are much more advanced than is the part of their self that is in physical incarnation. If you were to communicating with the higher self of the universe you would be speaking with one of incredible light compared to the part of itself that is in physical incarnation.

***

Keith writes:

Now, we find that galaxies have neither an indwelling intelligence or an intelligent representative mentoring from above.

JJ

If you think this you misunderstood what I wrote which was:

In each major body, whether it is a planet, a star system or a group of systems, there are two life forces at work. The first is the indwelling entity, which is awakening in consciousness, and the second is one who has already attained a high state of consciousness. This is one who has passed through the human kingdom.” (technically this applies up to the seven constellations for representative Logos )

Any combinations higher than seven constellations have incomplete governments that are in the process of formation. There is no single Logos over the galaxy, but there are various groups of great beings who seek to guide the galaxy as a whole toward an intelligent design.” (From Eternal Words)

The reference to “no single logos” was referring to a governing representative such as the Ancient of Days not the entity incarnated into the system.

All matter and groups of matter has indwelling intelligence and I have never taught anything to the contrary.

I’ll tell you… these people who come on this forum for a short time and accuse members of mindlessly accepting what I say don’t have a clue to the real truth. If something doesn’t make sense, even to my strongest supporters, then I will definitely be challenged.

 

April 7, 2015

Right Use of Money

Clay writes:

I do admit to asceticism as that is the path that has been advocated by every great spiritual teacher for the last 2000 years. Not a single one has ever said make sure you have a diversified stock portfolio for retirement. My favorite anecdote is when Alexander the Great went to Diogenes:

Thereupon many statesmen and philosophers came to Alexander with their congratulations, and he expected that Diogenes of Sinope also, who was tarrying in Corinth, would do likewise. But since that philosopher took not the slightest notice of Alexander, and continued to enjoy his leisure in the suburb Craneion, Alexander went in person to see him; and he found him lying in the sun. Diogenes raised himself up a little when he saw so many people coming towards him, and fixed his eyes upon Alexander. And when that monarch addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, “Yes,” said Diogenes, “stand a little out of my sun.” It is said that Alexander was so struck by this, and admired so much the haughtiness and grandeur of the man who had nothing but scorn for him, that he said to his followers, who were laughing and jesting about the philosopher as they went away, “But truly, if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes.”

JJ

It appears that if we judge by your standards of good and evil that Diogenes was a pretty evil Dude. After all, it seems that sunlight was pretty important to the desires of his lower nature and he wasn’t willing to share it. If we substituted money for sunlight as something to which he was attached you would definitely condemn him.

Alexander saw that he was “haughty” as he undoubtedly reminded him of himself who many thought to be haughty. Now there are those who see that characteristic as being evil. Should we reject then all the words of Diogenes as being mixed in with the black arts if our personalities do not like haughtiness?

That said let us look at your logic here. You say:

Blayne I never said Money was evil, we just should never use our spiritual faculties to “manifest money” in our lives for any purpose. Ever.

JJ

Why in Gods green earth would you think such a thing? There is nothing in the scriptures to support this idea or in any teaching with any light in it.

Now you make money as an attorney. And how do you do this? You use your spiritual faculties to do your job and thereby manifest money so you can take care of your needs. Which spiritual faculties you ask? Several.

(1) Your life force itself. Life is a very spiritual gift.

(2) Logic, reason and the quest for truth by the mind. Again, the mind put to such use is a spiritual faculty.

(3) Your heart is dedicated to assisting people through law which in the end provides money for income. The good heart is indeed a spiritual faculty.

Now you’re probably thinking something like: “I’m talking about higher spiritual power.”

Well we’re talking about using meditation and what is that, but thought and visualization? Every businessman who seeks to make money with his business puts a lot of contemplative thought and visualization into his work to make it successful in making money to feed his family. The businessman using thought and visualization is using the same powers as the guy using them in meditation. Are they both evil if they seek for money for unselfish purposes? Is unselfishness evil in your mind? If that is evil then what is selfishness? That must be the good then.

When Jesus and Peter were in arrears with taxes Jesus used his supernatural powers to guide Peter to catch a fish with enough money in its mouth to pay the tax. Was Jesus practicing black magic here? This was for a more selfish purpose than anything DK advises. He has never told people to meditate to get money to pay their taxes.

Then Jesus used his powers to create enough fish and bread to feed 5000 people. That must have been worth over $20,000. That was as good as making money fall out of thin air.

What is the difference between procuring food with money or a spiritual gift? The end result is the same and people get fed.

If you are starving and someone gives you money to buy food do you not appreciate it just as you would if he materialized food for you out of thin air?

Clay:

You can absolutely ask God to help you use your talents to the best of your ability and money will come or it won’t, but one should never, ever, attempt to use our spirit to manifest money, even for the “best of causes”.

JJ

This may be the way you feel but there is no reasoning behind the feelings.

And why do you feel this way? Is it because your mind has been programmed to think that money is evil? If so, detach yourself from the program and look at the idea objectively in the light of truth.

Money, like any source of power, is not good or evil. Any power can be directed toward good or evil depending on the intention of the one wielding it.

Clay

These teachings are very difficult for the typical American capitalist to accept, and again, I am not saying throw away money, or ignore money, just don’t focus on it, especially as part of ones spiritual practice.

JJ

You say we should not ignore money. If we do not ignore it then some focus is required at times. No one is saying that making money for personal use should be the center of any teaching. There is a huge difference between focusing on making money for which to do good and making it for accumulating material things.

Clay:

If you can find a spiritual master from over 100 years ago who advocated doing this I am all ears,

JJ

Is Jesus a good enough reference for you? DK, who you are criticizing, was advocating that we use our resources to transfer the power of money from those who are trapped in the forces of materialism to the workers in light and love for he betterment of mankind.

Jesus was advocating the same thing. He told those who were attached to money and materialism to do good unselfish things with their money. He tried to get money directed away from the material to he spiritual.

Clay:

but this is a practice is only prevalent in certain New Age teachings which I truly believe are perversions and distortions of the great spiritual dharma of the past.

JJ

You are mixing up what DK has taught with the prosperity consciousness of some Christians and New Agers. This is apples and oranges.

If you are going you argue with us you need to represent the truth rather than a distorted straw man.

Clay

You can not serve God and Mammon, end of story.

JJ

Neither DK or myself have come close to advocating the service of mammon. If you have read anything at all of the Alice A. Bailey writings or my own you have to know this. Are you paying attention?

Clay:

You will not find manifesting money in Buddhism…

JJ

When Buddha was hungry he went door to door with his bowl begging for rice. Those who gave him rice had to buy it with money. So begging for rice was the equivalent of begging for money and if you are begging for money or what money can buy you are putting attention on manifesting mammon.

Clay:

I truly believe that these teachings have been developed by the darker forces in order to lead advanced souls astray and back into the materialism that binds us. The teachings come across as benign, I will use the money for a good purpose, money is energy to be used for good or evil, etc, these are very recent teachings that are very comfortable for us and play into our inherent materialism and egotism so naturally we readily accept them and even embrace them as an essential part of spiritual practice. Yay I get to be spritual and live like a King, money is just energy!!!

JJ

You are a million miles from representing the teachings of DK correctly. Obviously you have read nothing but a few selected quotes for you know not wereof you speak.

He never speaks of obtaining money to live like a king or for the sake of the ego. He does correctly say that money is used currently to further the cause of materialism and the use of this power in this direction needs to be shifted toward spiritual purposes.

