Category: Teachings

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

Recognizing True Messengers

May 24, 2017May 24, 2017 Joseph Dewey

May 23, 2017

Recognizing True Messengers

Jesus had some pretty strong words for people who considered themselves the enlightened in his day:

Alas for you, lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites ! You build up the tombs of the prophets and embellish the monuments of the saints, and you say, “If we had been alive in our fathers’ time, we should never have taken part with them in the murder of the prophets.” So you acknowledge that you are the sons of the men who killed the prophets. Go on then, finish off what your fathers began!

You snakes, you vipers’ brood, how can you escape being condemned to hell? I send you therefore prophets, sages, and teachers; some of them you will kill and crucify, others you will flog in your synagogues and hound from city to city. Matt 23:29-34 New English

Notice that these people who are now known for participating in the crucifixion of Christ and the later persecution of his followers to prison and to death thought that if they had lived in the days of the prophets, such as Moses, Jeremiah or Elijah, they would not have rejected them or sought their lives. Surely, they thought that they would have stepped forward to help. They would have stood with Moses and not worshipped the golden calf. They would not have thrown Jeremiah in a pit, nor would they need Elijah to bring fire from heaven to prove he was a prophet. They saw themselves as the good guys in the present who would have also been the good guys in the past.

Jesus, who must have heard such talk in their conversations, replied starkly that they did not see themselves correctly. If they had lived in the days of the prophets they would have shared in the mob mentality and soon in the present they would prove Jesus correct by showing their true colors.

This incident gives us good food for thought for our own consideration. We need to ask ourselves that had we lived in the days of Jesus would we had been one of the 120 that believed on him after the crucifixion, or even during his life?

He tells us that he will come again. Most Christians think he will come in such a blaze of glory that it will be obvious who he is, but suppose he comes again like he did last time – as a regular mortal.

How many would recognize him then?

Djwhal Khul through Alice A. Bailey gave out many teachings and has many followers in the esoteric world. He tells us that he will teach again around 2025.

Suppose that there are a dozen people claiming to be his new vessel. Do you think that you could pick the real one? And what if none of them represented the true DK?

After all, students will recall that he did not reveal who he was last time. Someone else let his identity slip out against his will.

So it may be possible that none of the claimants will represent the real DK. The real vessel may be an unknown who just posts enlightening material on the internet.

And suppose the real spokesperson says something positive about a controversial Republican or Democrat? Would this cause you to write the whole of the teachings off?

I guarantee this would happen with many.

One of the reasons that enlightened prophets and teachers are rejected by the very ones who are supposed to be expecting them is this. The Spiritual Hierarchy does not like to repeat itself. If a teaching is out there and it is clearly written then it violates the law of economy to just repeat it again. All any regular mortal has to do is reference a page number.

When a true teacher arrives he will present something new and different – something thought provoking that will stimulate thinking and move forward spiritual evolution.

In the days of Jesus the devout were expecting a messiah. Some were expecting him to come in a blaze of glory, similar to the Christian expectation of the Second Coming today. Others saw him as one like Moses who would deliver them from the Romans as Moses delivered he Israelites from Egypt.

As far as teachings go they expected an extension of the Lawgiver, Moses, who would place great emphasis on living the letter of the law.

As it turned out, Jesus was none of these things. He didn’t deliver the people from the Romans. He not only didn’t place emphasis on the law, but seemed to disregard it. Instead of concentrating on refining the law he had a new message centered on love. They had never heard anyone teach such a thing before.

Since Jesus did not correspond to their expectations they rejected him outright and put him to death for blasphemy.

It is interesting to contemplate what he will teach when he comes again. Most are expecting a repeat of what he gave us last time. These are likely to be disappointed and not recognize him. Of course, he will not contradict what he gave out last time, but we must be prepared for the fact that he will teach many new things that will far surpass what we have in the Bible.

And how about DK? Again the new teachings will be in harmony with those given through Alice A. Bailey but he will move on to new material, much of which may be rejected by Bailey students, just because they are new and different.

The last time he taught we went through a great division resulting in World War II. He was one of the few teachers that called it right on Hitler from the beginning. Most teachers either tolerated him or embraced much of what he stood for. Just before the war almost every prediction from the alternative folks was there was nothing to worry about, that there would be no war.

