Teachings – Page 22

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 6

September 22, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Sep 22, 2016

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 6

To Profile or Not

The problems of wisely dealing with immigration, illegal immigration and refugees are similar. Here are some that need to be considered.

The number of people we can assimilate
Are any of them a security threat? If so what kind of percentage are we talking about?
How carefully should they be screened before allowed to stay?
Will they assimilate with our way of life and support our constitutional government?
Do they have needed skills?

In the past the United States has been quite liberal in accepting refugees. We have been very accepting of refugees fleeing totalitarian systems such as the old Soviet Union, Cuba and others. One of the reasons for our acceptance is that many refugees in the past seemed happy to adopt our way of life and Democratic government, feeling it is much superior to the one they are fleeing.

Unfortunately, the refugee problem as well as immigration has become more complicated since 2001, after the 9/11 attack. Since all the 19 Hijackers were devout Muslims many people have become concerned about members of this religion entering this country. Then it hasn’t helped that most of the terror attacks worldwide and within the country since then have been perpetrated by members of the Islamic faith.

People have thus becomes divided into two camps as far as accepting Muslim immigrants and refugees.

(1) Those who think Muslim immigrants should be carefully screened to make sure they will support the American System and not pose a threat.

Quite a few throughout the world seem to be in this category as here are results from Pew research:

A median of 50% across four Western European countries, the U.S. and Russia called Muslims violent and a median of 58% called them “fanatical,”

(2) Those who think any type of profiling is Islamophobic – that it would be wrong to look any more closely at them than anyone else.

So, does the first group have a point or should Muslims be of no more concern to us than any other belief system?

Let us take a look Muslims in the United States. Here are some statistics on their thinking according to polls.

51% agree that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah Law. 51% also agreed that they should have the choice of American or Shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply Shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
Nearly a quarter of the Muslims in America polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make Shariah the law of the land in this country.
Pew Research revealed that 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.

Here are just a few elements of Shariah Law that so many support:

Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
Criticizing or denying Allah, the god of Islam is punishable by death.
A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
A woman’s testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man’s.
A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
Most think it supports the death penalty for gays

A cause of concern are conclusions published by Dr. Peter Hammond in his book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, published in 2005 where he examine what has happened throughout history when the number of Muslims in a country increases.

As long as the Muslims make up about 1%, they are generally considered a peace-loving minority who do not bother anyone.
At 2-3%, some start proselytizing to other minorities and disgruntled groups, especially in prison and among street gangs.
At 5%, Muslims have an unreasonably large influence relative to their share of the population. Many demand halal slaughtered meat, and have been pushing the food industry to produce and sell it. They have also started to work toward the government giving them autonomy under sharia law. Hammond writes that the goal of Islam is not to convert the whole world, but rather, to establish sharia law all over the world.
When Muslims reach 10%, historically, lawlessness increases. Some start to complain about their situation, start riots and car fires, and threaten people they feel insult Islam.
At 20%, violent riots erupt, jihadi militia groups are formed, people are murdered, and churches and synagogues are set ablaze.
When the Muslims reach 40% of the population, there are widespread massacres, constant terror attacks and militia warfare.
At 60%, there is the possibility of uninhibited persecution of non-Muslims, sporadic ethnic cleansing, possible genocide, implementation of sharia law and jizya (the tax for “protection” that unbelievers must pay).
When there are 80% Muslims in the country, they have taken control of the government apparatus and are, as in, for instance, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, committing violence in the name of Islam or political power.
When 100% are Muslims, the peace in the house of Islam is supposed to come — hence the claim that Islam is the “religion of peace.”

Indeed it does appear that there is a danger in letting wholesale numbers of Muslims into this country without some type of screening process. That said, then what should we do about the Syrian refugees in need of assistance? Should we just let them perish or is there a way to assist them? We’ll discuss this next.

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 5

September 20, 2016September 20, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Sep 20, 2016

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 5

Immigration Control

The question here in the United States is how to solve the immigration problem.

Bill O’Reilly was one of the few to present a concrete solution which was this:.

“Require all illegal aliens in the country right now to register at the post office with Homeland Security. After registering, they would be given a tamper proof ID card, designating their status and their right to work temporarily in the USA. If the illegal aliens do not register, it’s a criminal felony. Right now sneaking across the border is a civil action. Remember that. Subjecting the person to immediate deportation or jail time. The criminal penalty goes way up.

“Any business that hires an illegal worker who doesn’t have a tamper proof ID card faces draconian fines and possible prison time for the executives.

“Each illegal alien would have his case reviewed by federal authorities. And they would decide who would receive a Z-visa to stay and who would not. That takes the blanket amnesty, something many American hate, off the table. It also allows the feds to make rational decisions about who’s helping America and who isn’t.”

This is a little better than the last immigration bill but it would create about the same degree of virtual amnesty. It would cause of lot of them to register, but that alone wouldn’t change much.

What else can we do? Most do admit it is impractical to round up over 11 million people and send them home. Should we just accept the fact that they are here and make the best of it and concentrate on sealing the borders?

The only other alternative I have heard is to just work with current laws and deport illegals as they are caught by authorities. This wouldn’t round up a large number at one time but a handful here and there until a difference is made. Then we create a liberal work program for those who come across the border legally.

Then perhaps, most important of all, is to control the border itself.

Comment:

“So I think you are quite wrong in this case in saying that “it wouldn’t change much.” This would change quite a bit, and for the better in my opinion.”

Actually, what I said was “that alone wouldn’t change much.”

By “that alone” I meant his plan for granting Z visas, but as far as the whole package goes I think it would make a difference. It is probably the most effective plan out there that has gotten national attention. He said that 87 percent of those responding to an online survey approved of it.

On the other hand, I do not think it would ever get through Congress. There are too many people courting the Spanish American vote that see future voters in the illegals.

The sad thing is that this wouldn’t be a major problem now if immigration had been dealt with intelligently in the past. We have waited too long to deal with it but better late than never.

One of the problems we have with border security is there are many who advocate open (or near open) borders.

Their argument goes something like this.

“We are a nation of immigrants. Some of the early immigrants created problems and were not wanted yet we took them in. We are being hypocritical for not doing the same today.”

This argument is very flawed for two reasons:

In the early days of this country we had a sparse population with a whole country to settle. At that time it was logical to offer an open invitation to all who wanted to come. In addition, the vast majority of those who came wanted to be Americans.

Now that the nation is overpopulated by people demanding many free services from government an influx of unskilled labor is not so desirable. A certain amount is needed and these should be controlled through legal measures.

Another thing we hear is that they are doing work that others we will not do. “Who’s going to mow your lawn?” they ask.

Well, duh, a lot of people mow their own lawns and do their own gardens. We’ve had three different companies mow our lawn over the past ten years and they’ve all been white guys and they’ve all been at a reasonable cost. I wouldn’t know who to call to get an illegal to mow my lawn.

“But how about the fields and the orchards? Who is going to pick our fruit?”