Do you really disagree with this? What person on the spiritual path would?

Let us look at DK’s words that you think is so sinister.

(1) He says that the spiritual work requires money just as does the material side. If you do not think that is true then I have a bridge to sell you cheap.

(2) He emphasized using money for giving saying, “to those who give shall be given.”

(3) Here is the core message of the prayer he advises:

O Thou in Whom we live and move and have our being, the Power that can make all things new, turn to spiritual purposes the money in the world; touch the hearts of men everywhere so that they may give to the work of the Hierarchy (the work of Christ) that which has hitherto been given to material satisfaction.

I would think one would be fulfilling the words of Isaiah about calling good evil to find fault with that.

In all the Bailey writings DK never says anything that encourages focus on materialism or accumulation of money for any more than personal needs.

Here are a couple things he does say:

Release the hidden beauty which lies in real self-forgetfulness, and let your devotion (tried and proved) and your sincerity stabilise your group. Be not preoccupied with the non-essentials of personal living. Be generous of yourself and time, and give to your group brothers with a clear impersonality which asks nothing for the separated self.

May the Holy Ones Whose pupils we aspire to become so strengthen us that we may give ourselves without reserve, seeking nothing, asking nothing, hoping nothing for the separated self; may we be content to be in the light or in the dark, to be active or passive, to work or to wait, to speak or to be silent, to take praise or reproach, to feel sorrow or joy our only wish to be what They need as instruments for Their mighty work, and to fill whatever post is vacant in Their household.

I am one with my group brothers, and all that I have is theirs.

May the love which is in my soul pour forth to them.

May the strength which is in me lift and aid them.

May the thoughts which my soul creates reach and encourage them.”

If you are going to convinced us that DK is on the dark side then supply us with one evil that he promotes. Give us even one quote from his actual words and explain why is supports the forces of darkness rather than light.

If you think I am equally astray I would make the same challenge with my writings.

***

More On Money

Clay:

Money is not energy, if you believe it is your are deluding yourself because it is a comfortable delusion to have.

JJ

We’re getting into nuances of meaning that have nothing to do with the argument. Money may not be the direct equivalent of energy, but it represents energy. Similarly, a light switch is not electricity, but it moves the electrical energy to the desired location.

Are either the switch or the electricity evil because electricity has the potential to kill?

Of course not. It is the intention behind the person that throws the switch and determines whether the energy will be used for good or evil. Similarly with money. It can be used for good or evil and if it is used for good then a spiritual event has occurred.

Clay:

Now it is not good or bad, but focusing on material items with our spiritual faculties is bad, sorry it just is.

JJ

No one here is advocating the focusing on material items. The focus is always on the spiritual work. Why would you judge otherwise???

You really seem to be confusing us with the prosperity consciousness bunch. I tried to correct this misunderstanding you have, but you do not seem to want to accept the clarification.

Clay:

This is a Luciferian New Age teaching that I will absolutely oppose every chance I get, it is a great deception of the New Age community that traps advanced souls in materialism.

JJ

Well then, you do not have to oppose DK or myself because neither one of us focus on materialism. Just the opposite is true. You are seeing things upside down here.

Clay:

Some issues are black and white, like rape is always wrong. Using your spiritual faculties to focus on money is the wrong use of your abilities, end of story.

JJ

If you are going to teach a doctrine here then you need to tell us why such a teaching is true or makes some sense.

You say that money “is not good or bad.” Now if money is not good or evil, as you say, then putting some attention on it is neither good or evil, just as it is neither good or evil to think of a light switch.

The only thing that makes something neutral like this good or evil is how the energy is going to be directed. If you are going to turn on light to those who are in darkness then focusing on turning the switch is a spiritual endeavor. Even so, focusing on money to assist hose in need cannot in any logical way be called evil or Luciferian.

Where is your reasoning here? If you were talking about this in court you would have to present a case that makes some sense to the jury.

Just saying that directing money to a good cause is evil merely because you say so is just not enough.

Clay:

Sorry if that offends you, sometimes truth is offensive and tells us things we don’t like to hear. I don’t remember Jesus saying “If you would follow me invest your money wisely, get a good job, and then follow me.”

JJ

Neither DK or myself has talked about investing money as a spiritual enterprise – certainly not in the traditional sense. But even here Jesus recognized that if you do have money then it is better to invest it wisely rather than hoard it. Keep in mind as you read the parable that a talent was worth about a half million dollars in today’s money.

Matt 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

Matt 25:15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

Matt 25:16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

Matt 25:17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

Matt 25:18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

Matt 25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

Matt 25:20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

Matt 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Matt 25:22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

Matt 25:23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Matt 25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

Matt 25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

Matt 25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

Matt 25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

Matt 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

Matt 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Obviously Jesus was in favor of those who were attached to possessions to use them for good, but even on practical matters he recognized that it is better to invest money wisely than to just hoard it. Here he actually praises the guy who uses money as a wise investment. He never insinuated he was a black magician.

The group here looks for principles behind things to determine whether they are good or evil. We don’t call something evil just because someone declares it so, but because we can see the harm. If an action produces good then why would we want to call it evil.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20

***

Jim comments regarding proper use of Money:

Charan Singh , the Guru who initiated me, built this Charitable Hospital in memory of his Grand Father, and Master, Sawan Singh, mostly using his own money and resources. Also, Patients came there from all over the world to be treated, always, ….FREE of CHARGE! Most of the Medical Equipment was donated by Initiates from all over the world.

All of the Doctors, Nurses, and Staff donated their Services, free of charge, as they signed up to do the Service, “Seva” to God. Some only did a month, others 6-12 months at a time, and some did more.

http://rssb.org/files/pdf/13%20EvesWeek_13_8_1988_To%20serve%20with%20Love.pdf

I think money used in ways like this example is in line with God’s Work.

JJ

This is a good example of the right use of money and if one visualizes the hospital having more power to serve or more people donating money to them so they have have more power to serve then the end result is the same. The intention and purity of heart is the same in both instances and both visualizations call for no personal benefit for the one meditating.

***

Clay:

Also, did not Jesus directly command the rich man to go and sell all he had and give it all to the poor if he were to be follow him and then he would have treasure in heaven. Matthew 19:21.

JJ

You are reading something into this scripture that is not there. This was the instruction of Jesus to this specific individual. Nowhere does he give this as a commandment to all. If Joseph of Arimathea had done this he wouldn’t have had a tomb to donate to Jesus and Peter couldn’t have had a ship to go back to fishing after the crucifixion.

Clay:

Modern people want this “middle class” American Jesus, that does not challenge them or threaten their lifestyle, well I am sorry, the Jesus I read about in the bible was absolutely radical in his beliefs, completely unconventional, and challenging to the status quo.

JJ

You are right that the Jesus of the Bible definitely wasn’t the typical middle class guy, but neither was he into extreme poverty as was John the Baptist for he was called a “glutton and a winebibber” by his enemies.

The fact that the lifestyle of John and Jesus was quite different illustrates that one size does not fit all for either master teachers or disciples. And advice to one is not always advice to all.

One disciple may have a mission, as Joseph, the son of Jacob, and become the richest man in the world in order to save many and another may be like John the Baptist and live on locusts and honey.

 

April 9, 2015

Guidelines

Yeah, concerning the posting rules, we tend to go easy on new people or posters at times when there is an interesting topic of discussion It is probably time to remind the group of the guidelines.

Unlike most discussion groups this one was organized as a classroom. Readers of my books wanted to know more of what I had to teach so I became the official instructor setting the class agenda. The topic I posted on whatever that turned out to be is considered on topic. The group did want to post on some off topics of interest now and then so to differentiate, an off topic post is supposed to begin with the capital letters OT. Now if I jump in and comment on the OT and it becomes one of sustained interest then it is no longer off topic but on topic.

Another guideline is to limit postings to three a day. The group desired this because some were making many posts off topic or descending into emotional arguments that few wanted to read and numerous such posts became a big distraction. We give a little slack on the three posts a day if they are on a topic of high group interest or for new people adjusting to the group.

The three posts a day shouldn’t be much of a limitation for many posts can be combined. You have almost an unlimited number of words available in each post.

The other main guideline is to just be civil – avoid name calling, insults and personality arguments.

If posters become too big of a distraction or generate too many complaints we put them on moderation where their posts are read and approved before letting them appear.

Overall we are about as laid back and flexible as possible while still trying to keep to the classroom agenda.

Since we’ve encountered Allan’s group we have had a lot more free-for-all than before and I have gotten some complaints so I plan on guiding the group back to focusing on one topic at a time.

Right now the main topic of discussion has centered around good and evil so this is the official topic of the present.

My next post will be on this subject.

 

April 10, 2015

Necessary Evil

Ken:

Shalom JJ, have you ever wondered why the Apostle Paul was maligned or accused of teaching, “let us do evil so that good may result? What are your thoughts on that?

JJ

Actually, that hasn’t been something on my mind, but now that you brought it up I’ll make a few comments.

Paul sometimes taught about the contrasts of good and evil and the fact that good may come out of a bad (or evil) situation. The background of the verse you mention is that Paul noted that even when people do evil deeds it sets up a contrast so that the goodness of God becomes more obvious. Because of this teaching some evidently made fun of Paul’s words saying something to the effect, “If that is true then we might as well do all the evil we want so good will come and God will be glorified.”

The truth is that in this world of duality and contrasts there can be no good without evil, no light without dark, no up without down, no positive without negative etc.

Here is a good quote from the Book of Mormon on this principle:

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so… righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

II Nephi 2:11-13

So…since evil is a necessary part of existence then does this mean it is fine that we join in with the evil doers?

Not really. Here is what Jesus had to say about it:

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Matt 18:7

So Jesus acknowledges that offences or evil actions must come because they are just a part of life, but then he warns the perpetrators with these swords:

“woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”

In other words, he was saying, “Sure there are people out there who will kill, steal, cheat and so on, but just because evil happenings are inevitable does not mean that the offender is justified. He will get his just reward in the end.”

I haven’t given out an assignment for a while and thus brings us to an interesting subject to consider.

We often hear the statement that a certain act was a “necessary evil” in order to produce a good result.

Is an evil action sometimes necessary to produce a good result? And if the end result was good, was the action then really evil?

 

April 11, 2015

Does the End Justify the Means?

Okay, let me add another question or two.

Does the end always justify the means, or just sometimes? If not give an example of where the end does not justify the means.

In my earlier example would it by all right to kill the one crazy dude to save 50 lives?

Would it be okay to steal some food or to lie to save the life of an innocent child?

Why or why not?

***

Why Did God Create Us?

Ken:

Shalom JJ, it’s a pretty simple principle when you see it. Elohim created mankind to be AGAINST Him on purpose by creating us FLESH, and this was to allow mankind to fully come to know BOTH Good and Evil. Experience is the BEST teacher, and learning how that sin and evil produces death, and obedience produces righteousness and life, teaches a valuable lesson.

JJ

The reason I asked for the principle you were getting at is that principles are the language of the soul and when a true principle is enunciated those who are sensitive will see and feel the truth. The understanding of a principle helps a seeker understand why a teaching is true or false whereas just the giving out of data from some outward authority is generally only believed if you trust the authority and if the authority is in error then you are in error also.

You say that God created mankind to be against him. This has nothing to do with any principle but you are telling is what is in the mind of God. Now that may be possible if you received some type of revelation from God on this subject but it seems doubtful because it makes no sense. We are in the image of God so we go about our creative process as reflections of God.

Like God in the past we are now on the verge of creating intelligent machines that may develop into living things. Is there any developer who wants to create artificial intelligence that will be against him?

Not unless he is insane.

Is God insane?

No.

Then obviously he did not intentionally create us to be against him.

Since this is the foundation of your belief system it is important that you get it right for if the foundation belief is nor right all that follows will be tainted with illusion.

This is another good question for the group?

Why did God create us, or did he?

 

April 12, 2015

Ken:

Shalom JJ, who or what caused your “subjection” to error? And did you “willingly” allow it to happen? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

JJ

Before the age of 12 I smoked whenever I got the chance and when I learned it wasn’t good for you I quit and was saved from that error.

What caused the error you asked?

It was a lack of knowledge and understanding.

***

Shalom JJ, very good response, thank you. I’m in total agreement that your subjection to error was from a lack of knowledge and understanding. This is exactly what caused the two “carnal” personages of Adam and Eve to be “subjected” to their error, because they like you, lacked knowledge and understanding concerning “Good and Evil.”

So this begs another question, why would the Creator of all things create carnal beings who lacked knowledge and understanding concerning “Good and Evil,” which in turn, caused them to be subjected to error?

JJ

Not even God can create beings that are instantly full of mastery, but every life has to learn to master all things in creation step by step. We humans are progressing step by step, as do all lives in this creation.

You and I were with God in the creation of this universe and were a part of the universal mind that planned it. We planned creation so we could learn new things and the situations provided in creation were the perfect vehicles for this.

Incarnations everywhere in the universe are for the purpose of learning and the earth is just one of the schools available. No one wants to go to a school where there is nothing to learn. Who of us would want to go back to the first grade?

We came here with many limitations in this dense physical so we could master all things pertaining to this type of existence and then move on to other types of learning. Without the opportunity to grow and learn, living becomes meaningless, even for those in a state of bliss.

We thus incarnate over and over learning new lessons in each life until we master call things as did the Christ. Then we move on to even moiré challenging situations.

Ken

P.S. You didn’t address my other question from the previous post. Was your subjection to error (having a lack of knowledge and understanding) entered into on your part “willingly,” or was this subjection by reason of Him who hath subjected your error? You may want to consider Rom 8:20 in your answer.

JJ

And Paul in Romans may or may not be right. He was a human being as am I. You have to check with your soul in all things.

The whole plan of learning was entered into willingly, but as we move from class to class we get into many situations where we are not so willing. It’s like when you play Monopoly. You choose to play the game, but you are not happy when you land on someone’s motel. You willingly play football, but the other guy’s touchdown was made against your will. If everything goes in your favor you don’t have much fun and neither do you progress in learning.

To read last years writings go HERE

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

March 25, 2015

Pacifism and Judgment

We’ve discussed diet and pacifism from a scriptural point of view. This can be helpful, but rarely solves any argument. Even though many believe the scriptures should be the last word on any subject they rarely are because most merely interpret them according to their own mindset and bias.

Let me therefore speak for a moment from the soul tempered with common sense and reason.

First let us look at pacifism. More important than asking what God thinks of it (as everyone has a different idea of what God thinks) is to ask what are the guiding principles that should determine our actions when a strong or violent reaction seems required.