If, when he teaches again, we are still in a state of great political conflict as we are today he may give out some controversial teachings and mantras in an attempt to bring students together as he did last time. Will those who are attached to their ideals reject him just as the idealists did last time?

Unfortunately, it is often the case that several generations must pass before the true avatars are recognized by the many, or even a significant number. But let us hope that we can raise our consciousness up so we can appreciate true messengers when they are here in front of our eyes, instead of merely participating in building beautiful monuments to their name after they are gone.

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

Facts on Fukushima

May 21, 2017May 21, 2017 Joseph Dewey

May 21, 2017

Facts on Fukushima

A reader posted an article sounding alarm that traces of cesium 134 have been found on the west coast of the United States linked to the Fukushima disaster. To this I responded:

This article is trying to create alarm where absolutely no alarm is called for. It says it has found radiation from cesium 134 in samples from the Oregon coast measured around 0.3 becquerels per cubic meter. Researchers in both the US and Canada said the recently detected radiation levels were extremely low and pose “no risk to humans or the environment.”

Extremely low is right. It would make over three cubic meters of water to produce one radioactive atom which would be much less radiation than you would get from holding a brick in your hand or looking at your watch with luminous dials.

The article says there are no safe levels of radiation which is nonsense. We are subjected to radiation every day through normal living and in small doses that some argue they are beneficial.

Here is what Snopes says about the salmon in the story.

“To be sure, the Fukushima disaster was a worldwide environmental catastrophe with global effects. The presence of a single North American salmon with trace levels of cesium-134, undoubtedly the result of the Fukushima event, will nevertheless have a barely negligible — let alone catastrophic — effect on public health.

LINK

To this the reader responded insisting there is a problem – that Fukushima is spilling its 500,000 year half-life lethal-level radiation into the Pacific.

We have to deal with the facts here my friend, not our feelings or alarm from others that has no foundation.

First, there is nothing released from any nuclear reactor that has a half-life of 500,000 years. Plutonium has a half-life of about 24,000 years and radiation from that poses no problem. Radiation from elements with a long half-life is not that dangerous. A while back, Bernard Cohen, a nuclear physicist volunteered to ingest some to demonstrate it was no more harmful than caffeine.

The second fact is that there were no deaths related to radioactivity from the Fukushima disaster. In addition Wikipedia says this concerning other effects:

“There have been no observed or expected deterministic effects. In pregnancies, there has been no expected increase in spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, perinatal mortality, birth defects, or cognitive impairment. Finally, there was no expected discernible increase in heritable disease or discernible radiation-related increases in any cancers, with the possible exception of thyroid cancer.”

A threat to the thyroid from iodine no longer exists, as its half-life was only eight days.

The Japanese have been carefully monitoring any possible radioactivity in fish and food in the area and radioactivity poses no present danger.

There are three major radioactive elements released that are of concern. The first and most serious is Iodine-131 which has a half-life of only eight days. That has spent itself out long ago so the danger there is long passed. The second cesium-134 which has a half-life of about two years. This means that around 87% of its danger has now passed and will too become negligible soon. The third is cesium-137 which has a half-life of 30 years.

There are traces of cesium-137 in all our oceans caused by the testing of atomic bombs by the United States and the Soviet Union decades ago. This is of little concern as the amount is thousands of times lower than that required for any health risk. Any additional amounts of cesium-137 and cesium-134 linked to the Fukushima disaster is so small as to have about zero effect.

The main negative health effect from Fukushima was the displacement of citizens who lived near the reactor. This was an extreme inconvenience.

Although there were no deaths directly related to radiation from the reactor there were 15,894 deaths, and 2,562 people missing caused by the tsunami itself. It was also the most expensive disaster in history costing around $235 billion. This comparison is often overlooked.

The Fukushima disaster was created by a perfect storm of condition that taught us to not make reactors in areas where a possible tsunami could occur. Even so, the new generation of reactors and those in development are much safer and would not duplicate this problem.

The situation is a little like the history of the railroad. At first the bridges that made were not that safe and a number collapsed. The public was alarmed and, for a time, everyone thought that we should cease expanding our rails because we could not make safe bridges. But we corrected our mistakes in construction and soon the time came that all bridges were sound and safe.

We are at that point with atomic refactors. The newest ones are very safe and those under development will be even more secure. This should be good news for those concerned with CO2 emissions, for nuclear energy is responsible or more carbon free energy than any other source and it is not intrusive and does not clutter up the environment as is wind and solar. In addition it poses no threat to birds.

Excessive regulations and lawsuits by environmentalists is making nuclear expansion difficult in the United States, but fortunately this has not prevented other nations from forging ahead. In 2016 China increased its nuclear generating capacity by a whopping 25%, giving it power to reduce coal consumption and CO2 emissions. In addition it has 20 nuclear reactors under construction.

In the western Hemisphere atomic energy has the record of being the safest form of producing electricity. I have only been able to find one death linked to radiation exposure at a power plant in this hemisphere in the last 60 years.

Instead of worrying about harmless amounts of radiation in our oceans we ought to be concentrating on real problems. A major one is the polluting of our seas with garbage, most insidiously plastic bottles which are very harmful to sea life. It is outrageous that citizens of the world have allowed this to happen.

A second major problem is the dumping of nitrogen and phosphorous into the Mississippi River that drains into the Gulf of Mexico creating a dead zone that is destroying life in the waters. We need to focus more attention on natural methods of food production where no harm is done to the land or the waters.

A third problem is overfishing. This needs more international attention.

Finally a fourth major problem is the pollution of our seas and life therein with mercury, mainly from the burning of coal. This is why I support nuclear, wind and solar as replacements as soon as possible and any coal we do burn should be clean coal which reduces mercury and other emissions.

In conclusion there plenty of things to be concerned about with our oceans and waters, but radiation from Fukushima is not one of them.

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

Self Love

May 19, 2017May 19, 2017 Joseph Dewey

May 19, 2017

Self Love

Here was a recent quote:

“Without duality there can be no love. There can be no love unless there is two or more of something. One of the great purposes that God created the universe was so love could become manifest. If God had not created us there would be nothing to love.”

A reader disagreed with this mentioning the importance of self-love. So does love of self mean that duality is not necessary for love to exist? Could God have just not created anything and been happy with self-love for all eternity?

Would it shock you if I told you that there is no such thing as self-love? It doesn’t exist because love is only manifest in a relationship involving two or more.

Love is a divine impulse, and to manifest an entity has to serve, assist and provide benefit for another person, group or humanity itself.

We manifest this love, not by trying to love oneself, but by forgetting self as expressed by Jesus:

“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” Matt 16:25

If we can’t really love ourselves then what is happening inside the person who says he does love himself?

Generally what is called self-love is merely self-acceptance. It is difficult to love and serve another person if one loathes himself. Those who love the most are those who live up to the highest they know and accept themselves even though they are not perfect.

Now when speak of self here I am talking about the conscious entity within the form. It is possible to have a lower aspect of love toward parts of yourself but for this to happen one must see himself as not one being but one composed of several parts. Some of these parts include the body, the emotional self, the thinking self and the personality.

It is possible to have a lower aspect of love toward your body. Maybe a person thinks he is great looking and loves the way his body serves him. Maybe he thinks he has he greatest personality on the planet.

This aspect of love can only surface when one sees himself as more than one. One part of his makeup can express an aspect of love toward another part.

But if the person sees himself as a united whole then the parts are accepted but the love is then directed toward others. The disciple loses his life, or thoughts of self-love, and directs this aspect of God toward service to others. He realizes that in serving others with whom he has relationship that he is also serving himself. When this principle is understood he can then forget self because self is part of the group that will be taken care of through the spreading of love.

One of the problems with understanding love is that there are several levels. The highest level that can be comprehended by most is the love that emanates from our spiritual self, called by many the soul or higher self. This love energy is then reflected down in mortal life through our mental and emotional selves.

The emotional self distorts everything that is divine and interprets love in selfish terms. Its idea of love lies in possession and what the other can do for him, whereas the love of the soul is directed toward service rather than being served.

True expression of love then requires a forgetting of self and a focusing on serving the greatest number possible while producing the greatest benefit.

When the disciple focuses in this direction he finds that he has not lost himself, but has found himself and received much more self benefit than he did when he placed his attention on serving self.

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