The answer is that we have done this ourselves in the past and could do it again. I worked for six years picking fruit side by side with Mexicans from age 12 to 18. Back in those days about half the workers were white and half were Mexican. I got pretty good at it and was generally the fastest guy in the orchard. Usually the only time I got out-picked was by a seasoned Hispanic who had been at it for many years.

I made more money picking fruit than most of my friends with salaried jobs. We got paid by the pound and the more we picked the more we made. As a teenager, I bought all my own clothes, schoolbooks, hunting, fishing gear and other hobbies, a car, and some of my own food. If you figure inflation in I probably made around twenty dollars (USD) an hour. I was motivated though for my sister and I lived with our mom who worked for minimum wage, or picked fruit herself, and received no welfare or child support. If I didn’t make money myself then I had none.

The only reason we do not see teenagers out in the fields today is that we have gotten soft and there are so many illegals that we just let them do it and give the kids an allowance for taking out the trash.

Some cite the inscription on the Statue of Liberty as a reason for open immigration. The inscription reads:

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Notice the key phrase here is “yearning to breathe free.” In the early days this country was an oasis of freedom in the world and we wanted immigrants who would support democracy, even if they were poor and downtrodden. We were building a nation out of wide open spaces and the desire to have and maintain freedom was the character trait most cherished.

Today the nation is built and many immigrants are loyal to their home country and culture. We thus have to take another look at what we want in immigrants. The desire to breathe free always stands, but we need to continue to seek out immigrants with talent whether they be from Mexico, or other nations. Bill Gates tells us that the importing of talent is one of the main reasons for our current standard of living and if we do not continue to pursue it we could see a great decline. The poor and unskilled also can offer a great service but the number allowed in should be controlled to match the need for labor as well as considering national security.

There is a huge controversy brewing as to whether we should build a fence on our border with Mexico. It’s too bad circumstances have led to this possible solution but concerns over terrorists crossing the border as well as an overflow of aliens is such that it is now considered by many rank and file citizens.

Ironically few politicians support the idea. Never has there been such a divide between what the politicians think we should have and what the public thinks. The 2007 immigration bill was supported by most politicians, but not the public. It was only when politicians received a drove of angry letters from constituents that some backed off and the bill was defeated.

It was largely defeated because to the public’s ears it sounded too much like the last one that did not work. We were promised in the past that our borders would be made secure and they were not. This time the promise was not believed because there the bill had no teeth. The thinking of many is this. First secure the borders and then we can start thinking more liberally toward those who are here.

Congress approved a couple billion dollars to build a 700 mile fence and little has moved forward on the project. Citizens feel politicians are dragging their feet and have no intention on building a fence. Now Trump wanting to build a fence is accused of being mean spirited and racist.

The fact is we have a 2000 mile border with Mexico. We need to either build a fence across the entire border or none at all. Taking half measures will not protect us from either terrorists or too much illegal immigration.

Israel resisted building a fence for decades, but now that they have constructed one there has been a dramatic decrease of illegals and suicide bombers. The people near the fences are now able to live in much greater peace and security than before the fence.

The problem we have with a fence is that even if the public wants it the politicians are afraid to support building it. Why? Because both Democrats and Republicans see the Spanish Americans as the new largest minority in the country and want to cater to their votes. They seem to forget about other voters.

On the other hand, if we have another 9/11 and it is linked to smuggling WMDs across the border then there will be a lot of foot dragging politicians voted out and new ones put in.

If we do not build a fence then we need to increase border security and possibly bring in the national guard to secure the borders. Advanced technology could also be employed.

In addition to regular security measure we need to do all in our power to use our influence to change the Mexican system to a more democratic government with free enterprise and individual initiative encouraged. If the people have good employment there the illegal immigration problem will go away. We have made many loans and done numerous favors for Mexico without asking anything in return. We ought to ask for some reform.

Most illegals are hard working honest people but they have their share of the criminal element. Right now when an illegal is caught committing a crime he is usually sent to jail in a U.S. prison which often gives him a better life than he had in Mexico and costs us 30-40,000 USD a year.

What we ought to do with these guys is send them back to Mexico and pay the Mexican government to take care of them in their own prison system. That would make an illegal think twice about committing a crime here.

In addition we also have the Canadian border to worry about. It is true that we do not have a large influx of Canadians wanting to come here because they have a reasonable economy but a terrorist could make it across that border with way too much ease. Securing this border also needs serious investigation.

Securing our borders and way of life is a major problem at present and there is no easy solution. In addition, politicians do not have the will to impose anything but a feel-good solution. That could change in a heartbeat, however, by means of a WMD being smuggled across the border.

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 4

September 18, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Sep 18, 2016

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 4

Border Solutions

The Question:

Why is there such a problem with illegal immigration on the southern border with Mexico but not on the Northern border with Canada? How does this answer lead us to the long-term solution?

Most realize that it has nothing to do with skin color but the major difference in the two countries lies in the huge gap in their situation as far as a freedom, security and economics goes.

Canadians seem to feel as equally secure in these three areas as those living in the United States. Thus we do not have a big rush for them to come here. Instead, we have some Canadians moving here and some Americans moving there of their own free will. It is a fairly even exchange.

On the other hand, Mexico and Central America have tremendous problems with freedom, security and economics. This creates great impetus for the people to move to the United States any way they can get here.

We can’t place the major part of the blame on the common people south of us for the problem. If you or I were in the same situation we would also attempt to do whatever is necessary to provide for and protect our families. As usual, the major blame goes on the ruling classes, the powers-that-be in the government and the various power brokers in and out of the country.

The question is, what are we going to do to help Mexico become more like Canada and the U.S.A.?

Unfortunately, allowing a flood of illegals as well as lack of screening for drugs, criminals and possible terrorists would lead to us becoming more like Mexico rather than Mexico becoming like the U.S.

No matter what view one has on undocumented people and no matter how liberal one is there will always be a number coming in here that would cause a person to throw up his hands and say, : “Enough!”

Right now the number of illegals is about 11 million. For many that number crosses the line. Others have not reached their limit and invite more to come.

So what would happen if the number doubled to 22 million? With the lack of housing and increase in homelessness many of the very liberal would reach their limit and say enough.

And what if we reached out to all Central America, opened he doors and the number doubled again to 44 million?

The problems would be so great that even the most liberal people would reach their limit.

We’d be like the guy who had a fine home and opened his doors to all his friends family and homeless. Pretty soon his own living conditions were so bad that he moved out into a motel.

We must always be aware of the wise virgin principle. We must maintain enough of our resources so we can complete our own journey and maintain the strength to be of assistance to others. If we become like a poor country in Central America, our immigration problem will be solved because no one will want to come here and many will want to leave. That is certainly not the goal.

There is another issue that is of greater concern than families illegally crossing the border. This goes back to 9/11 and the fear that terrorists could cross the border and wreak more havoc. The possibility of a WMD going off in a major city is nerve racking indeed.