The answer isn’t whether the action will result in karma, as all actions create some degree of karma. The truth is that sometimes in life we are faced with the choice between three decisions, which are:

(1) Taking the road to the left

(2) Taking the road to the right

(3) Standing still – doing nothing.

For instance, before World War II when faced with the rise if Hitler there were those in Churchill’s camp who wanted to take strong measures to deal with him. Then there was a second more numerous group who felt moderate measures were sufficient. Finally, there were others who wanted to do nothing, except maybe send Hitler good vibes.

The position of those in the third group is usually temporary in nature as changing circumstances will eventually force a choice that leads toward action of some kind.

For instance, before the war and the rounding up of the Jews in Germany many of that race were pacifists and felt the best course was to do nothing to oppose Hitler or prepare to deal with him.

After the war things changed. There probably was not a pacifist Jew left in Germany. I have never heard from a survivor that was not thankful for every German killed by the Allies in order to defeat Hitler.

So… what principle should guide us when considering a decision that may require violence?

Actually, it should be the same principle that guides all of our decisions which is this:

Will the end result of the Decision A result in better, more positive end results than Decision B?

Using this as a guide has proven to produce much better results than that produced by following the advice of some outward authority, even if it is the Bible, some expert or one who claims to speak for God.

Let us look at a possible situation.

You walk into your bank to make a deposit. As you are waiting in line a crazy guy comes in waving a gun. The security guard who is standing close to you draws to fire upon him, but the crazy guy shoots first and kills the guard.

He then puts the gun in his back pocket, takes off his jacket to reveal explosives strapped to his chest. He pulls out a cell phone and tells the group that when he punches in a code of three numbers that the device will explode and will kill everyone in the room. He says that before he does this that everyone is going to hear his grievances about the bank that refused to give him a loan and ruined his life.

He starts relating his story and seems to be nearing the end. You guess that you have less than a minute of life left in which to act or not act. Beside you is the security guard with his gun still in his hand. The crazy guy is shouting and screaming and as he prances back and forth he turns his back on the customers for a few seconds. This gives you time to grab the security officer’s gun and take him out.

Several thoughts run through your mind. You recall that the Bible says you should not kill. Should you obey this in black and white terms and just let yourself and about fifty others (including the crazy guy) die?

Or should you look at the end result of the two options and choose the one that makes the best sense?

You make a decision, which is a no brainer. The crazy guy is going to die anyway in a minute or so and taking him out will save you and fifty people.

You grab the gun and shoot the crazy guy in the head. Everyone in the bank cheers and many give you hugs shedding tears of gratitude. You are hailed ass a hero, but that is not the best part. The best part is that you return home safe to your loving wife and kids who depend on you.

I have presented this scenario to a number of pacifists I have met and haven’t met one yet who says he would take the gun and kill the crazy guy. Instead they would hope for a long shot that the police would come in and save them or maybe they would talk the guy into changing his mind.

When I tell them that no, the police are not going to save them and the guy is going to blow the place up – they still would refuse to take the guy out.

Taking the guy out is definitely the right decision because the end result is much better than the death and destruction caused by the bomb.

You would also be following the scripture that there is a time and season for all things, even “a time to kill.”

So why did Jesus seem to be a pacifist then? The key is revealed in the Revelation of John. Speaking of Christ it is written: “in righteousness he doth judge and make war.” Rev 19:10

Whether or not Christ will make war, that always involves violence, killing and death, is determined by good or righteous judgment.

Those who embrace light and love will only go to war and participate in violence when it is the last resort and have a fair chance at a good result. If a good result is not probable then the path of peace would be chosen.

‘In the days of Jesus the Roman empire reigned supreme and all who attempted to make war with it were destroyed. If Jesus and his little group had taken up the sword against any who opposed them they would have been wiped off the face of the earth and never heard of again. Jesus chose the wisest course of action which was to show no opposition and not pose any physical threat. The Christians following this example still suffered much grief, but they survived and the message of the Christ still lives in the hearts of men.

In other lifetimes when good judgment required it Christ did make war in righteousness and defeated his enemies. Each situation is different. One time may require turning the other cheek and going the extra mile and another may require the opposite.

The Second Key of Knowledge, the Key of Judgment, is the guiding principle. This insight is the lost key of the Buddha.

Clay:

The logic of Christ was not the logic of this world.

JJ

Logic is the same in all worlds. Only the circumstances are different. Truth is truth. No one can supply one example that proves this incorrect. They can only point to nebulous ideas that cannot be put into words concerning God’s higher thought. They do not realize that illusion cannot be out into words that make sense. All truth can be put into words because the Word is God.

So, if you had been the guy in the bank would you have refused to take out the crazy guy and thus accumulate the karma of allowing 50 people to die?

***

Clay:

I definitely believe that many of the founders of this country incurred very negative karma for their actions during the revolutionary war.

JJ

I would take the karma of those who fought for the cause of the freedom any day above those who stood on the fence and tried to remain neutral because of either pacifism or so they could be friends with whoever won,. That was about a third of the people.

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Rev 3:15-16

***

Clay:

I will also state that the logic being employed by JJ and others is exactly the same logic employed by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition. No, I am not calling them inquisitors, but the logic is the same.

JJ

You are using Allan type of logic here and are 100% incorrect. A logical person does not fear a different point of view and it is totally against the stand of a logical person to punish one for merely espousing a view or opinion.

There is no hard evidence that a heretic is creating any harm, but in the example you know the crazy guy is about to kill 50 people and that action must be taken to save lives.

The real reasoning of those who punished heretics was that God’s way of thinking (which they see as their own) far transcends that of the more logical heretics. This is similar to thinking of religious pacifists.

***

Clay:

I will also say that the violence that occurred in India was also exactly what St. Francis warned about and why he embraced a practice of voluntary poverty.

JJ

So, by your logic here a poor country like Afghanistan should be a safe place to live.

A much better plan is to not seek poverty for all, but abundance for all. The greatest stability will occur if all have equal opportunity for for abundance in life on all levels from the spiritual to the physical.

***

Clay:

Sorry JJ, that is the logic of the world and Caiphas was being perfectly logical.

JJ

He wasn’t being logical at all – not any more than the medieval persecutors of the heretics for having a different opinion. Logical people do not fear a different teaching or opinion just as I and others do not fear anyone who comes here to challenge me or just debate.

You are avoiding my question about the crazy guy. What would you do and what is the logic in not taking him out? Why would you risk the karma of killing 50 people instead of just one?

***

Clay:

Murdering another was not as great of a sin because you were only killing the persons body, not their soul. Heresy they truly believed, could lead to ETERNAL DAMNATION.

JJ

The eternal damnation idea was not logical nor connected with any proven reality. The reasonable and logical person does not attack those with a different opinion on a thing that cannot be demonstrated to be true. Now it is a different matter if a heretic wants to bomb a restaurant full of innocent people. Dealing with something like this goes beyond opposing a belief, but opposing real harm.

By your logic one should not prick a boil and release the poison because, by gosh, that would hurt and maybe destroy a few good cells. Have fun applying the pacifist logic to that situation.

JJ

 

March 26, 2015

Diet and Health

Let us put aside all supernatural authority on diet for a moment and just talk about it from the angle of common sense, reason and intuition.

There are two reasons cited to be a vegetarian. The first is for better health ad the second is an aversion to killing animals.

Let us look at the first. Are vegetarians healthier than meat eaters?

This is generally assumed to be the case but recent studies tells us otherwise. Here’s a couple quotes:

A new study from the Medical University of Graz in Austria finds that vegetarians are more physically active, drink less alcohol and smoke less tobacco than those who consume meat in their diets. Vegetarians also have a higher socioeconomic status and a lower body mass index. But the vegetarian diet — characterized by a low consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol that includes increased intake of fruits, vegetables and whole-grain products — carries elevated risks of cancer, allergies and mental health disorders.

Vegetarians were twice as likely to have allergies, a 50 percent increase in heart attacks and a 50 percent increase in incidences of cancer.

Vegetarians reported higher levels of impairment from disorders, chronic diseases, and “suffer significantly more often from anxiety/depression.”

LINK

Researchers at Oxford University recently followed 35,000 individuals aged 20 to 89 for a period of five years and discovered that vegans are 30% more likely to break a bone than their vegetarian and flesh-eating peers. A subsequent study conducted by Sydney’s Garvan Institute for Medical Research found that vegetarians had bones 5% less dense than meat-eaters. This can be attributed to the fact that many vegetarians and vegans consume very little calcium due to the limitations of their diet.

LINK

You would think vegetarians would be healthier than meat eaters, especially since this study shows they have a lower BMI and drink less alcohol but such is not true according to various studies.

Why do you suppose this would be the case? I would guess that part of the reason is that because the vegetarian doesn’t eat meat he has a strong craving for protein and many of them fill that need with foods that are harder on the system than meat. Many of them eat a lot of processed cheese, cow’s milk, starchy foods and tofu in an effort to get that satisfied full feeling you get from meat. It would be interesting to study the health of vegetarians who eat a large percentage of live foods. Now Steve Jobs did seem to live on a very restricted raw food diet, but unfortunately died early of cancer, so he fit the mold of these studies.

One study in favor of a vegetarian diet was done with Seventh Day Adventists. The church encourages members to be vegetarians, eat healthy and not drink or smoke. 30% of them are vegetarians. On the average they are quite a bit healthier than average. I think the reason for this is the church promotes an overall good diet and many members study nutrition and are careful about eating nutritious food.

Mormons also live longer and are healthier than average. They eat quite bit of meat but do not drink or smoke or drink coffee or tea..

Some researches think part of the reason these two groups are healthier than average is the positive influence of their religions as much as diet.

I have taken a particular interest in those who live to an very advanced age. Anyone over a hundred interests me, but I pay particular attention to anyone who approaches 105 or older. I’ve read quite a few stories relating to people 105 and older and do not recall one that said he or she was a vegetarian though I would suspect some are. I remember one guy who was over 110 saying he ate bacon and eggs every morning and another lady saying she ate ham hocks daily. Then there’s another lady who was 116 who raises and eats goats.

Over the years I looked for a common thread in the diet of those who lived in good health to an advanced age and I have found two things. Many of them raise a garden or farm animals and eat what they grow themselves. The most common trait of all though seems to be moderation. None of them seem to go to excess in eating or drinking. From my observations it seems that moderation is more important than what you eat, though what you eat is certainly a factor.

My philosophy in eating for health is this. Eat as many raw fruits and vegetables as possible. Green leafy vegetables are particularly good and I eat sprouts every day in a big salad. I fast from food 16-17 hours a day and if I feel sluggish I go on a fast from food for a week. That is very rejuvenating. I do not drink milk, but do use a little cream in my coffee.

I try and buy local eggs from pasture raised hens and meat from stock that is humanely raised with no antibiotics, fed with organic foods if possible.

The only drugs I take are from coffee and wine. I avoid prescription drugs as well as over the counter ones like the plague except for a couple aspirin a year. I eat very little sugar and avoid artificial sweeteners as I believe ingesting much of them is very detrimental to health. With rare exceptions the only sweeteners I use are raw honey, maple syrup (usually grade B) and blackstrap molasses.

As health insurance I take a number of food supplements daily.

***

Allan:

From the perspective of a seeker of Truth and the vegetarian diet, you forgot the primary reason and the most important, which is the grounding of the person’s consciousness and the inability to comprehend man’s higher soul and spiritual reality.

JJ

I didn’t forget at all as that wasn’t the subject of the article. I’ll cover that somewhat next.

Vegetarian diet has little to do with comprehending a higher spiritual reality. I’ve been on both raw foods only vegetarian diet and regular meat diet and haven’t seen any difference in my ability which is moving along just fine. As proof read my thousands of articles and my books containing knowledge brought down from higher planes.

Also, Jesus was a meat eater (note previous article) and he did pretty good. You also quote meat eater Edgar Cayce regularly as a spiritual authority.

***

Leaselann asks:

I am curious how often do you drink wine and how much? Also do you ever drink any other type of alcohol? What is your take on other types? I know people’s bodies are different and what’s right for one person is not for another.

JJ

I currently drink a couple glasses of red wine just before and during my evening meal. I enjoy red wine the most but also like dry white and dark beers. Spaten Optimator from Germany is my favorite beer. I enjoy most all beverages though probably 95% of what I drink is red wine. I drink 5 days a week and lay off for two.

You are right that everyone’s bodies are different. There are those who crave alcohol that shouldn’t drink at all, then there are those that have no desire or taste for it and there are those like me that enjoy it but do not overindulge.

I think that both red wine and quality dark beer are healthy to drink in moderation. Smaller amounts of stronger beverages may also be beneficial, but are more subject to abuse.

Until Prohibition Nicola Tesla drank a small amount of whiskey every day. He felt that a small amount daily would stimulate his system and prolong his life.

He ate meat during the most productive years of his life. After he turned to vegetarianism he started working on weapons.

***

Leaselann asks:

Sorry one more question what are your favorite wines anyone? I thought you may know some that don’t have added sulfates and grapes are grown without harmful chemicals. My favorite is dmz their current one is a Cabernet rose and my husband is not such a fan.

JJ

We talked quite a lot about wine back in 2002. Back then I wrote:

I think that the wines of Australia and Chile appeal to me because the grapes there are grown in earth that has not been stripped of trace minerals. In the United States over 90% of our trace minerals are depleted from our soil, but in Australia the figure is around 50%, one of the lowest in the world. I do not know what the figure is in Chile, but I can tell from the taste of the wine that the trace mineral amount is much better than the United States.

I figure that if I drink red wine from mineral rich countries that the wine will have an additional health benefit beyond the antioxidant and heart benefits from moderate drinking.

I still like the Australian wines a lot and have never tasted a bad one. They seem to have a nice richness to them. There are several that are good and reasonable in price such as Black Opal, Rosemount, Lindeman’s, Yellowtail and Yalumba. However, my tastes have changed since 2002 and I have a taste for a wide variety of them. I used to not like French or Californian wines, but have found some I like. Anything grown in Sonoma County California is pretty good,

I have grown particularly fond of wines grown in my neck of the woods, particularly from Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Some I like are 14 Hands, Columbia Crest Grand Estates, and Red Diamond.

There is a chain here called Grocery Outlet with a store here that buys closeout and overstocked wines and sells them at a big discount. You can sometimes get a $20 wine for $6-$7. The trouble is that when I find one I like they often never stock it again, but it does provide me with an opportunity to sample a wide variety of quality wines without spending a lot.

Twice a year they have a sale where all wines are discounted an extra 20%. One is coming up next week.’

Another way I save on popular name brands is to use rebates. Some wines offer rebates of $3 a bottle for up to six bottles. On top of that one of the stores I buy from offers an additional 10% if you buy six and an additional 10% still on senior day. I’ve bought $10 wines for less than $5 a bottle and $6 wines for around $2.

I usually buy organic with no additive in food, but I haven’t found any really good organic wines and some are quite pricey for what you get. I don’t think the sulfates do much harm. I go mainly by how my body responds to any drink or food.

***

Jim:

I have counseled THOUSANDS of Alcoholics, who drank less than two glasses of wine a day.

JJ

Why would someone need counseling for drinking two glasses of wine a day? Did they have some kind of negative reaction to it? I It has no negative effect on me, but has the healthful effect of relaxing me. I’ve done some of my best writing and thinking after a couple glasses, but that is me. If it affects one negatively then he shouldn’t drink and neither should one eat peanut butter if he has a bad reaction to it.

I have never had a problem related to alcohol, never had a DUI and never lost control.

The benefit for me as outweighed any detriment. If it didn’t I would stop tomorrow.

***

JJ

“…the vegetarian diet … carries elevated risks of … mental health disorders.”

lwk

The real problem with using statistics is an assumption of cause and effect that may, or may not be true. One example that you see all the time is the use of statistics to prove racism, for example, comparing how many blacks and whites are stopped for traffic violations in Ferguson, Mo. It is entirely possible that the problem that statistics is measuring there is not racism, but a much higher propensity for some blacks to be more violent and law breaking (FBI statistics show blacks are almost 8 times more likely to commit murder).

JJ

I agree with your points Larry. You have to look at the details of any study to make a judgment because many of them were made with an agenda.

For instance, there was a study a while back that showed that taking vitamin supplements had no benefit. But what they didn’t tell you is that the vitamin they used in the study was the worst one made containing many synthetic vitamins – Centrum. They didn’t use a decent natural supplement because that wouldn’t have given them the results they wanted.

The same thing occurred when a study revealed that the benefit of vitamin E was negligible. They used a synthetic vitamin E and anyone into natural foods avoids that because we realize it probably does more harm than good.

Then they did a study on organic vegetables which showed that they had no more vitamins than the non organic. Their conclusion was that organic was a waste of money.

This was an attempt at deception because we do not buy organic for the vitamins but buy it to avoid pesticides, enjoy the better flavor and trace minerals and other esoteric benefits.

Like they say, the devil is in the details.

March 28, 2015

One Size Not for All

Jim:

The Sant Mat Masters teach that when awake, the seat of the soul is headquartered at the Third Eye, where it functions from. They say that intoxicants pull the soul down in to the lower Chakras, to the Throat Chakra, as when asleep, and below.

JJ

All dense food has a magnetic earthy pull which the person can either follow or neutralize. Those who cannot neutralize and want to seek the spiritual path should check with their souls about drink or eating meat.

For short periods I like to go with the flow and just enjoy the moment wherever I am, earthy or not, but can snap back to the spiritual flow when needed.

Jim:

You say drinking wine helps you write better.

JJ

No, I didn’t say that. I said that I have done some of my best writing after drinking wine. I do not drink enough at one time to cause a hindrance.

I drink like Socrates who often sipped on wine while having philosophical discussions. He said that it was important to no drink so much that you couldn’t appreciate a quality wine.

Jim:

So, if you soul is drawn below your Third Eye level, do you think you are writing at your highest spiritual potential?

JJ

I would think that Socrates functioned at the third Eye as good as anyone you are rubbing shoulders with. Jesus who even turned water into wine for guests to enjoy was another.

Jim

Why don’t you try abstaining from all alcohol for a month trial, and substitute drinking wine at dinner for an hour’s Meditation, sitting in contemplation, while concentrating at the Third eye , visualizing a Rose at the center of The Cross.

JJ

I didn’t drink for the first 33 years of my life and notice no difference in my spiritual abilities. My greatest quest is to bring down truth and principles from the higher realms and have done that uninterrupted throughout my life. I also seek to introduce principles that will cause positive change on the planet. Take a look at my millions of words of writings as evidence. There are many things there found in no book on earth.

The bottom line is one size does not fit all. I follow the advice of my soul. If it tells me to make a change then I will listen. Many people do get advice from their souls about diet, drink, relationships, behavior etc and think it applies to everyone, but often it just is for them.

 

March 29, 2015

Diet and Spirituality

So, how important is diet in connection to spirituality? After all Jesus said:

It is “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” Matt 15:11

Then in the Gospel of Thomas, verse 14 Jesus is quoted as saying:

“…when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.

Obviously a basic idea is this. Eating and drinking has little effect on spirituality when compared to what is going on inside the person’s mind and heart and to what comes out of his mouth. A person’s good words and works will generate much greater spiritual advancement than select food and drink.

Does his mean that what we eat and drink have no effect?

Of course not. Everything has an effect of some kind. The thoughts close to our heart have the greatest spiritual effect on us, but that doesn’t mean that what we take into our mouths has no effect.

There are a number of claims about spirituality and diet. Some claim that one must eliminate all animal meat to enter the spiritual path. Others claim we must eliminate all fish also. Others claim we must not eat anything with a face so clams and oysters would be okay.

Still others say we must not eat any living and moving creature and not eat any of their products, such as milk, cheese and eggs.

Others go further saying on top of this we must not eat anything that is not exposed to sunlight. This would eliminate root foods such as beets and potatoes. Then there are others who say we should only eat green leafy vegetables and fruit.

There’s another group that quotes this verse:

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Genesis 1:29

This bunch claim that to be really close to God we most only eat fruit from fruit trees.

So you think that is as extreme as one can get? Think again. There is another group called Breatharians who claim we must lean to live on air and prana alone before we can ascend. Willey Books is the head of the Breatharian Institute of America and humbly tells us he lived past as Adam, Zeus, Enoch, Jeshua (Jesus The Christ), Joshua, Elijah, John The Baptist, St. Francis Of Assisi, Kuthumi, Balthazar (King Of Syria), Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan (Builder Of The Taj Mahal In Agra, India), Joseph Smith And William Mulholland.

There are quite a few in the East that also teach some version of the Breatharian philosophy.

It is interesting that few of these gurus who are big on diet offer much in the way of new teachings. Usually diet is the centerpiece of their teaching with some copy and paste added in from teachers of the past.

If diet is really the spiritual boost that they claim then they ought to be able to access the higher realms wherein lies divine ideas and bring some new ones down and offer them to us.

Just preaching diet is not new as every version has been already written about somewhere.

Four of the greatest spiritual innovators in recent times have been Joseph Smith, Madam Blavatsky, Edgar Cayce and Alice A. Bailey. Smith ate a fairly basic diet that included meat and drank wine and beer. It was decades after his death that the Church prohibited alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee.

Blavatsky preached against eating meat but didn’t live up to her own teachings and ate meat and animal products. She was against drinking alcohol, didn’t drink it herself, but did smoke about 200 cigarettes a day. This chain smoking was probably largely responsible for her bad health in her later years.

I think she would have been much better off to trade the smoking for a couple glasses of wine a day.

Edgar Cayce was a meat eater and recommended nutritious foods of all kinds. He also drank wine and said it was “a good blood builder and vitality enhancer.”

Alice A. Bailey, who presented numerous new teachings transmitted from a Master named Djwhal Khul, was one of the few innovators who was a true vegetarian and teetotaler.

If we look at these four initiates of spirituality what do we see that they have in common as far as diet is concerned?

Not much except that they ate and drank as seemed good to themselves.

So, does diet have any effect on spirituality then and if so what is it?

What we need to look at here is the governing principle rather than listening to some book or guru who claims to tell us what God wants us to eat and drink.

Here it is. All food, and physical matter itself, has a magnetic pull on the souls of men that draws us in the direction of materialism. Some say we are trapped here because of this pull whereas others just see this as either a playground or school where we come to learn lessons. Both have their points.

The fact is that we have to neutralize this pull in order to free ourselves from the wheel of rebirth. As the pilgrim realizes the need for this freedom he contemplates and enters the path to liberation. This is a journey that lasts many lifetimes. As he journeys on the path he realizes that the heavier his diet the stronger is the pull of the material forces. The heavier foods are animals and animal products, Vegetables are lighter and fruit and leafy vegetables are the lightest of all.

As he begins his journey he feels the extra pull generated by heavy foods and senses that he needs to eat lighter foods to continue onward. As he continues onward he gains in inner strength and finds that for many purposes it does not matter what he eats or drinks. He can now decide on the diet best for him depending on what he needs to accomplish in a certain time or life.

The currents of materialism are like mild currents in river. An experienced swimmer can override the current and swim upstream. A beginner cannot swim upstream and must move forward where the current is not strong.

Even so, different people on the path handle the current of material forces with different amounts of strength, will and power of decision.

Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry gave good advice: “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

Each seeker must asses his limitations and adjust his eat, drink and actions accordingly.

And how does the seeker gain strength as he journeys along? There are too many to discuss in his article but there are several big ones. The first is to cultivate in word and deed the spirit of true spiritual love as taught by the Christ. He must lose himself in service to others because of a love of mankind.

Second he must be pure in heart, true to himself and honest and reliable to others.

The third biggie is self discipline. And this is one of the greatest benefits of a restricted diet for various parts of the path. Several lifetimes of a difficult diet gives a huge boost in self discipline and control that will aid him for lifetimes to come.

So, diet does lessen the pull of material forces, but more important than that is the added strength through the above three strength building spiritual exercises. When the disciple gathers enough strength then for most purposes he can swim upstream with relative ease.

In some lives he may need to blend in and mix where the material forces are strong and others he will not. Whatever the choice, the keynote of the true disciple will be service to his fellow brothers and sisters.

 

March 30, 2015

Animals and Compassion

A lot of people are vegetarians not for health, or even spiritual advancement but simply for the reason that they believe it is wrong to kill an animal for food.

The question sometimes put to them is where do we draw the line?

Some, like Paul McCartney, say it is wrong to eat any living thing with a face. If it doesn’t have a face, like a clam or oyster, then it is okay. Others would include all shelled creature.

So what about insects? They are eaten in some parts of the world and the Bible says that John the Baptist ate locusts. Many insects have faces.

Some would say this is okay and others not.

So, what if your house is overrun with roaches, termites or spiders? Is it okay to hire an exterminator to kill them?

Some would go so far as to say no.

Once we consider life this low on the scale we have to ask if it is okay to kill trees for our use or vegetables that we eat. They are also living things.

Even the most sensitive animal rights people have no problem taking the lives of vegetables and fruit, but some do have a problem with trees and some other plant life.

Indeed there are many thoughts on this matter and again we need to ask this. What is the governing principle that we need to use?

Is it the Bible?

Not really as there are many interpretations and it doesn’t give any principle on the subject.

Is it the idea that we just should not kill?

Not really as even most vegetarians will put a suffering animal to death.

So, what is the principle?

Quite simply it is the principle that should guide us in all decisions which is this:

Will the proposed action contribute to the creation of more harm than good or more good than harm?

Many animal rights people are very black and white and see only evil in killing an animal for meat and close their eyes to the good that comes because they are of use to humans as food.

Let us look at the positive and negative of raising animals for food.

The negative:

(1) The animal may suffer a few seconds when slaughtered.

(2) Some are raised in poor conditions and treated badly.

That doesn’t really sound so bad, does it? After all, most humans suffer months and sometimes years as they approach death.

There are also a lot of humans raised in poor conditions. Being in prison or starving in some third world is particularly troublesome.

Now let us list the positive.

(1) Many animals raised for food have it a lot better than wild animals.

(2) Animal abuse is being exposed and we are headed in the direction of more humane treatment.

(3) Because animals are important to humans we make sure they multiply in large numbers and the species are preserved and thrive.

(4) Some farm animals such as cattle and sheep would have difficulty surviving in the wild, which they would have to do if humans did not take care of them.

(5) If humans quit eating meat tomorrow farm animals would suffer immensely as they could have no caretaker. Some species would be in danger of extinction.

(6) Because humans make sure animals raised for food breed in large numbers this insures that the animals get a lot of opportunity for life and advancement that they would miss if we did not need them.

(7) Unlike humans, farm animals do not have their progression interrupted when the experience an early death. Because they are raised in large numbers they can rapidly come back and resume their lives.

(8) Contact with humans who raise them stimulates their evolution.

Overall it looks like the benefit to the farm animals outweighs the harm making it more good than bad that we raise them for food and the products they yield.

There is another point to note which is this. There are certain animals that even the biggest supporters if meat eating will not kill for food. These are our pets. Who in the world would ever kill and eat the family dog? What is the difference between killing him or a cow?

This is interesting to contemplate and here is what I believe to be the answer.

Animals which are close enough to human consciousness to be given names should not be killed for eating. Why? Because once an animal is named he is taken under the wing of a human and becomes in training to acquire human consciousness at some future time.

Once he is named and responds to that name then killing him prematurely will interfere with is progression. Once you name an animal under your jurisdiction and adopt him as a pet you should let him live out his natural life as much as possible.

If humanity made a huge move toward vegetarianism this would be a disaster to farm animals. We are, however, slowly moving in this direction and such a slow steady transition is beneficial for both animals and humans.

For more of my thoughts on raising animals for food go HERE

 

March 31, 2015

Do Animals Become Humans?

Leaselann asks if animals will evolve into humans.

To understand how leaps in evolution occur we must look at the big picture as well as use the Law of Correspondences.

All lives in the universe are a part of the One Great Life which is God. God is the Many and the One something akin to the idea that space is one yet contains all there is, which is many.

Just as the life which is God contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of star systems, and each containing billions of various life forms, even so we as humans contain a universe of lives within us. Within us are the seven major centers, each representing a separate life cooperating to create a greater life which is you. In addition to this there are numerous minor centers. Many of these have been identified as an acupuncture points. These are centers of lesser lives.

Each organ in our body is a lesser life. As we go smaller we find that the average body contains over 30 trillion cells, each living a life of its own, but cooperating with other cells to house the God of their universe which is you. Then there are cells of bacteria co-existing with human cells. There are ten times as many cells of bacteria than human cells.

If we look at the human cells we discover a complexity beyond the imagination with a communications system, a defense system, a government, a distribution system, all kinds of machinery and much more. Around 100 trillion lesser lives called atoms compose just one human cell.

Then if we were to examine the atom we would discover that even this tiny life contains a universe of life dwelling within it.

Some esoterists have taught that the atom, or the tiniest of particles, eventually becomes a cell then a plant, then an animal, then human and eventually a god.

This isn’t quite how it works. The lesser lives do not, as a separate entity, become a greater life, but unite in consciousness with other lesser lives to provide a vehicle for a greater life. A greater life then incarnates into that vehicle, or body of manifestation. The lesser lives then share the consciousness of the greater life and move into higher vistas of being and experience.

The mineral kingdom is the lowest on the planet followed by the plant and then the animal. Humans represent the fourth kingdom on the earth and Christ and associates represent the fifth.

This fifth kingdom is often called the Kingdom of God and one does not enter it alone. It is only entered by the union of one conscious human with others to provide a vehicle for a greater life. Those in the Kingdom of God, who we all the Masters, then share the consciousness of that greater life and move into a new realm of becoming.

In my book The Molecular Relationship I teach how this process which can be incorporated by humans that are not yet masters to link the two kingdoms.

We see this molecular relationship process duplicated in all creation. Atoms gather together to create a greater life, which is a cell. The atom does not become the cells, but shares in the consciousness of the cell so when the identification is complete it is as if it is the cell.

The cell does not become the plant but cooperates with many other cells to create the plant. A blade of grass does not become an animal, but the many tiny plant lives unite to create animal life and then share in the animal consciousness, beginning with the insect kingdom. A fly does not become a cow or a dog, but the fragmented insect lives unite to create the vehicles which make possible the appearance of a higher animal. The lesser lives then identify with the higher life and live through its consciousness.

Individual animals technically do not become humans, but numerous animal lives unite to create the vehicle for the human soul. When that soul then incarnates as a human they share in its consciousness and evolution.

There will be one advanced animal that will be the governing life within you and it will occupy your heart center. Many ancients realized this and spoke of having a heart like a lion, for instance. They also often named people after animals and called forth animal lives within the human for assistance in healing work.

You as a human consciousness are not an animal, but your manifestation is made possible by many lesser lives working together to create your bodies of manifestation. Many lives there are which share your consciousness. You as the decision maker owe it to them to give them a great experience.

***

Clay:

We are not going to be judged on if we held the right beliefs or not, we are going to be judged on how we treated each other and how we treated this creation. If anyone thinks some magical set of beliefs earns them any merit, they are in for a rude “awakening”.

JJ

This is an important realization and is in harmony with the teachings of Jesus. He said that if a child asks for a fish will you give him a stone? If we know how to give good gifts to our children then how much better will be the gifts from God?

So if we have some errors in belief but are doing our best in treating our brethren well would God be more evil than earthly parents and punish us for eternity?

No. He will be much better than earthly parents and steer us to correct beliefs while opening paths to greater joyousness.

 

April 1, 2015

Merging and Identification

I figured I would have to write a follow up to that last post. I’ll cover some extra ground and then if there are questions unanswered please ask.

Some seem concerned that we will be limited in our future progression because of this gathering and merging principle of moving forward, but such is certainly not the case. You will have the opportunity to progress to the state of the planetary Logos, the Ancient of Days, the Solar Logos and beyond.

But as you enter into greater states of being in kingdoms above the human you do not go there alone, but must take others with you. Do you think that Sanat Kumara sits alone on a throne just being the Logos of planet earth?

No. There are many with him and he represents trillions of lives and identifies with the wholeness of them. One of those lives is you. You are a part of the consciousness of which he is a part and yet he shares the whole. This is an achievement that will be ours in the far future, but through the Oneness Principle we can get a taste of what is to come.

Visualize the One Great Life which is God as divine space that contains all there is. Even though space is only one thing that which is within it is many. Within this space are points of eternal intelligence without number. They correspond to the innumerable stars and galaxies we observe in the heavens.

Some points are in manifestation and others are not. The points that manifest, and decide to be, blend and merge to create everything there is. First there is conception and creation on higher planes and finally that which was spiritual manifests on lower planes including the physical.

Soul essence was organized and manifest in the spirit before life appeared in the physical. The complete self-conscious soul was designated to manifest the human consciousness. This soul consists of many parts that had to be united first in the spirit and then in the material world. These many parts are called fragments. The fragments of a soul, which are many, first enter the mineral kingdom. After ages of time many fragments unite and enter the plant kingdom. After more ages many other fragments unite and enter the animal kingdom. The advanced animals are large fragments compared to insects and the lower kingdoms, but still not complete enough to manifest a human soul.

Finally, higher monadic intelligence gathers the scattered fragments and creates the soul body to house human intelligence. This soul body, or the Higher Self, then reflects itself into the material world and is born as a human being – a self-conscious entity that is a reflection of the whole yet contains many fragments from all the lower kingdoms. Within you are billions of lesser lives, or fragments, united together to manifest something much greater than themselves.

A fragment that was once a mineral, a plant or an animal that is now part of the whole no longer says I am a crystal, a flower or a dog, but will identify with the whole and say I am John Smith, a human.

Consider this. You are fragmented when you are in the dream state – only a part of you is there and you are not even aware of the existence of the real you in waking consciousness. When you awake fragments come together to make a greater whole and you no longer identify with the guy in the dream who was shopping naked in the grocery store. You now say you are John Smith (or whatever your name is). The fragment that was in the dream has merged and now identifies with the whole rather than the part.

Does the fragment that as in the dream feel a loss when it wakes and identifies with the greater whole? No. It feels a gain for it has entered into a higher state of awareness.

Even so, humans are fragments of a greater whole still and we will eventually gather together and create bodies of manifestation for greater lives. There is a grand oversoul for the whole of he human family that all will eventually identify with and greatly enhance their consciousness and sense of being.

The souls, or Higher Selves of advanced humans have already done a good deal of merging in the higher realms. This is one reason it is important to achieve soul contact so we can gain the knowledge to manifest the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.

I’m sure I will be writing more on this later.

***

The Prince of this World

Ken:

I was wondering if you think the Scriptures speak of Sanat Kumara? Do you think Yeshua was referencing Sanat Kumara here:

Lk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Jn 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

So if Sanat Kumara is the Prince or King of the World, then is not Sanat Kumara actually an evil deceiving spirit known as Satan or the Devil? And doesn’t Satan masquerade or disguise himself as an Angel of Light (2 Cor 11:14), so could the Sanat Kumara really be Satan? Just some well founded questions.

JJ

Many believers make the mistake of categorizing every belief with which they do not believe as being something promoted by Satan disguising himself as an angel of light. This is a very illusionary way to attempt to discover the truth and they never ask themselves if they could be the ones promoting the doctrines of the adversary.

To discern whether a teaching comes from a good or evil source one must examine the teaching and simply ask yourself if it leads toward greater love and light or away from them.

If you take the English translation of the New Testament scriptures of Satan being the God of this planet and not the real God then you will indeed have a problem with the Old Testament God. Take a look:

Joshua3:11 Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan.

Zech 6:4 Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord?

Zech 6:5 And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth.

Psalms97:5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.

Isa 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Micah 4:13 Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto the LORD, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.

Jer 32:27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

You cite the scripture from John 12:31 which reads:

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

The word “world” comes from the Greek KOSMOS which is often translated as world, but more closely corresponds to what we currently call “the system.” It literally means the “current arrangement of things.”

Satan is generally seen as the Prince of Darkness or materialism which does rule the current order if things.

Notice that the God of the prophets is called “the Lord of the whole earth.”

This is the same title given to Sanat Kumara who is the Ancient of Days spoken of by Daniel and called the Planetary Logos, or the God of this earth. He is not called the God or the Prince of this KOSMOS or this system of things, for this system has a long way to go before it is in harmony with either the Christ or the Ancient of Days.

To read last years writings go HERE

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE