Category: 2016

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Does Like Attract Like?

May 18, 2017 Joseph Dewey

May 17, 2017

Does Like Attract Like?

In my Facebook wanderings I came across this question:

“People keep saying that “like attracts like,” and even calling it “scientific.” In science, generally, it appears opposites attract seeking neutrality. Magnets. Electrons and protons. Etc.

“Someone mind explaining this principle or how the two seemingly incongruent ideas actually do fit together?”

Actually opposites do not attract in science, but the forces created by opposing poles do seek balance just as happens among us humans.

Let us look at opposites in science. The foundation of physical creation is the atom. The atom consists of positively charged protons and neutral neutrons at the center. Around this nucleus circles negatively charged electrons. Here we see that like gathers to like for an atom with many protons will have them all gathered together at the center with the electrons keeping a far distance away.

That distance is very significant. If the proton in the center of a hydrogen atom were the size of a soccer ball the electron would be a small pebble over four miles away. One can certainly make the case that the negative particle is keeping its distance from the positive.

Now in the creation of molecules you have atoms seeking balance and bonding with each other to balance off their excess charge. This follows the principle that nature abhors a vacuum more than opposites attract.

In creation there exists matter with two different charges. If we consider our matter as positive then anti matter would be negative. If they come into contact with each other they will destroy each other and return to pure energy.

Scientists consider it a flip of the coin that this universe wound up being created of positive matter. It could have just as well be formed of anti matter, but it had to be one or the other because they cannot exist side by side.

What seems to be a contradiction is the magnet. The positive pole of a magnet is attracted to the negative of a second magnet.

What is overlooked is the poles in the magnet itself. In a bar magnet you will have the negative pole on one end and the positive on the other. This would not be the case if they were attracted to each other. If the positive was attracted to the negative then the forces would merge in the center. Instead, the polarities are at the two ends because they repel each other.

The same principle is at work with the magnetic poles of the planet. One is near the North Pole and the other near the South Pole. If the negative and positive were attracted to each other they would be merging at the center of the planet and not be at opposite ends.

The reason the positive pole of a magnet is attracted to the negative pole of another magnet has more to do with balancing forces than opposites attracting. This appears like an exception to the rule but it is not.

In nature then like attracts like, but there is a weaker attraction to the opposites. The proton is willing to live side by side with another proton, but it also seeks an association with its opposite, the electron. However it keeps its distance from its opposite so balance can occur.

Human roughly follow the same patterns as nature. Like attracts like. Those with similar beliefs and interests like to gather together. Often a lack a similarity brings great opposition as is now happening between Democrats and Republicans. However we don’t mind the existence of opposition, but we like to keep our distance from them.

Like two magnets men and women, who seem to be opposites, like to join together, but they are more like atoms seeking balance than protons and electrons. We both have male and female energies within us and the males with an excess of positive seek to unite with a female who uses that excess for balance and supplies her own excess of the other energy to balance the male. Among gays one will play the female role and the other the male.

Overall the correspondence between humans and nature is an amazing thing to examine.

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Beware of What You Ask For

May 12, 2017May 12, 2017 Joseph Dewey

May 12, 2017

Beware of What You Ask For

I wrote this:

“We pray for many things of which we are not willing to pay the price. No wonder the heavens seem to be sealed.”

A reader responded by asking about the price and how prayer should be used

The price is different for each thing that is desired. The principle behind getting divine assistance is noted in this scripture:

“for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” II Nephi 25:23

No matter what it is that we want we are expected to do all we can first. When we have done all that is possible on our end then our prayers will be heard and answered if what we ask is in harmony with the will of God as noted here:

“Yea, my God will give me, if I ask not amiss.” II Nephi 4:35

You’ve heard of the story of the caterpillar in the cocoon who is assisted by a helpful person. It dies because the struggle of breaking through the barrier gives the creature the strength it needs to survive.

Even so, if we get assistance too soon we are robbed of the lessons we need to learn that will give us the strength to achieve on our own.

There is no greater joy discovered than he who struggles and achieves through doing all he can do.

When one has done all he can and then reaches a dead end, that is the time to pray for help.

Let us say that Jim wants to find a wife and settle down, but he spends most of his spare time on the computer instead of going out and looking at the many social places available. God is not going to send him a partner who comes and knocks on his door.

Let us say that Bob wants wisdom and knowledge, but he spends no time learning wisdom from the wise through personal contact and books. God is not going to just snap his fingers and give him the gift of wisdom.

The older I get the less I ask for because I know there is a price for all things.

If I ask for patience, I may wind up encountering many irritating people.

If I ask for wisdom I may have to go through painful experiences to obtain it.

If I ask for love, I may first be tested to see if I can love the least of my brethren who may be very difficult people to deal with.

If I ask for wealth for a good cause I may first be required to go through financial struggles so I can learn the value of a dollar.

If one realizes the price required then asking God for something is a fairly brave thing to do. Why? Because the path that will be laid out for you to obtain it is often something you would not have chosen on your own.

Even so, when the path is followed and the prize is won you would not trade the experience for anything.

A reader disagreed with my comments indicating that we must put effort into an endeavor before we can achieve or receive supernatural help. She says that blessings are generously given by the grace of a loving God and are not earned.

It is interesting that this came from an LDS reader when the church places emphasis on works rather than grace. Many of the Protestants place emphasis on grace and faith over works.

The LDS scriptures teach that both faith and works are necessary. As I said the scripture specifically says:

“for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” II Nephi 25:23

Now I by no means see LDS doctrine as perfect, but in this case they are on the right track as well as being in harmony with the Bible wherein we read:

“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” Matt 16:27

“But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.” II Cor 9:6

“And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.” Rev 14:13

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Gal 6:7

It certainly sounds like Jesus and the prophets placed a similar emphasis on our labors to produce results as was espoused in my article.

We reap as we sow, not as we do not sow. If one observes what happens in his own life as well as others he can see this law is indeed valid.

Of course, there are some effects that cannot be traced to this life alone, but under regression techniques people can be taken to past lives and there will be discovered the works that created the present conditions not explained in his life.

Now let us put scriptures aside and look at the logic of this.

If a person wants to become a champion athlete is he going to achieve this by just having faith and waiting for God to snap his fingers and bless him?

I assure you that you can look far and wide and will not find a champion who did not put a lot of effort into achieving his success.

If a person wants to draw positive people into his life he will not achieve this by being negative, for like attracts like. He must put effort into being a good person and doing the right thing.

If a person wants to be a good speaker then he must apply himself by filling his mind with pertinent facts and then by giving speeches.

I have never seen a person excel at anything without first doing his part and applying himself.

The reader then tells me that she detests the pride that comes from thinking that we earned our blessings.

Actually, I have observed the opposite. The greatest pride I have seen comes from those who have achieved little who think they are great souls. Take a look at all those who claim to be the One Mighty and Strong or the Second Coming. Most of these are not very blessed and have little talent, yet their pride makes them see themselves a the greatest recipients of God’s blessings on the planet.

This Mighty and Strong syndrome carries over to many people who have little achievement in many areas of life.

On the other hand, most of those I know who have achieved a lot are more humble than average. Now there are exceptions, such as Muhammad Ali who proclaimed himself to be “the greatest,” but most of them do not throw their own achievements in your face.

To achieve, sacrifice is often required and some are much easier than others. If the one achieving loves his work then it is not a sacrifice at all. It is only a sacrifice if something is required that he prefer to not do.

I have had to make sacrifices big and small and the reward was definitely the greatest with the larger sacrifices.

Concerning the greatest sacrifice in history we are even told that there was a motive and reward behind it:

“Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross.” Heb 12:2

I cannot think of any instance in my life or anyone else who has achieved anything of significance where they did not apply themselves first. I can think of instances in my life where I received divine assistance after I have done all I could in the process.

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Take No Thought

May 9, 2017 Joseph Dewey

May 9, 2017

Take No Thought

Some of the most controversial advice given by Jesus was from the Sermon on the Mount:

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

“Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

“Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” Matt 6:19-34

Like all the rest of the words of Jesus these are beautifully said and sound very pleasant. But nodding one’s head in approval of their beauty and trying to incorporate them into life are two different things.

If one were to literally apply them in the here and now what would he do?

It sounds like if you want to serve God rather than mammon (earthly treasure) that you could care less about earning a living. If you own a business perhaps you should cease putting attention on it and read the scriptures, pray and meditate instead.

If you have a job that forces you to work for money perhaps you should quit and become a wandering preacher.

In addition, he tells us to “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.”

If one takes this literally he would not have any savings account, keep any surplus cash, gold or silver and would not be concerned about having any extra food storage, backup power, fuel or supplies of any kind.

There are two types of people who seemed to have literally followed this advice.

The first are the freeloaders. These are irresponsible people who feel the world owes them a living and either will not or cannot keep a job. Friends, family and strangers feel sorry for them and help them out and somehow they seem to survive, yet remain carefree.

These freeloaders are violating the command of the scriptures which say:

“this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” II Thess 3:10

Yes, this group cares not for tomorrow and lets tomorrow take care of itself but on the back of others who do care and do work hard to make sure there is enough to go around.

The second group are spiritual teachers who live on the donations of others so they can devote full time to their work. Jesus himself was in this category. He may have done some carpentry work when younger, but when on his mission he was supported by others who did have regular jobs. The Gospels indicate that there was no shortage of people willing to invite him for dinner.

Buddha, we are told only had one set of clothes and a rice bowl to his name. When hungry he went from place to place teaching and students gave him enough rice to survive.

When Buddha was seeking for enlightenment he came across Hindus who took this teaching further in that they had no clothes at all and lived naked in the forest.

All of Jesus’ disciples wore clothes so he obviously didn’t expect them to go that far.

Today, numerous clergy and missionaries have their needs taken care of by donations so they can concentrate on God rather than mammon, but how about the rest of us? Are we supposed to take no thought of our needs and live on what just comes our way as we contemplate God?

It almost sounds that way. On the other hand, Jesus never criticized or condemned ordinary people for working hard to earn a living. Peter James, John and Andrew were fishermen and Jesus even helped them catch fish on one occasion. Matthew was a tax collector and we assume the others had some kind of gainful employment before they met Jesus.

The famous apostle Paul didn’t rely on donations of others but was a tentmaker by trade and not only supported himself, but helped others.

Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy merchant who donated the tomb for Jesus and was considered a righteous man.

Most of the people written about in the Old Testament had jobs of some kind and did what they could take make sure they had enough for tomorrow.

The most famous example was Joseph who was sold into Egypt. He had a revelation from God that there Egypt needed to store up seven years supply of food to prepare for the times ahead. If Joseph had not done his part in preparing for the future then Egypt would have been devastated and many would have starved.

Taking all this into consideration one then wonders exactly how we are to interpret the words of Jesus for they seem quite impractical for us in the here and now who need to take care of tomorrow.

The first question to ask is this. Is it possible the compiler of the Gospel put this in a different context than Jesus intended? There is some evidence of this in the Book of Mormon that has Jesus repeating the Sermon on the Mount to the Nephites on the American continent, but with subtle changes. The account says:

“And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he looked upon the twelve whom he had chosen, and said unto them: Remember the words which I have spoken. For behold, ye are they whom I have chosen to minister unto this people. Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?” 3 Nephi 13:25

So in this situation the message was to the twelve apostles, not to the people as a whole. He wanted his ministers to not worry about making money, but to concentrate on teaching the people. Because the people were aware of this they made sure that these servants were taken care of.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where the material needs for most of us are not supplied unless we do place significant attention on the material side. On the other hand, this situation is changing. As society and technology evolves we will eventually reach a state where we all will have our basic needs taken care of and we will be able to have plenty of time to focus on spiritual or creative endeavors.

Until that time, unless we have an inheritance, large savings or someone to take care of us we will have to place some attention on the needs of tomorrow, just as ancient Joseph did.

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Mandela Effect

May 6, 2017May 6, 2017 Joseph Dewey

May 4, 2017

The Mandela Effect

There is a theory going around that reality has shifted and many of the things we remember as being true are not true in this reality, but were before the reality shift.

This has been called the Mandela Effect since many say they recall Nelson Mandela dying back in 1980.

Some sincerely believe that this reality shift has happened whereas others think it is just false memories that people have. For instance, we know that many people think there are many things in the Bible that are not really there, such as “money is the root of all evil.”

On the other hand, there are things that astute Bible students remember as being there that are no longer there.

For instance students are reporting that Isaiah 11:6 used to say:

“Then the Lion shall lay down with the Lamb and the bear shall eat grass like the ox, and the child shall play on the hole of the asp and nothing shall hurt nor destroy in all My Holy Mountain.”

But now in all King James Bibles it read:

“The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”

There is now nowhere in the Bible that speaks of the lion and the lamb together. Instead of lion it is now wolf.

This is one that got me thinking as I do not recall reading about the wolf and the lamb.

Many in the past have memorized the Lord’s Prayer as follows:

“Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done ON earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES AS WE FORGIVE THEM WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” Matthew 6:9–13

But now it reads:

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done IN earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

AND FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS, AS WE FORGIVE OUR DEBTORS.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. Matthew 6:9–13

There are two changes that have occurred according to some students. They say it used to read “ON earth” but now it reads “IN earth.”

It used to read

“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

But now it reads:

“And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.”

Unfortunately, I never memorized the verses in question so I can just go by my reading memory but it really seems like the verses have changed, though our reading comprehension and memory does indeed play tricks on us.

Some religious people are really upset over what they remember and believe the devil is altering scripture to deceive us.

Below is a link to a site that gives 20 examples of the Mandela Effect. I’ll just mention a couple

We remember the show called “Sex In the City.” Wrong. It is “Sex and the City.”

We remember that Darth Vader said. “Luke, I am Your Father.” Wrong. All records now have him saying, “No, I am your father.”

From Snow white we remember the queen saying, “Mirror, mirror on the wall.” Wrong. Now it is, “Magic mirror on the wall.”

Check out this link and tell me what you think. Is reality changing or not?

LINK

Explaining the Mandela Effect

So, do I think we are in an altered universe where reality has changed?

I must admit that after seeing some examples people have posted that the idea did seem to be a possibility. The supposed changing of Isaiah from the lion and the lamb to the wolf and the lamb gave me pause.

On the other hand, it is common for people to attribute quotes to the Bible that are not there, or quote with an alternative wording that still teaches the truth.

Isaiah 11:6 tells us that a number of animals will dwell in peace together including the wolf, the leopard, the kid (a goat), the calf, the fatling, and, of course, the lion and the lamb.

Popular culture just changed the order to the lion and the lamb as this portrayed a more impacting image. This association of the lion and the lamb began over 200 years ago and just became one of those phrases that stuck in public consciousness.

So how about the Lord’s Prayer? Why do many remember, “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them who trespass against us,” instead of “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,” as it is actually worded in the King James?

The answer is quite simple in that the prayer using the word “trespass” originated from an alternative translation originally used in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, published in 1662. This translation became known as the “traditional” Lord’s prayer and has been used in most churches since that time, even though the wording is different in the King James.

It is interesting that some of the changes claimed for the Mandela Effect are not remembered by me and others as changes.

For instance, it is claimed that which now reads as “Neither do men put new wine into old bottles” used to read “wineskins” instead of “bottles.”

My memory tells me that it read “bottles” in the King James when I was younger. The reason that people think it was wineskins is that all modern translations render it wineskins instead of bottles. Most Bible quotations we hear today are from other versions than the King James, so most people have heard this verse quoted using wineskins rather than bottles.

Many remember OSCAR MAYER as being spelled OSCAR MEYER, but my wife says she distinctly remembers that MAYER is accurate.

Others though such as “Mirror Mirror” rather than “Magic Mirror” are false public memories that certainly gives one pause.

So, do I discount this reality shift idea completely?

No. I do not discount anything completely, as anything is possible.

I listen to Coast to Coast radio regularly and listeners call in now and then with reality shift stories. They’ll recall traveling home from work and spotting landmarks that were not there before, or maybe people in the office that were never there before. Some people claim to recall living in a totally different reality than they are in now.

While I think Shakespeare was right that there are more things in heaven and earth than we dream of I tend to go with what makes the most sense until I see something that proves otherwise.

It is a fact that people hear what they want to hear and remember what they want to remember. Often in my life I have had people quote words that I was supposed to have said but I did not say at all. We know that not all memory is accurate and this causes some interesting tricks to be played on us.

On the other hand, many insist that their memories are not false but real. Is there another explanation other than human error to explain this?

Actually there is.

Whenever we come to a fork in the road and face a difficult decision we often wonder what would have happened if we chose the other path, the other marriage partner, the other job etc.

This alternate choice creates waves of creative energy in the ethers that actually play out to some degree. In the spirit world we can review our lives in a reality similar to the Holodeck in Star Trek and examine how our lives would have played out if we had decided differently. One can also examine the earth’s history and see how things would have played out differently if different decisions were made.

We not only visit the spirit world between lives, but also the mental part of ourselves returns there during sleep. During our visits we can obtain access to there alternate realities if desired.

So, what happens is that sometimes a person retains some memory of an alternative history that he obtained from the spirit world which he associates with past events in his current life.

Now this does not discount the fact that plain human error that does occur with our memories, but it does explain why some have vivid past memories that have not occurred in our present reality.

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Was Jesus a Socialist?

April 28, 2017 Joseph Dewey

April 28, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality

Part 6

Was Jesus a Socialist?

Many from alternative spirituality use Jesus along with various scriptures to convince us that high taxes and a government sponsored socialism with the redistribution of wealth is all part of God’s will and therefore a benevolent thing to advocate. These people have many friends in orthodox Christianity such as President Obama who in a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in February 2012 basically says that those who have abundance should be happy to be taxed by government so they can give it to those who lack because of “God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’”

Then he adds: “But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’”

He continues: “It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these — for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.”

And that is not all, he also says, “Treating others as you want to be treated. Requiring much from those who have been given so much. Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need. These values are old.”

Then he finishes by quoting the Apostle John: “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”

Wow, that really sounds like Jesus must have really been a socialist … or does it?

As I noted earlier there are 41 definitions of the term “socialism” that covers most every aspect of community and sharing so yes, I’m sure one or more of those definitions could be applied to make the argument that Jesus was a socialist of some kind. The same arguments could be used to make the case that many mainstream Christians of today are socialists for sharing, but that totally misses the case that the Left is subtly trying to make.

And what is that?

First, I’ll tell you what it is not. They are not trying to convince us that we as individuals are supposed to help those in need by giving our time and money directly to them as Jesus advocated. They have no interest in that. Instead, they want us to believe that Jesus wants us to share by giving our money to the government through high taxes so Big Brother can then give to those in need. Since about 50% of the people get money from the government that is a whole lot of need happening out there.

When we hear believers saying that Jesus was a socialist we need to understand that they are not saying he was some fringe definition of socialist that just donates his money to good causes but they are making the case that he would support higher taxes, especially for the rich, so their wealth can be taken from them by force and given to those in need after millions of bureaucrats take their cut in the form of high wages and benefits.

So the question is not: Was Jesus a generous and sharing kind of dude, but was Jesus an advocate of giving to Caesar so Caesar could redistribute according to his will?

The answer should be obvious, but unfortunately it must not be, because a lot of people, in both standard and alternative spirituality, think that Jesus was a socialist who would smile at the current government give-aways and encourage more of them.

There is a huge difference between the redistribution of wealth advocated by Jesus and that of big government people today. The difference is that Jesus taught the people what to do and let them make up their own minds. If a person didn’t want to give to the poor he didn’t have to. Jesus didn’t even follow the selfish guy around to pester him to share his wealth.

On the other hand, when Caesar, or the government, decides that you need to share your wealth it will follow you around with IRS agents and force you to share whether you want to or not.

Yes, all the President’s quotation of scripture regarding sharing with our fellowmen and women does apply to individuals using their own initiative, and if he left it at that he would have a fine sermon to deliver in church. The question is – do the teachings apply to forced sharing or tax and share?

Let us look at a couple of the scriptural arguments used to justify the government confiscating wealth and then sharing it.

One of the most popular is the story of the rich young man who came to Jesus and asked him what he needed to do to obtain eternal life. Jesus responded by telling him to keep the Ten Commandments.

To this the man responded:

“All these I have kept,” … “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.”

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 19:16-23 New International Version

“So there you have it,” says the aspiring socialist. “The rich re supposed to give away all their money to the poor so we are just following the teachings of Jesus in advocating sharing or redistribution of wealth.”

I find it amazing that this comparison can be made with a straight face because there is a big difference between what Jesus advocated compared to the socialists and communists of today.

Jesus advocated sharing through free will. Socialists of today advocate sharing by force. – two very different approaches.

Let us suppose that after the rich man talked to Jesus he went home to discover that a thief had broken into his house and stole all his wealth. The thief then shared that wealth with his family and friends who were in need. Do you suppose the rich man then obtained a spot in the kingdom of heaven because his wealth was shared by force with the poor?

Such an idea obviously makes no sense, yet this is what many want us to believe when they quote this scripture. They seem to think they are helping the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven through taking their wealth by force.

If the taking of wealth by force helps people enter heaven then the churches ought to hire burglars to rob from their rich members. They’d kill two birds with one stone. They will fill their coffers with cash while assisting those resisting rich on the path to heaven.

Notice that the advice of Jesus to the rich man had nothing to do with force. Did he tell the man to go to Caesar or the government and donate his money so the welfare programs of Rome could be enhanced?

No. He did not hint that he should give his wealth to government through either force or free will. Jesus did not even ask him to give to himself or his group. He simply told him to give directly to the poor through his own free will.

Then when the man refused, Jesus let him be. He did not lift a finger to force the man to comply.

This is a difficult scripture for Christians as it is a hard thing for all of us to part with our money. And it is quite possible that Jesus never intended for all the rich to part with their money. Perhaps this particular individual was corrupted by wealth more than most and parting with it would help his mind focus on spiritual things.

Joseph of Arimathea was a rich friend of Jesus who donated his expensive burial tomb. He never gave away all his wealth or else he couldn’t have assisted with this gift, but is considered a saint. Perhaps Joseph’s wealth did not corrupt his soul and he used it toward a good end – making it unnecessary to give it all away at once.

Here is the attitude Jesus said we must have toward the disadvantaged if we want to enter the kingdom of heaven:

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” Matt 25:35-36 NIV

Again the socialists say, “See. Jesus wants us to share the wealth if we are to get into heaven.”

But again there is no mention of Caesar or force involved. Those who attain the prize are those who are benevolent through their own free will.

There are numerous scriptures admonishing the rich to share, but not one that indicates forced sharing benefits the soul.

It is interesting to note that the authorities were concerned that Jesus was delinquent in taxes or perhaps avoiding them altogether. It is written:

…the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax’?” “Yes, he does,” he replied. (He apparently lied here to protect his master)

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes— from their own sons or from others?”

“From others,” Peter answered.

“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.” Matt 25:24- 27 NIV

Here we learn that Jesus didn’t pay this tax because he didn’t think it applied to him but when accosted – to keep himself and Peter out of trouble – he went ahead and made the payment.

Word must have gotten out that Jesus was dragging his feet in paying taxes for the Pharisees approached him about his view on them in the hope of getting him in trouble with the authorities.

“Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.”

They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Matt 22:17-21 NIV

He avoided saying no, which would have led to an early arrest. Instead he told them it appeared the coin belonged to Caesar since it bore his image. If it belongs to Caesar then let Caesar have it but give to God that which belongs to God.

This confused them enough to leave Jesus alone for a while but word must have gotten out that he wanted the rich to give directly to the poor instead of sharing the wealth through taxes. We find this accusation made at his trial:

And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar… Luke 23:2 NIV

It should be crystal clear to any honest thinker that Jesus would not be in harmony with today’s tax and share the wealth socialists. If something belonged to an individual it was up to him whether he shared with others or not.

Because of inefficiencies of bureaucracy today it generally costs us two tax dollars to give away one to people in need. The philosophy of Jesus not only operated on free will but was much more efficient. He told the rich to just give their money directly to the poor. Under the plan of Jesus two dollars out of two went to the poor compared to one out of two or three today by Big Brother. Which makes the more sense?

Most Christians today follow the example of Jesus and pay their taxes to keep out of trouble, but as far as helping the disadvantaged goes, in most cases, they would rather have the extra money and help of their own free will rather than being forced to share. A thief with a gun can force you to share but that doesn’t even get your big toe into the Kingdom of Heaven.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” –Benjamin Franklin, “Management of the Poor” (1766)

If you missed Part 1 Click HERE For Part 2 go HERE, Part 3 HERE, Part 4 HERE, Part 5 HERE

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Sharing

April 27, 2017 Joseph Dewey

April 27, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality

Part 5

Sharing

Many spiritual teachers have taught about the importance of sharing. This is one ideal inherent in both standard and alternative religion or spirituality.

An increasing number in orthodox religion are interpreting the advice of Jesus to give to the poor as support of government socialism. Most of them though see it as an admonishment to individual giving.

On the other hand, the vast majority in the alternative movements support the government imposition of socialism, including most students of my favorite teacher, Djwhal Khul. They seem to support any social program that sounds good without thinking it through to see if it adheres to the Law of Economy and the Principle of Freedom.

DK and numerous other teachers have rightly present an ideal that is hoped to manifest in a future world where the people will be much more focused on spiritual values than material ones. They see a world where people, groups, states and nations will be dominated with a spirit of goodwill, sharing and brotherhood so that those with more power and possessions will help those with less. DK said this back in 1940:

“These are: first, the recognition that there is enough food, fuel, oil and minerals in the world to meet the need of the entire population.”

Externalisation of the Hierarchy, Page 197

The earth has plenty for all, especially if humans remain free to use their ingenuity to develop products and services to meet the need.

For instance, we are in the process of developing a half dozen alternatives to oil to fill our energy needs.

Indeed there is enough for all. The only thing that prevents the basic needs of all humans being satisfied is inefficient government and selfishness on the part of many in power.

Time and time again, when food and supplies has been sent to starving people, they were intercepted by leaders and gangs and not distributed.

This was not the fault of the rich nations who helped but of the leaders of the poor and starving.

There is a time and place for direct assistance, but sooner or later each individual, group and nation must learn to develop the necessary skills and education to produce abundance for themselves.

It is interesting that many of the nations with the greatest poverty are blessed with many natural assets, such as oil, minerals, water, good soil etc. The only thing that keeps them from abundance is lack of knowledge and suppressive government.

Filling in the knowledge gap is where the Internet will come in. Many now living in poverty in the third world are gaining access and enterprising people can find educational sites where they can learn most anything they desire.

Concerning socialism and free enterprise, DK tells us that “the extreme position in either case is untenable.” (Rays and Initiations, Page 633)

So, what is the extreme of free enterprise? DK talks about free enterprise and “intense individualism” in pretty much the same breath making the extreme here easy to see. The extreme on the free enterprise side is being motivated only for the benefit of self while ignoring the plight of the downtrodden. The person involved in free enterprise accomplishes the most good when he seeks to benefit others as well as himself and seeks spiritual values, as well as the material.

So, how does the extreme manifest in socialism then?

He plainly states the problem:

“Socialism can degenerate into another form of totalitarianism, or it can be more democratic than the present expressions of Democracy.” (Rays and Initiations, Page 747)

Then he says this:

“Principle of Fusion and of group endeavour is right and part of the divine plan; its implementation by grasping, greedy and ambitious men, or by deluded disciples, is terribly wrong and will lead to disaster. This disaster the Hierarchy is seeking to avert, but the Masters are handicapped (as usual) by the relatively few upon whom They can depend, and by the lack of understanding amongst the masses of well-intentioned people.”

Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 2, Page 353

And just how can socialism and fusion degenerate to totalitarianism? The answer is obvious. When the State violates the Principle of Freedom and imposes social programs on the people contrary to the will of the people who will have to pay for those programs. If it works with the will of the people he tells us that “it can be more democratic than the present expressions of Democracy.”

What are the results when social programs are in harmony with the will of the people?

One of the prime things is that those who are putting up the money will feel their money is well spent and not going down a black hole. Social Security in the United States is an example of a social program supported by the will of the people. The only complaint of substance is the State raids the Social Security funds for other social programs not supported by majority will and this places the whole thing in jeopardy.

Most on the spiritual right as well as the political right will support social programs that are supported by the majority who will pay for them. Of course, the vast majority of those who get free stuff with no payment on their part will want to get as many freebies as the State is willing to dole out. They should not have power to dictate to those who are paying for the programs to pay more and more until there is nothing left to give. That lays the foundation for the tyranny spoken of by DK.

Unfortunately, the political left, as well as many DK students, do not agree with DK and are willing to use the force of the Sate to impose their social ideals, even if they run contrary to the will of the people who have to pay to implement those ideals.

This is the extreme of socialism and fusion that must be avoided, for if such steps are followed with no one putting them in check then we will reach a state where those who receive will outnumber those who pay, and this new majority of takers will then have power to dictate to a new cycle of slaves what they demand to receive from them.

This tyranny must not be allowed to materialize or the only correction will be found in the complete collapse of the system with the believers of freedom building anew.

If you missed Part 1 Click HERE For Part 2 go HERE, Part 3 HERE, Part 4 HERE

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Oneness and Unity

April 24, 2017 Joseph Dewey

April 24, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality

Part 4

Oneness and Unity

Oneness and unity is another grand ideal looked upon by alternative spirituality. Many look forward to a future that has a united world government and religion.

They differ significantly from standard religion which is very suspicious of any type of political or religious union except within their own organization. Mormons do not see themselves as ever uniting with Catholics, Catholics do not see themselves as uniting with Baptists and so on.

On the other hand, many in the new age and esoteric communities believe that the people of the world will become more enlightened until they will eventually agree on basic ideals and eventually agree more than disagree to the extent that they can all support certain spiritual and political endeavors as one people.

Most believe that if unity and oneness could be achieved through free will then the world would be a much better place and we would finally have peace on earth goodwill to men.

Unity and agreement are logically much better goals than is separation and the conflict that comes with it. And despite differences among the various people of this planet we have made some progress. For instance, in the beginning of America there was a great lack of unity between the states and territories. There was a consistent danger of aggression between various states, groups and territories. Fighting for independence against a common enemy and forming a union of states did much to set the tone of union.

Now it would seem out of place to worry about North Carolina going to war with South Carolina.

Countries in Europe for many centuries were at war with each other. We now live in a time where it seems extremely unlikely that England will ever go to war with France.

We have made progress, but we are not perfect and there is still grave danger of war in various parts of the earth because of a lack of unity and demonization of various countries.

Many spiritual teachers have taught about the need for union and greater cooperation between nations, and that is an excellent ideal to place before us. But where good turns to evil is when students interpret such teachings in black and white terms and consider attempts toward union as desirable without analyzing the situation. We must all realize that that not all unions are desirable, but instead can be a great threat to the world.

Perhaps there is no greater example of this than Hitler’s Nazism. He first united he German people under a one party dictatorship. Then through subterfuge he added Austria and Czechoslovakia. After that he decided to go for uniting the whole world and started World War II. We all know how that ended.

The problem with many alternative folks is they have not learned from the lessons of history and are one pointed in their ideal to the extent that many support any union that claims to be for our good.

For instance, most esoteric students supported the European Union and saw the withdrawal of the UK as a leap backwards in evolution.

This statement from DK gives us a warning about being too eager for them to unite:

Blocs (of nations) in themselves can be good and proper if they follow lines of natural cleavages, of language differences and of cultural distinctions. They can be essentially right if they are formed for economic, educational, religious and social aims and can therefore provide no true cause for alarm. Such blocs would be cultural and not militaristic, economic and not greedy, and they could provide a normal and progressive movement away from the separative nationalism of the past and towards the distant creation of the One World, and the One Humanity. This will some day be seen, but the time is not yet. Mankind is not ready for some super-government, nor can it yet provide the unselfish and trained statesmen that such a government would require. As yet, there are more seeds of danger in this concept than there are of helpfulness. Nevertheless, it is a dream which will some day materialise, after the creation and the functioning of blocs have proved how men should work and live together.

Externalization of the Hierarchy, Pg 639

In other words, union through free will cooperative endeavors is desirable, but with our current mindset we must be careful about centralizing too much power or a dictatorship could result. This accumulation of central power in the European Union has alarmed the English and others and rightfully so. It is better for Europe to take its time and unite under harmless conditions than to create a strong central authority that cannot be corrected or reversed.

Because Djwhal Khul had hope that the United Nations would succeed many students support most everything that organization does, without analyzing it or taking heed of DK’s criticisms of it, such as:

“The United Nations is still the hope of the world and can remain so; it is a great field of experimentation, but is suffering today from an initial error. That error was the admitting of a totalitarian Power into its nations. For seven long and terrible years the Forces of Light had been fighting totalitarianism. In the early days of the post-war period the Nations compromised with principles and admitted Russia to the United Nations. Had they proceeded to unite all the other nations of the world on the sure ground of economic reform, of needed national reorganisation and of regional groups (a better term than “blocs”), Russia would have been forced to conform, for her very existence would have been at stake. An initial error can lead to much trouble, and it is this type of trouble which the United Nations today faces.”

Externalisation of the Hierarchy, Page 640 – April 1948

Many support the idea of unifying healthcare under the state under a single payer system without sufficiently comparing it to alternatives.

Communism seeks to unify the planet under its ideology and many students support any move in this direction despite this warning along with hope for the ideal from DK:

“Many of the people most violently fighting Communism could not tell you succinctly what those tenets are, but they are fighting – and rightly fighting – the totalitarian methods of cruelty, spying, murder, suppression and the lack of freedom. What they are doing in truth is fighting the abominable methods of imposing the rule of a few evil and ambitious men upon the ignorant masses, under the name of Communism. They are fighting the technique of exploiting the ignorant through misinformation, organised lying and limited education. They are fighting against the sealing up of nations within the confines of their own territory, against the police state, the lack of free enterprise and the reduction of men and women to automatons. This is the true imprisonment of the human spirit. The situation is, however, so pronounced and the evil so obvious (and the human spirit so basically and divinely strong) that it will eventually defeat itself; when the present group of totalitarian rulers (behind what you call the “iron curtain”) die out a different state of affairs will gradually supervene and a true Communism (in the spiritual sense of the term) will take the place of the present wickedness.”

Rays and Initiations, Page 745

The fact is that most any type of union can be beneficial if conditions are right and intelligent people of goodwill are in charge, BUT it is also true that most any union can turn into a great evil if conditions are not good and selfish people run the bureaucracies.

In summary we need to ask the question as to what are the right conditions for a beneficial union. Here are a few:

(1) First and most importantly the principle of freedom must be honored and applied. Too strong of a central authority usually leads to a dictatorship and loss of freedom that requires the sacrifice of many lives to dismantle. Union can be achieved without the force of a strong central authority. Switzerland is a good example of this with its 26 united cantons, or states, in a proven direct democracy, free from a strong central authority.

(2) Work with cooperative endeavors through free will. Examples of this today are nations working together on the Space station, the CERN collider, the refugee problem, trade and others.

(3) Stress cooperation and utilizing differences rather than attempting to create sameness through some misguided and forced standard.

(4) Accentuate the positive. Avoid demonizing other nations and peoples and look for ways to utilize that which is positive in them.

(5) Make overtures of goodwill, but analyze the results for future action.

A united world will eventually come, but it could be delayed if we take thoughtless gambles that take us toward too much central authority, leaving little room for individual initiative.

Here’s to hoping for union and oneness where freedom of the human spirit is preserved, no matter how long it takes.

If you missed Part 1 Click HERE For Part 2 go HERE Part 3 HERE

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Equality

April 22, 2017 Joseph Dewey

April 23, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality

Part 3 – Equality

Another very popular ideal in alternative spiritualty is equality. Equality in some measure has been stressed by many spiritual teachers and even found in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Unfortunately, the idea of equality is interpreted differently by various people.

Most reasonable people accept the idea as it applies to opportunity. That is, even though we are all in different circumstances we should all have equal opportunity to use the talents we have to succeed in life.

Many do not expect equality of income but when they read that the eight richest people in the world have as much combined wealth as the poorer half of the entire population of the world they become concerned. This does seem like an undesirable inequality.

People overall want to see each person have a fair shot at life and many things they see happening around them make them feel this may not be happening.

This causes some to take this good ideal and go to the extreme – way beyond merely applying it to opportunity and instead equating equality with sameness.

An example of this extreme emerges from some feminists who claim that for the sexes to be equal we must recognize that, outside of obvious physical differences, they are the same. Some claim that boys act differently than girls because of societal and family influences. In other words, boys would play with dolls and girls with guns in equal amounts if they were raised with the same influences.

I think that most reasonable people will agree that males and females are different enough in nature that it would be detrimental to attempt to force sameness on our children. The logical path is to allow a child to develop though his or her free will and give them as much equal opportunity to succeed according to their desires and talents.

For society to attain maximum equality we must realize what it is and have the desired end presented to us as a people so we can all head the same direction.

Before we can set a goal on equality we must realize that there are differences in everything and this must be a part of the equation. We ought to be happy about this rather than disgusted for the world would be a boring place if we were all the same .

Each person is a unique individual, different from everyone else. Each family is different and yes, each race has different qualities, as well as each city, state and nation.

Fair minded people do not judge the differences in others as being inferior or superior but in general as aspects to be appreciated. Tourists enjoy traveling to different countries because of the differences. They enjoy being exposed to culture and customs different than their own and appreciate them rather than scorn them in most vases.

The fair minded do not want sameness, which can be very detrimental, as is the case of the people of North Korea, but a reasonable equality can be a very good thing.

Here is what we should shoot for.

(1) A fairly equal opportunity to succeed in life. We cannot expect complete equality here as some will always have the advantage of better parents, friends, contacts, available opportunity etc. The main thing desired is that all possible obstacles are removed from all the people so everyone can climb the ladder according to his desire and ability.

(2) Abundance for all. Who cares if Mr. Smith makes more than you if you have enough wealth to enjoy a good life. Studies show that once a person reaches an income where he can live in reasonable comfort that more money does not bring more happiness. Yes the guy with a roof over his head is usually happier than the homeless person, but money can only increase well-being up to a point. After basic needs are taken care of, money does not buy happiness.

Taking the wealth of the few by force and redistributing it never ends well. Instead of seeking such leveling by force let us seek to increase wealth for all working with the free agency of humankind.

When the needs of the many are met then there will be a more natural tendency toward equality and sharing.

(3) The elimination of grievances. A lot of people put so much attention and energy on their grievances because they feel shortchanged in life that they have little focus left over to concentrate on personal success. This chip on the shoulder that many have is picked up from family, friends, the media, politicians and schools. As a society we must focus more on seeing the glass half full than half empty. Unless we do this then no amount of equality will bring satisfaction to the masses. There will always be one more thing needed before illusionary happiness can be obtained.

The mistake then made by many spiritually minded is to go to the extreme, way beyond these three points and seek for sameness rather than true practical equality.

Sameness will never be attained but a fair system where all have a reasonable opportunity of success is a goal that the world will eventually achieve.

If you missed Part 1 Click HERE For Part 2 go HERE

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Inclusiveness

April 21, 2017 Joseph Dewey

April 21, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality, Part 2

Inclusiveness

Peace is indeed the number one ideal embraced by alternative believers. It is an ideal supported by both the mentally and emotionally polarized, by the sixth ray people going out of influence and the seventh ray coming in. The main difference between the two is in the approach, not the desired end result of peace and goodwill.

In addition to peace there are a number of other ideals that are too firmly embraced with the sixth ray attitude of a black and white approach leading to extremism. What is overlooked is every virtue must be applied with good judgment else it will turn into a vice.

For instance, we all realize that generosity is a good quality, but if a parent gives away all the family’s grocery money to a good cause he will be doing harm to his children who may go hungry. Good sense is always the bottom line for anyone seeking to become a master of wisdom.

So let us look at some other ideals endorsed by those in alternative spirituality.

Inclusiveness would be high on the list. They teach that a lack of inclusiveness pervades Christianity for many believe that only members of their church or belief system will be saved and some are accused of favoring the rich or a certain class of people. Most alternative folks feel they are free from this fault and see themselves as having a loving open door welcoming all into the fold. Many have also stepped into the political arena and have advocated welcoming all across the borders, legal or not. Many want no screening process at all to filter out criminals.

Indeed it is a virtue to be inclusive if applied with common sense, but like all virtues, if taken to the extreme, it becomes negative rather than positive.

Let us use the Law of Correspondences and relate open borders to a family home. For U.S. citizens the United States is our larger home, but in the microcosm the property we live in is our home also.

Now you may have a relative or friend call now and then asking if they can crash a few days. It may be an inconvenience but you accept them and figure you are being inclusive.

Now suppose an old acquaintance who you never considered a close friend shows up on your doorstep with a wife, six kids and three large dogs. Taking him in may indeed test your normally inclusive nature.

If one really wanted to be inclusive he could take in a few homeless people. The trouble is that even if one was willing he would be nervous about doing it since the homeless guy could be on drugs and dangerous.

But let us suppose that Billy Bob is one righteous dude and decides to open his home and resources to those in need. He invites three homeless people to stay with him. He is fortunate in that he chose three that were not dangerous, but he finds they do take much more advantage of his good nature than he planned. His favorite food and drink disappear very quickly.

Then a couple days later word spreads about his good nature and three more homeless show up on his doorstep with very sad stories. Billy Bob reluctantly lets them in, thinking it is good to be inclusive.

Several days later, after having his house trashed, three more show up. He is determined to be inclusive and again lets them in. Then it becomes a daily occurrence for more to show up until his house is overflowing with all kinds of strange individuals who were more concerned with getting than giving. Finally, after sustaining more grief and expense than he could handle he throws his arms up and orders all of then to leave. Several become angry and threaten him and say they are staying no matter what. Billy Bob is beside himself and decides the only thing he can do is move out and let the bunch fend for themselves.

He gets a room at the Motel 6 and waits. Within a month the home has suffered so much destruction and abuse that it was not even fit for the homeless to live in. The bunch then leaves the house and moves into a shelter that at least has running water and some food.

Was Billy Bob inclusive?

He seemed to be.

Should our nation take the Billy Bob approach to our borders?

Obviously if we do not operate with some limitations too many people in need entering the country could wind up creating much damage as happened to Billy Bob.

Did Billy Bob practice the principle of inclusion and does our country if it uses no judgment as to who may enter?

No.

So are some true believers being extreme and advocating the Billy Bob approach to inclusiveness and open borders?

Indeed they are.

Part of the reason for this is that various teachers have rightfully taught of a time in the future where we will have open borders, throughout the world. Unfortunately, believers see such teachings in terms of black and white that need to be applied right now with no judgment involved.

In our story Billy Bob had a problem because of the great inequality between him and those he tried to include. That created a situation where he needed to use common sense in applying his inclusiveness, else more harm than good would result. If he lived in a city where all had a place to live then his inclusiveness would not create such a problem.

We see this working out with the borders of the United States. Because of the great inequality of the people south of our border we have the problem of millions crossing the border illegally.

On the other hand, because there are fairly comparable standards of living between Canada and the USA we do not have the same problem with them. We can be as inclusive as we want with Canadians with no negative results.

The solution with Mexico is to assist them in obtaining an efficient government and productive society so their standard of living will increase.

When Mexicans can earn as much in Mexico as they do in the United States then the problem will be solved and open borders will be no problem. In that case we would probably have as many U.S. citizens going south as Mexicans coming north.

The key to wisdom here is that as much as we want to be inclusive, generous and helpful all must be done with the application of thought. Without this the person may wind up doing more harm than good. If we do more harm than good, even with good intentions, we will create negative karma.

Jesus was an inclusive guy, but even he acknowledged limits in his parable of the wise virgins.

The five wise virgins saved up oil for their lamps so they could have sufficient to meet the bridegroom. The five foolish did not. When the call came the five wise lighted their lamps and proceeded, and the five foolish asked to borrow some of their oil. They replied that if they shared then none of them would have enough for the journey to meet the bridegroom. They thus refused and went on their way.

The five wise virgins had the choice which was this. Was it better that five achieve success or none succeed? They wisely held to the idea that it was better that five succeed than none.

Even so, if our country shares too much and is too inclusive we face the danger that Billy Bob did with his house. Everyone could loose.

The strong can help the weak, but if the strong become weak then there will be no one to help.

At present, instead of violating the principle of the incoming seventh ray with lawlessness, we need to go by the laws that are on the books and if they are seen to be unjust we need to change them. Inclusiveness and lawlessness are a dangerous mixture.

If you missed Part 1 Click HERE