U.S. citizens have little concern that future terrorism could come from Mexican laborers crossing the border, but an increasing number of possible Islamic extremists could be coming across. This concern creates more fallout than normal toward illegal crossing with Mexico as well as a growing concern with the borders of Canada.

The first question to settle in this dispute is this: Does the United States have the moral authority to dictate who shall be allowed across its borders and conditions for admittance?

Before answering this, another question must be asked:

Why is it that the United States is the primary country where this question is even asked?

Why is the question not asked of Mexico, Canada and other countries? Just as the United States is richer than Mexico, Mexico is richer than its southern neighbors. Its citizens make about twice the amount as the Guatemalans on its border and over four times as much as those from Honduras. Just as the United States is concerned about an influx from the South so is Mexico. What is little known is that Mexico has stricter immigration laws than the United States.

An illegal alien entering Mexico can be fined and sentenced to up to two years in prison. When illegals are rounded up they are put in prisons that make detention in the U.S. look like paradise.

Often one will find dozens of male and female illegals together in one small room with no food, medical attention or any access to human rights privileges.

And how do they treat legal U.S. visitors who may want to stay there and work? If the U.S. citizen takes a job that could be done by a Mexican he can be sent to prison. It’s all right to retire there and spend our money, but not to make money.

That said, why then is the United States picked on, as if it were a big bully, for even considering it has the moral authority to decide who shall be allowed across its borders and conditions for admittance? It is very hypocritical for the rest of the world to point fingers of accusation at us when none of their own tolerance for illegals comes close to matching the U.S.

England, one of the more tolerant nations, has only 570,000 illegals. We have over 20 times that number.

Nations like Australia and New Zealand have the ideal situation. They are surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean which helps to minimize the problem there.

Now let is get back to our question:

“Does the United States have the moral authority to dictate who shall be allowed across its borders and conditions for admittance?”

The answer is yes, of course. If other nations have such moral authority then of course the U.S. does also. It is indeed a principle in nature that every life, whether it be a cell, an animal, human or state has the responsibility to look out for its own survival.

So when we look at the border situation it is interesting that we almost have reached the ideal situation with our northern border yet have one of the worst border situations with the southern.

The obvious solution is to help Mexico and other nations become more like Canada so the residents are happy being there. That is a huge project and one we cannot tackle in this limited treatise. But, it is one on which we need to focus, for so long as the southern nations are much poorer than the United States and have restrictive governments the people will want to leave and come here any way they can.

The first step in accomplishing this is to put some attention on making this happen and come up with a feasible plan. If we do not take concrete steps the problem will continue.

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 3

September 17, 2016September 17, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Sep 17, 2016

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 3

Don’t Kill the Goose

In part two we established the principle (as taught in the parable of the virgins) that looking out for self interest is justified, especially when assisting others will hurt the giver and provide little assistance to the receiver. If the giver loses the power to give through indiscriminate giving then neither giver nor receiver will benefit in the future.

Aesop’s fable of the Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs comes to mind here:

One day a countryman going to the nest of his Goose found there an egg all yellow and glittering. When he took it up it was as heavy as lead and he was going to throw it away, because he thought a trick had been played upon him. But he took it home on second thoughts, and soon found to his delight that it was an egg of pure gold. Every morning the same thing occurred, and he soon became rich by selling his eggs. As he grew rich he grew greedy; and thinking to get at once all the gold the Goose could give, he killed it and opened it only to find,—nothing.

Again wholeness comes into play. In any action we take we must look at the end result for the whole rather than the immediate effect only.

In solving the immigration problems perhaps we should start with important, often overlooked factors.

The will of the American people.

So how do both sides agree on this issue? To hear the extremes speak you would think that there is no agreement.

The majority of both sides seem to agree on the following:

Something needs to be done to deal with the immigration problem.

The borders need to be made more secure.

There should be some program to legally allow non citizens to work in the country yet there needs to be some control on how many are allowed in as well as prevention of bringing in dangerous people.

Neither side wants wholesale rounding up and deportation even though many are accused of this.

Both claim to be concerned that a nuclear device or some other WMD could be smuggled across the border.

There is general disagreement on the following:

One side feels that all illegals should be given amnesty. The other feels they should remain with an illegal status since they broke our laws.

One side feels illegals need to have an ID so they will not illegally vote and take advantage our system as if they were full citizens. The other is against this.

One side thinks that employers need to be responsible for identifying illegal aliens and held responsible for hiring them. The other does not.

One side feels the current immigration laws need to be enforced and the other does not.

One side wants English to be our official language; the other does not.

One side wants illegals to receive social security benefits and the other does not.

There are more but this gives us a rough rundown of the current situation.

There is a core problem that has led to this awkward situation we are in and it is the cause of numerous other problems also. It is this.

When there is a problem Congress thinks the solution is to pass laws. They then pass the laws, but soon discover the laws do not work, Why? Because they are not enforced, except through selective prosecution. So what do they do? Do they actually try enforcing the law to see if their last legislation will work?

No. They do not. Instead, they pass new and often tougher laws. Now why do they expect the newer and tougher laws to be enforced when the easier laws were not?

Perhaps they are insane? Close, but not quite. Instead they are just lazy. It is much easier to pass a new law than to do something practical to solve a problem. Since it takes a couple years to make it obvious that the new legislation is futile the representatives can bask in their feel good law long enough for the public to forget about their stupidity.

An example of this was the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance law. This was given a boost when Gore and Clinton were found receiving illegal contributions from the Chinese and the Buddhist temple. Instead of enforcing the current law Congress merely said there was too much corruption because of not enough law.

Thus the McCain/Feingold law was passed. This was so strict that it even limited free speech 60 days before the election.

Did it work? No. The law was ignored and more money than ever was spent on elections. All kinds of shady lawbreakers surfaced but because they operated in a gray area the election was over before the courts could decide what was legal or not. After this, the political organizations knew what they could get away so they could flout the law more than ever.

Conclusion:

The solution to a problem that occurs when laws are not enforced is not to make more laws that are also not enforced. First start with the laws we have. If we are not willing to do this we might as well erase them from the books. In many cases this would be a good idea.

A short-term solution must rely on law, but the long-term solution lies elsewhere. The solution lies in the answer to this question:

Why is there such a problem with illegal immigration on the southern border with Mexico but not on the Northern border with Canada where the border is open, close to the ideal set by DK? How does this answer lead us to the long-term solution?

We will explore this next.

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 2

September 16, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Sep 15, 2016

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 2

Equality

The idea of equality is at the heart of many aspirations for the new age and different ideas of achieving it is the basis of much division and friction. It is a mistake to take the ideal of spiritual equality on the soul level and extend it to apply to imperfect conditions on the physical plane.

The Christ (DKs teacher) himself illustrated this in several parables he taught. The most obvious is the parable of the ten virgins. Five were wise and five were foolish. They were to meet their bridegroom when the call came and they would need sufficient oil in their lamps to light the way when he appeared.

When the call came five had enough oil and five did not. Those who did not have enough oil asked for oil from the five who had sufficient. But the wise answered no because if they shared their oil then none of the virgins would have enough. The wise virgins told the foolish ones to go “buy from them that sell.” (See Matt 25:1-13)

The five wise virgins thus used their oil to successfully journey to the bridegroom and the five foolish completely missed out for the bridegroom was no longer available because of their delay.

Now let us apply this analogy to countries. Some countries have enough wealth and others do not. If the countries that have were to give their too much of their wealth to those who have not then none will have enough. This giving away of wealth is complicated most of the time by corrupt governments that are the true cause of poverty.

We send a lot of food, for instance, to North Korea and what do they do with it? They use it to feed their military and the common people who do without are eating the bark to survive. We thus wind up feeding the people who are committed to destroy us.

When we assist other nations we give the money to political leaders who often use it to enrich themselves with little if any going to the common people. Therefore, no good will is extended to the masses and hatred toward us is easily cultivated. A much better approach is to create an assistance program that would provide funds and resources directly to the people, bypassing their greedy leaders. This would irritate the leaders but produce massive goodwill among the common people where it is badly needed. DK is indeed correct when he talks about the power of public opinion of the people and the importance of influencing it.

The solution given by Jesus also applies to the have-nots: “Go to the marketers and get some wealth for yourself.” Numerous poor countries have done this by going to the wealthy nations and selling their assets such as oil.

Mexico has more natural assets for its size than the United States yet they rarely offer them to other nations but seek to develop them themselves. Because of government bureaucracy they have not been very successful and have remained poor. If they partnered more with The United States they could funnel much more money to their country through oil and other resources. I’m sure most Americans would much rather give our oil money to Mexico than Iran, for instance.

Another parable is called the Laborers in the Vineyard.

The master of the vineyard hired laborers at different times of the day and offered them all a penny for their work for the day. It turned out that some worked twelve hours while those who came on board late worked as little as one.

When they all got paid those who worked many hours saw the ones who worked only one hour for a penny thought maybe they would get a bonus since they had worked as much as twelve hours. But when the payment was given they all received a penny.

Those who worked 8, 10 and 12 hours grumbled to the master. “Hey, we worked through the heat of the day and it is unfair that we get the same pay as these new guys who worked only one hour.”

The Master answered, “It is not unfair at all. I promised you a penny for your day’s work and I fulfilled that promise by giving you exactly what we bargained for. I needed these new guys to complete my harvest and it was worth it to me to pay them a day’s wages for that last hour. I have the freedom to pay whoever I want whatever they agree to.” (See Matt 20:1-16)

By extension this parable teaches a number of things. A person, group or nation has the right to set the parameters of what they are willing to extend to others. Even if the situation or payment is not that which is desired, if it is nevertheless accepted then the master is without blame as long as he lives up to his side of the agreement. True, if he pays more than required he gets some good will and good karma but he is justified in only paying the agreed amount.

This parable also illustrates how total equality will never be achieved on the physical plane. In the parable all employees were treated equally in that they were all given the same wage for the day, but they were unequal in that they received a much different wage per hour.

Even so, the ideal of equality will be dangled before seekers for thousands of years to come. The first step is to achieve equal opportunity for all. The second step is to cultivate the giving nature that exists in general humanity so, through free will, all eventually have their basic needs fulfilled.

We will be much closer to equality on the physical level in the future golden age, but even here there will still be many differences in possessions according to the labor of the people. The only result from forcing equality is that eventually all but the overseers become equally poor.

Every country also has much to contribute but as long as that contribution is considered, as it now is, in terms of its commercial value or its political usefulness, that contribution will not be given in aid of right human relations.

Every country must also receive from all other countries. This involves a recognition of certain specific lacks, plus a willingness to take from others on terms of equality. Every country has its own peculiar note which must be brought into unison and swell the great chorus from all the nations. This will only be possible when pure religion is restored and the spiritual impetus, nascent in every nation, is given free expression. This is not yet the case; theological forms still hold the spiritual life.

Problems of Humanity, Page 28

It is still not the case but political ideology is replacing religion as the force holding back spiritual progress.

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 1

September 15, 2016September 15, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Sep 15, 2016

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 1

DK presents goals to which the Hierarchy is guiding us which basically covers these points.

(1) A world without borders – no passports needed

(2) One where brotherhood, goodwill and inclusiveness set the tone so we have right human relations.

(3) One where the Haves share with the Have-Nots so extreme poverty is abolished.

(4) There is to be a one-world government that unifies the world without becoming a tyranny.

(5) This will lead to a secure peace on earth.

(6) There will be a one-world religion which will basically be the world acknowledging through free will that certain universal principles are true.

(7) People will be influenced more by mind and reason than by lower emotion and being reactionary.

(8) People will becomes less materialistic and focus more on the spiritual.

(9) Christ and his associate Masters of Wisdom will walk openly among us as teachers of the human race.

Most students of the Ancient Wisdom, as well as many other seekers, embrace these points. Any differences come from not an acceptance of the end goal, but how to get there.

Humanity at present is a little like a family lost in the woods with no map or GPS trying to figure how to get out. They all want to get back to civilization but have different ideas as to which direction to go. The key for their survival is to calm down, carefully examine their options, and mentally come up with the best possible option to move ahead.

One of the hindrances to successfully moving ahead is that many take a simplistic approach to achieving the goal. They want everything to happen yesterday and think that we should just be able to make one huge step and magically arrive in earthly Shamballa.

Many go the other extreme and are discouraged by the inertia of progress and have little belief that any change for the better will occur. Others believe in a coming Armageddon, the results of which are so out of their control that the only thing they see to do is wait on God’s will.

The truth as usual is somewhere in the middle. We aren’t going to arrive at the golden age by taking a giant flying leap, but neither should we sit back and do nothing. All of us must do our part, for the destiny of humanity largely depends on actions taken by us as groups and individuals. Chaos will rule if we just sit back and let George, God, or the Hierarchy do it.

So how shall we proceed then?

Neither should we expect to change the status quo with one giant step nor should we sit back, but as the old saying goes we need to plough with the hoses we have. DK says what is needed is, “Practical ability to relate the idea to the ideal and to take those steps which will create the form of that ideal upon the physical plane.”

Discipleship in the New Age II, Page 162

Concerning the development of a one world and one humanity D K says:

“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

Alice A. Bailey added this:

I realise that the only thing I can possibly attempt is to put certain suppositions before you, drawing upon my imagination. Naturally it is not possible for finite mind to gauge accurately the plan of the Deity. All that we can do is to study the history of the past, to investigate present conditions, and to ascertain somewhat racial and natural tendencies, and thus follow, as logically as may be, the various steps and stages. All that is permissible for us is to start from the solid basis of acquired facts and knowledge, then put them all together, and from their aggregate form an hypothesis as to what may be the possible goal. Beyond that it is impossible to go.

The Consciousness of the Atom, Page 119

We thus have to examine where we are at the moment and act wisely according to those circumstances. It can spell disaster to determine our actions as if the ideal were here. For instance, premature steps toward a one world could result in a Hitler-type tyrannical one world government – and this we must avoid at all costs. Indeed, we need to take the time to get it right, but when a move is placed before us we need to take it.

Some times the next move may appear to be a step backwards.

For instance, Abraham Lincoln always had a strong desire to eliminate slavery. A lot of abolitionists such as John Brown thought the best course was to violate the law and forcibly overthrow it. Lincoln didn’t see this as a solution for he thought it had to be accomplished within the law, not outside of it. He felt like we would not have a nation worth living in if there were no respect for its laws. Consequently, there were several times in his life that he had to take an apparent step backwards and support laws that governed slavery. That did not mean he supported slavery. Instead, it meant he supported the rule of law, even though some laws are imperfect.

On a lesser scale of importance I support traffic laws as a whole, but there are many speed limits with which I disagree. Still, if I get caught speeding I accept the penalty.

Two main points of contention right now concern immigration and refugees. What is the solution to these problems? Do we act as if the ideal were already manifest and completely open the borders, or are there wise incremental steps that can be taken?

We will explore this in the next several posts.

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Karma and War

September 14, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Sept 14, 2016

The Law of Karma

Or Cause and Effect – Part 5

Karma and War

Question:

“Was the modern-day suffering of the Indians due to an unsettled cause’ from the ancient past? Or was it simply a collective of individuals exercising their free will in the environment at the time?”

Both. And some of those who were the cause of the suffering of American Indians were ancient Indians reincarnated as white Americans in early America

Djwahl Khul tells us that there are a group of very high entities called the “Lords of Karma” who guide events to insure that karma is justly administered.

When a negative act happens, like a murder for instance, the victim is rarely just some person randomly selected, even if this is the conscious intent of the criminal. The one who commits such a crime is as much an instrument of murder as the cause, for if the victim with karma to pay was not a victim of person “A” he would then be a victim of person “B.”

Through one means or another, each negative cause that we send out has an effect returned in kind that makes us a prisoner of karma as indicated by Jesus: “Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.” (Matt: 5:26)

There is a chain of causes responsible for all current effects and circumstances. Every historian realizes this and traces back almost every aspect of our civilization to events which occurred over thousands of years. By the Law of Correspondences that which applies to the greater applies to the lesser and therefore applies to the eternal pilgrim passing through numerous lifetimes.

Question:

“Please explain the mechanics of how actions of people in the past, could force people to act in certain ways in the present.”

The discovery of the printing press centuries ago does not force people to print and read books today. Even though books are printed through free will, the effect of the invention is completely predictable.

The results of karma are similar. If you murder someone, for example, you initiate a force that is eventually picked up by someone who by their own free will returns the deed.

Some take issue with the scripture I quoted that there is a time and place for all things — even a time to make war. There is a time to turn the other cheek as the Christ taught and then there is a time not to as taught by John the Beloved:

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

Here we are told that even Christ will make war when it is done “in righteousness.” Righteousness basically means “to make right use of.”

DK tells us that the Christ Himself did actually make war against Hitler and the Axis forces during World War II by working through Allied leaders. This was definitely a right use of war.

We now have a new war to face, and the world wide network of terrorists who desire to destroy civilization again arouse the Christ to wage a new war in righteousness. Let us all hope that those here on earth who lead the charge will listen to the voice of their true general.

Just like people, no nation is perfect and, right or wrong, flaws can be pointed out and those who love and respect their country will take remarks with as much impact as if they were said about a family member.

I have no problem with examining the faults of my own country if the person pointing them out seems to be sincerely looking for the truth. What I am concerned about is a shotgun style of attack where every half truth picked up over the past two hundred years is sprayed in my face as if I am supposed to take it and like it. This type of approach is anti-love and anti-light and I will always seek to oppose it — not because I am sensitive about my country, but I am committed to a full revelation of reality.

I have been called hypocritical for promoting “The Principles of Unification” while stating that there is also a time and place for war.

Hypocrisy means to act or speak contrary to your beliefs and this to my knowledge I have never done. I have always believed there is a time and place for war, as well as peace, and nothing I have written contradicts this.

The turning the other cheek principle only works when you are dealing with decision makers who have not rejected communion with the soul. Fortunately, almost all of common humanity is capable of having their hearts stirred to a degree by this love energy. Therefore it is good to turn the other cheek as well as do good to them who despise you if you are dealing with mainstream humanity. In many cases this touches hearts and stimulates spiritual evolution.

On the other hand, the tables are turned when the decision maker of the circumstance is an agent of the Dark Brotherhood. The Dark Brothers have totally rejected the soul and unselfish love has absolutely no impact upon them in a positive way. If you therefore turn your cheek on a Dark Brother, or one under his control, he will strike you on each turn of the cheek until you are wasted. He will do this with no pity, feeling or sensitivity in the heart.

A line from the movies applies here: “Nothing personal, this is just business. I must destroy you.”

The agent of darkness, when it fits his need, will proceed to destroy with as much detachment as if just doing business, or his job, like a janitor sweeping a floor. Just as he has no feelings about the floor, the Dark Brother has no feelings of remorse about harming a brother in his way.

These agents make an exception to the turning the other cheek principle.

Why?

Because in dealing with dark agents this sacrifice does no good whatsoever and a Master of Wisdom is wise enough to not support any effort that is futile and useless.

This is the reason that Christ and his Hierarchy joined energy with the Allied forces against Hitler. Because he was a true agent of the Dark Brotherhood it meant that no turning the other cheek, appeasement or peace movement would have any effect on him except to encourage him on the destructive path.

When an agent of darkness, divorced from soul contact, appears as an enemy of nations, who are striving for improvement, then the only choice available is to defeat him and take away his power. This we correctly did with Hitler.

Now we have another enemy to deal with which is the true face of the conspiracy that so many are concerned about. Many are so zealously into seeing conspiracy among international bankers, Jews, CFR, the media, politicians, etc, that when the materialization of the true conspiracy hits us in the Twin Towers we still do not recognize it.

Sure there are plenty of things to be concerned about with the powers that be, but this revealed threat that we have before us is the real thing and must be defeated. No amount of love or good deeds will assuage the mind of radicals bent on subjugation for they are true agents of the Dark Brotherhood.

None of the imagined evils of present governments, such as computer chip in the hand, tracing phone calls or e-mails, FBI bungling, etc., holds a candle to the evil that could be unleashed if we just sit back, meditate and do not rouse ourselves and fight for the future of mankind.

If you pass by a man who is starving and he asks for food, how much good will it do him if you just send him love and light and move on? Thoughts of love and light must have an end in view followed by action to have power.

Michael Kelly in the Washington Post wrote the following with profound logic:

“In 1942 George Orwell wrote this, in Partisan Review, of Great Britain’s pacifists: ‘Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.’ This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me.’ England’s pacifists howled, but Orwell’s logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.”

An essentially identical logic pertains now. Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.

Arjuna was faced with a similar prospect to many in the American Civil War and said this to Krishna:

How can I do battle with my kinsmen, with those I love and who have loved me, for whom I have cared, as they once cared for me? Though they have gathered to serve Duryodhana’s folly, to deprive us of our birthright, to kill me and my brothers on this battlefield, how can I fight them? My body trembles at the thought. My bow falls from my hands. My flesh burns. My arms and legs have no strength. My mind is confused; my reason confounded. I am lost.

… To act is to bring upon us a day of pitch darkness. We have come here for the sake of an earthly kingdom; … But by acting, we reserve for ourselves only a place in Hell. It is best for me if Duryodhana and his armies come before me. Disarmed by doubt, I will not resist them as they kill me. This will be my best reward. These were Arjuna’s words to Krishna as the two armies awaited Arjuna’s signal to begin the battle.

With Arjuna’s words sounding in his ears, Krishna’s spirit quickened. He spoke to Arjuna, whose eyes burned with tears, overwhelmed by despair. Krishna said: —What shameful words are these, Arjuna? This is the hour of trial. Why do you falter? Your despondent grief enfeebles you; it dishonors you. Slunk in the trenches of despair, you will win neither heaven nor earth. Do not exchange arrows and bow for impotence and cowardice; this is not your way. Do not yield to these faults or to this weakness. Rise up and fight!”

Arjuna said: —How can I fight them, immortal Krishna? These enemies are my teachers from earliest youth. How can I cut them down when they deserve only my veneration? It is better to wander in rags, begging for alms, than to sprinkle the bread of my sustenance with their blood.

… With these words, Arjuna cried out: —I will not fight! and said nothing more.

Krishna smiled, hinting of laughter, and spoke gently to Arjuna as they stood between the two armies. Krishna said: —Do not weep tears for them. Though your words are sincere and full of insight, your sorrow profits no one. Tears are wasted on the dead; the wise do not grieve for the living or the dead, for life and death shall pass away. —In time we have always been, both you and I and all these kings of men; and we will always be. Putting on the body of the child, the youth, the old man, a wise man does not wonder that in death, the Self passes into another body. … Even if you believe that a man is born again and again, and that he dies again and again, you should not grieve, for in death birth is inevitable and in birth death is inevitable. Being born, he must die. In death, he is reborn. If you understand this, then you will not grieve for the loss of what can never be lost.

Do your duty, Arjuna. Act without hesitation. For the warrior, the greatest good is lawful war against an evil enemy. A lawful war opens the doors of heaven for you. Enter therein, Arjuna. Rejoice in good fortune that this battle is joined. But if you shrink before this battle or turn your back upon your duty, casting aside honor, this is a grievous transgression. Men will recount your shame, dishonor, and disgrace now and in the future. They shall say cowards possess the courage of Arjuna. For one honored, the loss of honor is worse than death. Great warriors will accuse you of cowardice; those who once honored you will treat you with contempt. Your enemies will rejoice in mocking you. They will laugh and say, “See how Arjuna fled before us, a deer among lions.” Death in battle is better than the mocking derision of enemies. —If you are victorious, you gain glory in this world. If you are defeated and cut down on this field, you gain glory in the next world. Arise and fight, Arjuna. Glory is upon you. Be detached from happiness and unhappiness, gain or loss, victory or defeat. Be resolved to fight, or you will fall into error.

From the Bhagavad Gita

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Karma and the Atonement

September 12, 2016December 13, 2019 Joseph Dewey

Sept 12, 2016
The Law of Karma
Or Cause and Effect – Part 4
Karma and the Atonement

A reader wants to know how to determine the karmic results of various misdeeds, such as lies ranging from mild ones to whoppers.

The consequences are exactly as the scriptures say:

“He (God) shall reward every man according to his works.” (Matt 16:27)

And what does “according to our works” mean?

The scriptures says:

“But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.” (2 Cor 9:6)

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

If you lie, you will synchronistically encounter people in this life or the next that will lie back to you with the similar intensity with which you lied. This cycle will continue until you cease to lie.

There does not have to be a large book of consequences for lies and other errors any more than you have to have a large book of instructions of steering corrections necessary to drive across town. After a couple miles driving you have corrected your course hundreds of times but writing a book of instructions concerning every correction would be silly. The corrections are built into you and happen automatically when the goal is in mind. Even, so are the causes created by lying stored in the Mind of God and returned in kind automatically without anyone having to make tabulations.

Question: “Who benefits from the consequences? Let’s go back to the lying example. Let’s say I lied about you, and spread hurtful gossip that caused you embarrassment. Let’s say we looked in the big book and it said, ’37 lashings.’ Who benefits? Does my sore back remove your embarrassment? No. Does it cure me of lying? Not necessarily. So, without consequences, laws would be meaningless, BUT it appears the consequences themselves can be meaningless.”

So, what is the benefit derived fro the consequences of karma?

A just consequence will indeed cure one from lying. Many of us are thick-headed and have to suffer the same consequence dozens of times before we learn, but eventually we do indeed learn.

The liar is the main beneficiary of the natural consequences of his lying, but his circle of associates also benefit.

Some think that justice melted out by karma is not right and there must be a better way. What better way is there than to learn from experience — to experience the effects of our own causes so that we may become a master of causes as was the Christ? We may be imperfect, but all of us are capable of paying off debt. I have written much previously about how this debt is paid off. One can pay off several lifetimes of debt in one lifetime through selfless service. Just like we can indeed perfectly pay off a bank loan quickly if we work smart and earn more money, even so can we perfectly pay off our karma. We can more than pay it off and start accumulating a positive balance rather than a negative.

“And every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.” (1 Cor 3:8)

A reader asks about Jesus appearing and suffering for our sins creating an atonement which removes cause or karma.

This is not what the scriptures say, my friend. No where in the scriptures does it say that the atonement removed any Cause or Karma. Where do you get such an idea?

Cause cannot be removed by anyone — not even God, for to remove cause is to remove all creation as it says in the Book of Mormon concerning the idea that duality could be suspended: “there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.” (2 Nephi 2:13)

Remove karma and you remove duality, remove duality and all things vanish away.

Concerning our debts or Karma, Jesus said:

“Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.” (Matt 5:26)

But, you say, Jesus paid the uttermost farthing for us and fulfilled the law with an infinite atonement.

But did He? Is that what the scriptures really say?

Here is a scripture relating to the fate of those who did receive the atonement of Jesus:

“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kind reds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

“If any man have an ear, let him hear. He that leader into captivity shall go into captivity: he that skillet with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”
Rev 13:7-10

Here we are told that power is given to the Beast to make war with the saints and overcome them. We saw that this was true in the time of Christ. If anyone received an atonement it would have been the Twelve Apostles, yet all but John were killed with the sword or other means. Thousands of others suffered brutal painful deaths.

Why did they suffer so?

The scripture plainly tells us that there is a reason they must have patience and faith. It explains here that the beast has such power over them because of this principle: “He that leader into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killed with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”

Now keep in mind that this is a New Testament scripture given after the Atonement had been made.

Does it say that the one who kills with the sword will be killed with the sword — except for those who have had an atonement?

No.

It gives no exception to the rule, but makes a point blank statement.

Those who were the early Christian Saints being put to death by the Beast, which was Rome, were given to his power because in past lives they themselves were the perpetrators of atrocities. In the past these saints had put others in prison and to death with the sword and were in that life suffering the consequences of their action and therefore had to have patience and faith in their sufferings.

Question: If the Atonement removed the results of karma then why did those who had received the atonement continue to receive results of karma?

My Mormon readers revere Joseph Smith as a man who was righteous and received an atonement; yet he was tarred and feathered, kidnapped, placed in jail and finally killed all as a result of cause and effect. Why did not the Atonement protect him from this karma which some say should not exist?

If the atonement does not remove karma, which is cause and effect, then what does it do?

The atonement removes guilt, and guilt often has more to do with imagined causes rather than real causes.

One always feels guilt when he violates the commandments of his religion, no matter which one that may be. Judaism was a religion with a great number of laws, most of them manmade and there probably was not a Jew in the days of Jesus who did not suffer some guilt for some violation of what he perceived to be God’s will.

If you feel that God has commanded you to not eat peas and you break His will and eat peas then you will feel guilt. Even though the peas cause no real harm you still need the guilt removed. But then if a savior comes along and reveals to you that your guilt is produced by illusion and reveals the truth, the guilt magically disappears. This is how the magic of the Atonement works.

It is best expressed in these words of Jesus: “You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

The true atonement is a revelation of the truth so illusion passes away and guilt is lifted. Then real progress can be made.

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Karma, Emotion and Attachment

September 11, 2016June 20, 2019 Joseph Dewey

Sept 11, 2016

The Law of Karma
Or Cause and Effect – Part 3

Karma, Emotion and Attachment

Is it true that feelings, the sharing of energy or attachment creates karma and we can be released from it just by letting go?

Karma is usually defined as either a debt to be paid or a positive balance from which one may draw benefits. Thus the mere act of caring has little to do with the creation of karma.

I believe I know the teaching you are referring to, however, and I believe it to be a true one. It goes something like this.

Strong emotion such as love or hate, desire or repulsion, fear or protectiveness creates not karma, as we understand the term, but an energy link that will bring you into repeated contact with the person with whom you share such emotion. If such emotion carries with it any degree of attachment then this person must be faced in relationship again and again, life after life, until you learn to let go of him and the emotion connected with the relationship.

Even the lower octave of love creates this problem. Love from this angle would be defined as: “the desire to keep another in relationship because of what they do for you rather than what you can do for them as the prime motivator.”

This is why forgiveness is so important. If you hold a grievance and do not forgive, then that negative feeling creates a link that will draw that person back into your life until you do learn to forgive him on all levels.

Imagine the future consequences if you have a dozen people in your life that you have not forgiven. In a future time or life you will have a dozen annoying people in your circle of work or friends and be beside yourself as to how you could have such bad luck in choosing associates.

If you merely have a feeling of attachment toward another a real debt (karma) is not created. Thus you can free yourself of the link instantly at the moment you let go of attachment. This concept is probably why some believe that you can release yourself from karma with a decision – because they have mistakenly called the linkage of attachment a karmic debt. Instead the linkage we have to others because of attachment merely holds a lesson to be learned.

Karma is different. You can learn your lesson, but still owe the debt just as happens in real life. You can run up your credit card balance too high and learn the lesson not to let that happen again, but the sinking in of the lesson does not pay the bank. You often find yourself making payments long after you have learned to not over extend yourself.

The linkage because of emotion creates no karmic debt, but is immediately dispelled by forgiveness or the release of the binding emotion.

A reader says: “There again, humanity has made a collective judgment that it is wrong to share sexual partners with others. That is not the ultimate truth in my mind, but something we have made so.”

The main point I was making was not around sex, but around the subject of honoring your commitments and your word. If a person makes a promise to not eat peas and another is depending on this promise for some reason then he should honor his word. If he does not want to honor it then he should seek a release from the person to whom the promise was made. This has little to do with whether peas are good or bad for you.

If we are to learn to be one with God and establish reliable soul contact through that oneness, then we must all learn to honor our word when it is given to another. This is especially true if it would create pain or harm to this trusting person if the word is broken. If we wish to obtain liberation then we must learn to be as the Spirit of God within, and keep our word in all matters. When we become like the Spirit, we commune with the Spirit.

Because I understand this principle I have always been very selective about giving my word. The breaking of our word does create definite effect and karmic debt that must be dealt with in a future time.

If you have an uncommitted relationship and have sex with another person with the understanding that multiple partners is part of the agreement, then you are not responsible for your friend’s hurt if he should take offense. But when you make a promise to another soul and that person places trust in you because of that promise then the breaking of that promise can create tremendous pain, pain that would not occur if both parties were true to their word.

If you thus betray a loved one through the breaking of your word, the time will come that one with whom you have placed your trust and given your heart will betray you.

The pain through the betrayal of a loved one has little to do with attachment. You can be very detached from a spiritual point of view yet suffer loss through the broken word.

But don’t we suffer pain in relationships because of attachments? Not necessarily. In a romantic relationship there is a bonding through the circulation of energy, for the two become one as the scripture says. Now you may figure that you are not attached to your little finger and could live without it, but this detachment does not spare you any pain if someone were to rip it out of your hand. Similarly, in a committed relationship the other person becomes like an extension of your body and this severing of half of that which makes up a greater life is very painful no matter what state of detachment you have reached.

The Christ Himself, the greatest of us all, formed a greater life out of the twelve disciples and because of the flow of energy and the betrayal by Judas, suffered enormous pain and came close to dying in the Garden of Gethsemane as a result.

One, who is detached, as the ancient wisdom teaches, can release any person from any relationship and let them go their way. But he will realize the principles involved and work with the energies so the pain on all sides is at a minimum.

Sept 13, 2016

Question on Karma

Patrick basically asked me how karma would work out if there seemed to be no learning value attached to it. Why punish someone who has learned the lesson?

First of all the word “punishment” in relation to karma is somewhat misleading and not a good fit. For instance, when you take out a loan at the bank and then make payments do you think of yourself as being punished whenever you make the payment?

Not really.

So how do you feel about it?

The normal feeling is that you knowingly took out the loan for a reason and you are making a justified payment and you are okay with that. You normally only feel punished if you do not make the payment and the bank comes after you.

Secondly, lessons are always learned in the paying off of karma.

Let us examine Patrick’s example:

“Let us say someone committed murder in a previous life out of jealousy. Then, in subsequent lives, through great self-work and spiritual growth, they learned non-possessiveness and the sacredness of all life. Let us say they went even further and through love and service saved many lives, influencing them for good, even preventing some from committing the same crime. What then would be the point of them being murdered?”

If you take out a loan from a friend (and the Lords of Karma are certainly our friends) the friend will allow you to repay in a number of ways as long as the value is there.

Le us say that you borrow $1000, but do not have the cash, but do have some silver coins stored away. If you offer him $1000 worth he will probably take it. Similarly, maybe you have a snow blower worth about that much and offer it to him. If he could use one he may take it.

Then maybe you have nothing to pay with but your labor. Maybe you are a good mechanic and offer $1000 worth of service to his vehicles. Being a good friend he would probably take it.

Taking you to court would be the last resort and he would only do this if you stubbornly refused to work on the debt and could learn the lesson no other way.

Now let us look at your example. A guy commits murder and after a couple lifetimes learns his lesson without being murdered in return so there seems to be nothing to learn from being a victim. Does his debt disappear? That is like saying does the effect disappear?

No. Effects are eternal until the energy is played out with new cause.

So, how is the debt to be paid?

Punishment is the slowest way to pay the debt. Debt can also be paid through service, which often turns out to be an enjoyable way to pay it and always produces growth.

If the person has advanced enough to make a service payment he may pay off the murder by:

(1) Saving a physical life

(2) Saving a spiritual life

(3) Sacrificing his or her own life for a good cause.

(4) Some type of service that helps the lives of many.

However the payment is a made, it must be made before liberation is achieved.

Now consider Hitler who is responsible for millions of deaths. Supposing he decides to redeem himself – do you think he will have to be murdered millions of times? Of course not. That would accomplish little. After being a murder victim a dozen times or so he would surely get the point.

So how will he pay his debt?

He would have to make enough progress on the path of light to eventually get in a position to save millions of lives.

This could be accomplished by becoming a great leader and saving his nation from a tyrannical leader.

Or perhaps he could become a scientist and discover a cure for cancer.

Or perhaps he could become a great teacher and save many spiritual lives.

If we could see the past lives of our adored figures in history we would discover that many had past lives of tyranny and destruction and they are coming to incarnation to serve and pay off their debt. Even the Masters we revere had some tyrannical past lives before they learned their lessons.

“To say that life is unfair is to say that God is unfair. When all things are considered throughout the life of the soul, all is fair.”

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Law of Karma, Part 2

September 10, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Sep 10, 2016
The Law of Karma
Or Cause and Effect – Part 2
Karma and Health

The Question:
“Taking reincarnation and karma into account why do you suppose it is that some people can he healed and others not? Is it possible for one to be healed when his disease is connected with his karma? If one learns his karma is it possible to accelerate payment and thus free himself from unfortunate circumstance?”

Many diseases are caused because of past karma. If nothing is attempted beyond an act of faith, in some cases, the healer will be attempting to cancel out certain lessons that are to be administered through the soul.

Someone recently asked how we can discover our past karma, especially if you cannot remember your past.

The first thing to realize is that your soul does not expect you to pay off all your karma in this one life; but in any one life where the debt of negative karma still exists, there will be a certain amount allocated that you will be expected to pay off. If this karma is linked to a disease then the karma (or the lesson to be learned) must be lifted or redirected before the person can be healed.

Since the understanding of karma is important in the attainment of freedom from disease, it is necessary to discover how it may be affecting our lives. The most popular way of discovering karma is to review past lives. The trouble with this is that unless the disciple is relatively free from illusion, his discernment of the past is likely to be incorrect.

Hypnosis and guided meditation, sometimes reveals the true past, but other times it brings forth an imaginary past for a variety of reasons. Only through soul confirmation can one know if such a revealed past is correct.

A second way to discover the past is through dreams, but there is also much distortion in this and the soul must be used again. You can enhance the power to discover the past through dreams by giving yourself suggestions to remember as you are going to sleep. This will not produce immediate results, but will bear fruit over a period of time.

Do not trust someone who claims to be a great one from the past because of supposed synchronicity. Relating oneself to a historical figure because he sees similarities is often very misleading as vision is filtered through a multitude of glamours.

Another problem is that even several revealed past lives do not give the full story of karma you may be facing. For instance, you may know about your last past life, but your Higher Self may have karma arranged for you from a more distant past with which you may be unfamiliar.

One of the best ways to determine areas where one needs to put attention is to study the law of cycles. The adage “history repeats itself” is based on this principle.

Saturn largely governs the energies of karma in this solar system and its orbit around the sun takes about 29.5 years. This period of time is called a “Saturn Cycle” by astrologers. The first half is polarized female/receiving/negative, and the second part of the cycle is male/sending/positive.

The first twenty-nine years of your life are like a mini incarnation. If you have solved your problems and learned the lessons assigned to you, then the next twenty-nine will be like a new birth or an advanced incarnation. If the needed lessons are not learned, then the second twenty-nine year period will bring you face to face with the same problems you had in the first twenty-nine. If the pilgrim ignores the solving of these problems, he will just coast along the line of least resistance; and he will become crystallized by the second Saturn Cycle at age 59 or earlier. He is also likely to suffer ill health.

Then there are those who pass their first cycle successfully, but follow the line of least resistance in their second and also crystallize in their third. Only about 10% of humanity successfully navigates into their third Saturn Cycle where they will learn new principles, solve new problems and essentially live three lives in experience and progression.

It is therefore beneficial to examine your life in roughly seven, fourteen and twenty-eight to twenty-nine year cycles. The first question to ask yourself is can you see that you made major changes or that major events happened to you around the end of these cycles? What was going on in your life and what was your internal makeup at age fourteen, twenty-eight, forty-two, and fifty-six?

If major changes were taking place around these periods, this is a sign that you were progressing as you should. If no major changes have occurred since age twenty-nine, this is a sign that you have been coasting. Be careful to not coast too long because as you near the third Saturn Cycle at age fifty-nine, you will find the energies within you crystallizing.

When honey crystallizes it gets thicker and thicker so it will no longer pour easily. This is what happens with the human in incarnation. If he follows the line of least resistance and does not work on his progression, he will find his movement forward at a stand- still by the time he reaches his mid fifties.

What the disciple needs to do is to look at these seven, fourteen and twenty-eight year cycles, and watch for different circumstances that seem to be repeating themselves.

Does it seem that a lover or friend betrays you cyclically? This would indicate that you have betrayed others in past lives. To complete and move beyond that cycle you must reach a state of mind where you have a resolve to be true to others in relationship.

Does it seem that you get stolen from regularly, not only materially, but in other ways? Then this indicates that this was a problem for you in the past and it is time to incorporate the lesson of not seeking for that which you have not earned.

Do you have a problem with dominating people? Then you created a problem for others in the past.

And so on it goes for every recurring problem we find.

If you have periodic illness it is helpful to examine repeating problems and see if they correspond. All illness is caused or enhanced by some type of resistance to spiritual flow. If the person can hone into the problem he needs to solve; and starts making progression with it, then his health and vitality will increase. The part of the body the physical distress is located in is also an indicator of the cause of the physical problem.

As food for thought I will name several problems. Using the Law of Correspondences and karma attempt to decipher the spiritual cause.

(1) Heart Disease
(2) Skin rashes and inflammation.
(3) Constipation
(4) Throat Cancer
(5) Backache
(6) Neck problems
(7) Alzheimer’s
(8) A major accident.

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE