Gathering Audio 2014

This entry is part 12 of 31 in the series Audios

Part 1 – Song By Larry Woods

Introducing the Principle of Glory

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Party 8 – Song By Larry

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Part 12

Part 13

Part 14

Part 15

Part 16

Part 17

Part 18

Part 19

Part 20

Part 21

Part 22

Part 23

Part 24

Part 25

Part 26

Part 27

Part 28

The Meaning of Names by Sharón

Part 29 – Sharón

Part 30 – Sharón

Part 31 – Sharón

Part 32 – Sharón

Change Yourself Through Handwriting, by JJ

Part 33

Part 34

The following graphic will help the listener follow the next couple segments.

Handwriting Samples

Part 35

Part 36

Part 37

Part 38

Questions and Answers

Part 39

Part 40

Part 41

Part 42

Part 43

Part 44

Part 45

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE




What Is the Purpose of Life?

This entry is part 51 of 57 in the series Mysteries

Question Fifty-Two

What Is the Purpose of Life?

This is a question that has mystified humanity since the beginning of time, but perhaps this is a subject that we are guilty of over thinking. Perhaps the answer is not so complicated after all.

An interesting clue is given in the first chapter of Genesis where we are told that we are created in the image of God. Now, if we are truly in the image of God then our purpose would also be the same as God’s.  Of course, the scope of our purpose may not be comparable, but we both love to create things.

Let us take a look at this world God created. The first thing that draws our attention is that life on this world is very difficult, not only for humans, but the animal and plant kingdoms are in a fierce struggle for survival.

Let us focus on humans.  We are kind of like chess pieces in the game of life.  There’s the white pieces, who are the good guys playing against the black pieces who are the bad guys, or the dark forces that seem to always surface to thwart our moves. One moment we joyously think we are on the verge of subduing all opposition and then the next an unexpected loss surfaces threatening a possible checkmate.

Life does seem to be a lot like chess.  There are many types of humans high and low.  There are kings and queens, rooks and pawns, and one thing they all have in common is that none of them are safe from the dark pieces that can threaten us at any moment no matter who we are or what our station in life may be.

So, why in the world does God allow life to be so dangerous, full of risk with possible pain and loss? To a lot of people it makes no sense… but, when you consider that we are made in the image of God  it makes a lot of sense.

As I said, life that God has created is a lot like a game of chess.  And what is perhaps the greatest most enduring game created by humanity?

And why have we created and participate in high risk games and activities such as chess, monopoly, football, hockey, auto racing, boxing and others?

Why don’t we create nice safe games where there is no risk and everyone wins?

The answer is quite simple. Such a game would be very boring. The fact is this.  If we create an interesting game that has reasonable risk, but can be won through concentrated effect and achievement, then there is a tremendous prize to be won.

And what is that?

A thrill of joyful accomplishment that cannot be acquired by any other process.

So God created this great game board, called the universe, which is full of risky ingredients such as light and dark, pain and pleasure, joy and sorrow, loss and gain.  Then he jumps in the universe as a player and, just as you are present in your whole body from head to toe, He is present throughout the whole universe.

BUT… He came to be more than present but to be a player and to win. To help Him win He created us in His image with the expectation that we will assist in winning the game of life, not only for ourselves, but for the One Great Life, which is God.

Let me put it this way.  Suppose you were God and all alone living in the great void with nothing to do.  What is your greatest problem?

And what is the cure?

Create a universe that will have all the ingredients of a great game.  It will be a difficult game, but one you can win if you apply yourself with all the effect you can muster.

When this thought entered God’s head what happened?

A joyous thrill went through the mind of God – a thrill that created a powerful joyous vibration at the prospect of winning.

Today we call this the original Big Bang – which was an explosion of joyous anticipation and planning.

The purpose of each of us is to find our next move in the game of life and then make it and not let a little risk frighten us into indecision.

 

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 5

This entry is part 7 of 33 in the series 2014

March 28, 2014

The Keys of Knowledge

Larry W

MY list for Keys of Knowledge revealed so far — did I get this right?

JJ

The Keys given out so far are 1. Decision 2. Judgement 3. Right Perception 4. The Book of Revelation is the Key to the path of the disciple as revealed in The Unveiling. 5. Hint is given at the end of Eternal Words and will be revealed at the gathering. #12 is The Word is God. The Molecular Relationship and Gathering of Lights books contain two keys.

 

March 29, 2014

Cosmos

There is a new show on Fox called Cosmos, A Spacetime Odyssey, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

So far three shows have been presented. There are some good things included that can enhance the knowledge of the majority. On the other hand, Tyson seems really bent on flatly dismissing the idea of any intelligence being involved in any creation of life. After watching the program I assumed he was an atheist so I checked it out and was somewhat surprised to see that he classifies himself as an agnostic. If he is truly an agnostic then you would think he would at least be open to the possibility that a higher intelligence may have been invoved in the creation of life.

One of the most interesting things presented in the first show was an encapsulation of the story of Giordano Bruno who was a thinker I admired from history.

Here is what Tyson presented.

Imagine a world before telescopes, when the universe was only what you could see with the naked eye.

It was obvious that Earth was motionless, and that everything in the heavens the Sun, the Moon, the stars, the planets revolved around us and then a Polish astronomer and priest named Copernicus made a radical proposal.

The Earth was not the center.

It was just one of the planets, and, like them, it revolved around the Sun.

Many, like the Protestant reformer Martin Luther, took this idea as a scandalous affront to Scripture.

They were horrified.

But for one man, Copernicus didn’t go far enough.

His name was Giordano Bruno, and he was a natural-born rebel.

He longed to bust out of that cramped little universe.

Even as a young Dominican monk in Naples, he was a misfit.

This was a time when there was no freedom of thought in Italy.

But Bruno hungered to know everything about God’s creation.

He dared to read the books banned by the Church, and that was his undoing.

In one of them, an ancient Roman, a man dead for more than 1,500 years whispered to him of a universe far greater, one as boundless as his idea of God.

Lucretius asked the reader to imagine standing at the edge of the universe and shooting an arrow outward.

If the arrow keeps going, then clearly, the universe extends beyond what you thought was the edge.

But if the arrow doesn’t keep going say it hits a wall then that wall must lie beyond what you thought was the edge of the universe.

Now if you stand on that wall and shoot another arrow, there are only the same two possible outcomes it either flies forever out into space, or it hits some boundary where you can stand and shoot yet another arrow.

Either way, the universe is unbounded.

The cosmos must be infinite.

This made perfect sense to Bruno.

The God he worshiped was infinite.

So how, he reasoned, could Creation be anything less? It was the last steady job he ever had.

And then, when he was 30, he had the vision that sealed his fate.

In this dream, he awakened to a world enclosed inside a confining bowl of stars.

This was the cosmos of Bruno’s time.

He experienced a sickening moment of fear, as if the bottom of everything was falling away beneath his feet.

But he summoned up his courage.

I spread confident wings to space and soared toward the infinite, leaving far behind me what others strained to see from a distance.

Here, there was no up, no down, no edge, no center.

I saw that the Sun was just another star, and the stars were other Suns, each escorted by other Earths like our own.

The revelation of this immensity was like falling in love.

Bruno became an evangelist, spreading the gospel of infinity throughout Europe.

He assumed that other lovers of God would naturally embrace this grander and more glorious view of Creation.

What a fool I was.

He was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church in his homeland, expelled by the Calvinists in Switzerland, and by the Lutherans in Germany.

Bruno jumped at an invitation to lecture at Oxford, in England.

At last, he thought, a chance to share his vision with an audience of his peers.

I have come to present a new vision of the cosmos.

Copernicus was right to argue that our world is not the center of the universe.

The Earth goes around the Sun.

It’s a planet, just like the others.

But Copernicus was only the dawn.

I bring you the sunrise.

The stars are other fiery suns, made of the same substance as the Earth, and they have their own watery earths, with plants and animals no less noble than our own.

Are you mad or merely ignorant? Everyone knows there is only one world.

What everyone knows is wrong.

Our infinite God has created a boundless universe with an infinite number of worlds.

Do they not read Aristotle where you come from? Or even the Bible? I beg you, reject antiquity, tradition, faith, and authority.

Let us begin anew, by doubting everything we assume – has been proven.

– Heretic! Infidel! Your God is too small.

A wiser man would have learned his lesson.

But Bruno was not such a man.

He couldn’t keep his soaring vision of the cosmos to himself, despite the fact that the penalty for doing so in his world was the most vicious form of cruel and unusual punishment.

Giordano Bruno lived at a time when there was no such thing as the separation of church and state, or the notion that freedom of speech was a sacred right of every individual.

Expressing an idea that didn’t conform to traditional belief could land you in deep trouble.

Recklessly, Bruno returned to Italy.

Maybe he was homesick.

But still, he must have known that his homeland was one of the most dangerous places in Europe he could possibly go.

The Roman Catholic Church maintained a system of courts known as the Inquisition, and its sole purpose was to investigate and torment anyone who dared voice views that differed from theirs.

It wasn’t long before Bruno fell into the clutches of the thought police.

This wanderer, who worshiped an infinite universe, languished in confinement for eight years.

Through relentless interrogations, he stubbornly refused to renounce his views.

Why was the Church willing to go to such lengths to torment Bruno? What were they afraid of? If Bruno was right, then the sacred books and the authority of the Church would be open to question.

Finally, the cardinals of the Inquisition rendered their verdict.

You are found guilty of questioning the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Of believing that God’s wrath is not eternal, that everyone will be saved.

Of asserting the existence of other worlds.

All of the books you have written will be gathered up and burned in St.

Peter’s Square.

Reverend Father, these eight years of confinement have given me much time to reflect.

So you will recant? My love and reverence for the Creator inspires in me the vision of an infinite Creation.

You shall be turned over to the Governor of Rome to administer the appropriate punishment for those who will not repent.

It may be that you are more afraid to deliver this judgment than I am to hear it.

Ten years after Bruno’s martyrdom, Galileo first looked through a telescope, realizing that Bruno had been right all along.

The Milky Way was made of countless stars invisible to the naked eye, and some of those lights in the sky were actually other worlds.

Bruno was no scientist.

His vision of the cosmos was a lucky guess, because he had no evidence to support it.

Like most guesses, it could well have turned out wrong. (End quote)

Tyson gives a good account of Bruno but he dismisses the idea that he did not make a guess but received knowledge from Higher Intelligence.

Newton, the greatest scientist of all time, stated that the complexity of the human eye proved the existence of God. Tyson, however, who has made no discoveries close to Newton, thinks the eyes, the cell, DNA etc evolved with the help of no intelligence. Here was what he said about the eye.

Darwin discovered the actual mechanism of evolution.

The prevailing belief was that the complexity and variety of life must be the work of an intelligent designer, who created each of these millions of different species separately.

Living things are just too intricate, it was said, to be the result of unguided evolution.

Consider the human eye, a masterpiece of complexity.

It requires a cornea, iris, lens, retina, optic nerves, muscles, let alone the brain’s elaborate neural network to interpret images.

It’s more complicated than any device ever crafted by human intelligence.

Therefore, it was argued, the human eye can’t be the result of mindless evolution.

To know if that’s true, we need to travel across time to a world before there were eyes to see.

In the beginning, life was blind.

This is what our world looked like four billion years ago, before there were any eyes to see.

Until a few hundred million years passed, and then, one day, there was a microscopic copying error in the DNA of a bacterium.

This random mutation gave that microbe a protein molecule that absorbed sunlight.

Want to know what the world looked like to a light-sensitive bacterium? Take a look at the right side of the screen.

Mutations continued to occur at random, as they always do in any population of living things.

Another mutation caused a dark bacterium to flee intense light.

What is going on here? Night and day.

Those bacteria that could tell light from dark had a decisive advantage over the ones that couldn’t.

Why? Because the daytime brought harsh, ultraviolet light that damages DNA.

The sensitive bacteria fled the intense light to safely exchange their DNA in the dark.

They survived in greater numbers than the bacteria that stayed at the surface.

Over time, those light-sensitive proteins became concentrated in a pigment spot on the more advanced, one-celled organism.

This made it possible to find the light, an overwhelming advantage for an organism that harvests sunlight to make food.

Here’s a flatworm’s-eye view of the world.

This multi-celled organism evolved a dimple in the pigment spot.

The bowl-shaped depression allowed the animal to distinguish light from shadow to crudely make out objects in its vicinity, including those to eat and those that might eat it a tremendous advantage.

Later, things became a little clearer.

The dimple deepened and evolved into a socket with a small opening.

Over thousands of generations, natural selection was slowly sculpting the eye.

The opening contracted to a pinhole covered by a protective transparent membrane.

Only a little light could enter the tiny hole, but it was enough to paint a dim image on the sensitive inner surface of the eye.

This sharpened the focus.

A larger opening would have let in more light to make a brighter image but one that was out of focus.

This development launched the visual equivalent of an arms race.

The competition needed to keep up to survive.

But then a splendid new feature of the eye evolved, a lens that provided both brightness and sharp focus.

In the eyes of primitive fish, the transparent gel near the pinhole formed into a lens.

At the same time, the pinhole enlarged to let in more and more light.

Fish could now see in high-def, both close up and far away.

And then something terrible happened.

Have you ever noticed that a straw in a glass of water looks bent at the surface of the water? That’s because light bends when it goes from one medium to another, say from water to air.

Our eyes originally evolved to see in water.

The watery fluid in those eyes neatly eliminated the distortion of that bending effect.

But for land animals, the light carries images from dry air into their still-watery eyes.

That bends the light rays, causing all kinds of distortions.

When our amphibious ancestors left the water for the land, their eyes, exquisitely evolved to see in water, were lousy for seeing in the air.

Our vision has never been as good since.

We like to think of our eyes as state-of-the-art, but 375 million years later, we still can’t see things right in front of our noses or discern fine details in near darkness the way fish can.

When we left the water, why didn’t nature just start over again and evolve us a new set of eyes that were optimal for seeing in the air? Nature doesn’t work that way.

Evolution reshapes existing structures over generations, adapting them with small changes.

It can’t just go back to the drawing board and start from scratch.

At every stage of its development, the evolving eye functioned well enough to provide a selective advantage for survival.

And among animals alive today, we find eyes at all these stages of development.

And all of them function.

The complexity of the human eye poses no challenge to evolution by natural selection.

In fact, the eye and all of biology makes no sense without evolution.

Some claim that evolution is just a theory, as if it were merely an opinion.

The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact.

Evolution really happened.

Accepting our kinship with all life on Earth is not only solid science.

In my view, it’s also a soaring spiritual experience. End Quote

I don’t know how you can have a godless spiritual experience.

Question for the group. What is Tyson missing in his explanation of evolution? Where is his error? We are looking for something more than just “God” as the answer here.

 

March 30, 2014

The Personality

Dan writes;

Does someone that is soul-infused and capable of group unity to the point that they could participate in a molecule, no longer have a personality?

JJ

It doesn’t matter how high on the totem pole you get, you still have a personality as long as you are incarnated in a physical body.

The personality consists of three things.

(1) The calculating brain

(2) The feeling nature – the emotions.

(3) The mind and powers of reasoning.

Each of us combines the powers of these three vehicles to create what is called a unique personality.

Now, if Jesus had a personality then it stands to reason that other disciples who are soul infused would still have one.

Did Jesus have and use a calculating brain? Most certainly.

Did Jesus have and show feelings? Indeed. He wept several times and another time became so angry that he chased the moneychangers out of the temple.

Did Jesus use his reasoning powers? He used them regularly in arguments he had with the religious leaders. He also used his creative mental powers to concoct numerous teaching parables that were concise, but very effective.

For most of us the personality slowly falls into place after we are born. It is created as we follow the line of least resistance and we go with the influences of our rays, astrological influences, inherited tendencies and what rubs off on to us from our friends, associates and family.

Because the personality naturally develops in standard humans they have a tendency to identify with it. The average person thinks that he is his personality. It does not occur to him that what he thinks he is, is merely composed of a life essence using three vehicles so he can function on the physical plane.

Now here is an interesting point made by DK. He tells us that after the Fourth Initiation the disciple no longer attaches himself to the personality, but still needs one to function in the world. Therefore, what he does is to consciously create one. In other words, he becomes what he decides to be rather than what is thrust upon him by outward forces and circumstances.

This is a goal that all seekers and disciples would do well to seek. Instead of developing and expressing ourselves through impulses gained by programming and outer forces, seek to be the observer and then decide what type of personality you want to express and be that person.

 

March 30, 2014

Avoiding Phase Two

One thing this group has in common with other groups, whether they be spiritual or not, is that we are very creative in discovering ways to offend and be offended at each other.

What is overlooked is that there are degrees in which various statements are offensive as a whole. This is often overlooked because a black and white approach is often taken. Either the person is offended or not. For many there are not degrees, or places in between. There is just offense or toleration.

In this group, the offense we want to avoid more than any other are those things that go beyond offending just one person, but irritates the many and leads to a round of arguments, attack and defense that can sometime last weeks and totally distract the group. Such diatribe often causes good people to withdraw and scares new people away.

When this happens no one seems to take responsibility in starting it, instead, always blaming it on the other guy.

Here’s how a lengthy, distracting personality argument often gets started.

Person A disagrees with Person B and describes his thoughts using a politically incorrect word. He may say something like the following:

That’s a crazy idea.

Where have you been living, Fantasyland?

You are not being logical.

You must have gotten that idea from watching Looney Tunes.

We could go on and on listing phrases and words that will offend some people. The problem is that all of us, if we speak or write long enough, will say something that will be considered offensive by someone.

I am as careful with my wording as anyone here, and still manage to do it from time to time.

The key in participating in a harmonious group is to overlook politically or spiritually incorrect speech. This is easy to do if one tries to look at the person’s heart. Often I see a member say something quite stark, but I sense that he is either making an attempt at humor or means it as a good natured jab. In this case it is easy to overlook the black and white wording.

These jabs made with harmless intent are not the cause of group conflict, though they often take the blame. They are not a cause, but an excuse.

The real cause begins when the jab is taken too seriously and the guy then attacks with real intent to demean or humiliate.

If this second step were never taken then an incessant round of conflict would never occur. The person taking this second step bears the brunt of the responsibility.

What the person who feels tempted to take the second step needs to realize is that this first step happens regularly in every group there is and if he or she is going to register offense there then he will wind up doing it everywhere. No matter where you go you will find people making cutting comments.

So if one is not clear about whether or not a comment is merely a part of the fairly harmless Phrase One, how can he tell?

A good sign is to look toward the reaction from the group. If only you, or a small handful are concerned then that is a sign that your concern or offense is misplaced.

If a significant number become involved in dealing with the offense then that is a sign that Phase Two has been entered where an endless round begins.

Allow me to give examples of the Phase One, Phase Two offenses.

Phase One: That’s a crazy idea.

Phase Two: Who you calling crazy?

Phase One: That’s a crazy idea.

Phase Two: So, you think I’m insane? You are the lunatic here.

Notice here that the Phase One guy did not attack the person, but the idea. And notice that the Phase Two person did not respond to the idea being attacked but as if he was personally attacked. Instead of hearing “That’s a crazy idea.” He heard “You re a crazy person.”

Instead of taking it personally and responding with a personal attack he should have merely asked, “What is so crazy about the idea?”

The key that must be absorbed by the Phase Two person is the Third Key of Knowledge, which is “Correct Perception.” If he had used this key he would have not registered the incorrect unspoken meaning, “You are a crazy person.” All sane people say something deemed a little crazy now and then.

Now here is a response that is sure to lead to conflict:

Phase One: That’s a crazy idea.

Phase Two: You need to get some soul contact so you can speak with respect.

This response lays the groundwork for major problems because so much can be perceived between the lines such as:

(1) This person is judging the other has not being in contact with his soul. This is not his to decide. He can think this and keep it to himself, but to blurt it out creates fightn’ words.

(2) This person is inferring that he is in contact with his soul and the other is not. He would have to think this way to make such a judgment.

(3) This individual is attacking the person and not his ideas.

(4) This person is making a negative judgment on the other which never has a good end.

I could go on but I hope this gives the general idea of what causes the personality problems that surface here from time to time.

The main key is to not take personal offense at non personal attacks or non personal biting comments.

 

March 31, 2014

Referee’s Comments

To insinuate that Dan committed the unforgivable sin against the Holy Ghost is indeed misguided. I have personally received many things through the Spirit and have encountered many people who think that such things I have received are crazy. They think it is even crazier if I tell them that the source is the spirit.

Does that mean they have sinned against the Holy Spirit? No. Of course not. It merely means they disagreed with my words as they understood them.

In order to sin against the Holy Ghost you have to feel Its presence and know that what you are dealing with is a true reality. If the person becomes hardened so he is unwilling to receive anything through the soul then a wall of his own making is created between him and the Spirit .

As it turns out, the Spirit does not leave us but the person leaves the spirit by insulating himself from the Presence. This causes the person in his present personality to be cut off from the spiritual presence. I do not see this problem occurring with any of my friends posting here.

I normally do not comment on causes of conflict but there have been so many accusations going around that perhaps in this case I should say a few extra words. In my opinion there is plenty of blame to go around here. Dan disagreed with how Rick saw himself as being led by the Spirit. Dan tells him, “Your ‘spirit’ sounds like an idiot.” Obviously Dan thinks Rick is led by his feelings and not an infallible Spirit.

There is nothing wrong with Dan disagreeing with Rick or any revelation he has, but his response was pretty stark and would be hurtful to many receiving such language. If I disagreed with Rick and wanted to voice it I would have said something like this:

“I don’t care where you think you received this it doesn’t make sense to me and I disagree because…”

Dan has disagreed with me pretty frankly a number o times with fairly abrupt language, but they have been Phase One disagreements and I generally just let the roughness pass through me and answer as if the wording was spoken with kindness.

Rick also made mistakes in my opinion. He took extra offense because he saw the Spirit as being attacked. Actually Dan could not attack the Spirit unless he really believed the Holy Spirit was at work here. Because Rick saw Dan’s response as extra egregious, instead of just voicing disagreement (which would have been the best course IMO) he punished Dan by unilaterally cutting him off from the group.

This in turn outraged a number of members.

Both men could have handled this differently and avoided the disruption the group suffered. Most of us can see this on hindsight so the best thing to do now is move onward and remember we are in this together as friends and should treat each other accordingly.

Also, it would be helpful to take my post #67310 to heart. Susan called this a classic and I’m glad she saw it that way because I felt led by the “Spirit” to write it. If anyone thinks the ideas sound like they came from an idiot, I’ll take the blame for making it sound that way.

 

Adam:

The whole notion of being offended by anyone or anything, is totally offensive.

JJ

“Blessed is he who is not offended by me.” Jesus

 

April 1, 2014

Noah, The Movie

Johann:

How was it that the very earth itself was corrupt and “ALL flesh”? These are very strong words as for instance the animals just run on a program designed to work on context and nothing else, not on a creative purpose as we understand it.

JJ

Supposing that the story of Noah represents the great floods that destroyed Atlantis the clue to this may be found in legends of that time, left to us in the image of the Sphinx, which still stands in Egypt. The Sphinx is half man and half lion. Some legends tell us that Atlantean scientists experimented with the mixing of the species, mixing animals with humans as well as various animal species and this corrupted much of the life of the planet. Unfortunately scientists are headed in this direction once again. Who knows what kind of creatures will be roaming the earth in a hundred or more years.

 

April 2, 2014

The Question on Cosmos

What is Tyson missing in his explanation of evolution? Where is his error? We are looking for something more than just “God” as the answer here.

We received some great answers on this. Unfortunately, I do not have time to comment on them and give them justice.

There is one very important point that orthodox evolutionists leave out of their argument, which basically goes like this.

We know that life was created by evolution and not Intelligent Design because of what we have observed. We know the fossil record shows that over eons of time life evolved from a simple state to a more complex one. In addition to this natural evolution, the historical and fossil record shows that humans speeded evolution up. An instance was when he domesticated the wolf and controlled his breeding, which, over time, produced dogs we have today in all their forms.

This approach has a basic error and it is amazing most scientists, which consider themselves way above the masses in intellect, do not understand the error.

The error is this: They witness and tabulate a process of creation and then conclude that they understand all the ingredients and intelligence involved in the creation.

For instance, they tabulate the steps of evolution and think all that was involved was a natural selection process. Case closed.

They tabulate all they know about gravity and when they find the Higgs particle they think they know how gravity was works and was created.

They tabulate all they know about creation and figure the Big Bang (with no intelligence involved) explains it all when they have no idea how the whole universe exploded into being from a tiny point.

Now just imagine how silly this approach is when applied to reality as follows.

Charles loves apple products. He has an Apple computer, an iPhone, an iPod and an iPad. He wonders. How did these fine products come to be?

He investigates and finds out that Apple products were created through an evolutionary process. They started with the Apple I, then came the Apple II. Next was Lisa, then the Mac, followed by the Mac Plus, the Mac SE, the iMac, the G3, the G4, the G5 and now the latest Apple computers and products in all their glory.

After his study Charles comes to a startling conclusion and thinks to himself:

“Obviously Apple products were created through a process of evolution and natural selection. As soon as a new and better product shows up through some type of mutation then from that point on it is naturally selected and the Apple products just become more and more sophisticated without the need of an Intelligent Designer.

If any one of us were to encounter Charles we would think he is pretty stupid, yet scientists make this same error. They observe the history of evolution and see the complex designs, much more complex than any computer, and figure no intelligence was necessary in creation.

When these guys die and go to the other side and discover that great intelligence was involved in all creation they will feel pretty embarrassed as the truth was always there staring them in the face.

 

April 3, 2014

Study: Vegetarians Less Healthy

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/study-vegetarians-less-healthy-lower-quality-of-life-than-meat-eaters/

Violet Writes:

There’s a book called ” Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” that was written by a dentist who traveled the world in search of the healthiest diet. Originally, Dr. Weston Price thought it would be vegan but found the healthiest diets include meat or protein of some kind. in one case, insects were the source of protein. He and his wife did this at a time when some regions were still cut off from Western civilisation and they were able to provide photographs of their findings. Its an interesting read. More on Weston Price can be found on YouTube.

JJ

A part of the reason that many vegetarians are not that healthy is they substitute a lot of starchy foods for protein because this tends to fill you up. They also eat a lot of soy products which are not good for you unless fermented as they do in Japan. Tofu is not a health food .

I believe that those who stay away from the dead starches and concentrate on whole live foods come out in pretty good shape on the average. It would be interesting to see the results of a more detailed study.

 

April 8, 2014

Another Letter on Global Warming

Here’s another letter I wrote to my local paper.

How Global Warming Alarmists Are Like the Religious Leaders in the Days of Galileo.

(1) They claim they are right because of consensus, not proven science.

(2) Just like the medieval scientists refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, today the rigid left does not examine the opposing point of view but only seeks to distort it.

(3) Most of their predictions are incorrect.

(4) Most refuse to debate the actual science.

(5) Instead of debating they try to shut down free speech on the topic. For example, alarmists tried to prevent the Washington Post from publishing Krauthammer’s opinion on the subject and the LA Times refuses to even allow skeptical opinions (like mine) in the letters to the editor. Other papers have threatened to follow their lead. Hopefully the Statesman stays above this dogmatic approach.

(6) Instead of using reasoning, facts and science they attempt to destroy opposition through name-calling. Medieval religious leaders called skeptics, “heretics” and “blasphemers.” Today alarmists call them “deniers,” “traitors” and “flat earthers.”

(7) They both call for punishing dissent. Alarmists are increasingly calling for lawsuits, jail and “Nuremberg-style trials” for climate skeptics.

History indeed repeats itself. Only the names of the intolerant change.

 

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Global Warming

This entry is part 6 of 33 in the series 2014

– Chapter Seven –

(From the book, Fixing America)

Global Warming

It’s silly, really, to consider that a topic that belongs to science has become a prime source of political division. Could you imagine this happening to other subjects? We could hear dialog like this:

“So, you don’t believe in the sixth quark? You are a quark denier and must be a conservative.”

“So, you believe the moon was once a part of the earth do you? Then you must be liberal.”

Yes, this sounds like a very foolish way to demonize a person by placing him on his opposing political side, but, ironically, this is what is going on with global warming.

If two people look at the facts of global warming and come to different conclusions, this should not mean that one conclusion is conservative and one is liberal.

Yes, it shouldn’t mean this – so why are those on the opposite sides today so politically divided?

The answer is simple. Most people today have not made their decision on global warming because of a study of the science, but because of political indoctrination. This has happened on both sides of the political spectrum, and it greatly obscures the debate.

To make the case, I merely ask: who is the most famous proponent of global warming theory? A famous scientist?

Not hardly. We all know it is that famous politician, Al Gore.

And who are those that most widely accept his theories?

Yes. The same people who accept his politics.

The world would not be so divided on the subject if the greatest proponent was a scientist with no known political connections, and was willing to truthfully present his case and debate it.

The problem with Al Gore is he is willing to present his case to friendly faces, but will not debate or receive and answer questions from skeptics. A real scientist would generally have no problem defending his studies.

Thus, we have the situation that the current global warming debate is more of a political debate than it is scientific. In fact, this is the first time in recent history that the right and wrong of what is considered scientific consensus has been judged politically more than scientifically.

Don’t get me wrong – science alone without politics does have its dogmas and mindsets. For instance, anyone who presents evidence that seems to disprove the Big Bang Theory is somewhat seen as a heretic, and often his thoughts are automatically discounted; but the emotional heat from this is nothing like that produced by the Global Warming Theory.

He who goes against the standard model in global warming can lose his livelihood and even receive death threats. The different problem here is that the majority of heat the skeptic takes comes not from other scientists, but from bureaucrats and knee-jerk political extremists who don’t know the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius.

In this country, we make a big deal over the fact that we have reasonable separation between science and religion. Vastly overlooked is the fact that a merging of science and politics is just as suppressive. True science is not determined by a consensus of political thought with scientific budgets controlled by partisan politics.

The problem with the political approach over the science is that the conclusions are presented as absolutes similar to the days of Galileo. Those presenting one side tell us there is a definite consensus, as if all scientists agree that there is an emergency and something must be done now or the apocalypse is on us.

The other side also has their illusions, some thinking that there is nothing to be concerned about.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in between. On one side we do not need to destroy our economy and way of life to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere; and, on the other, we have to realize we take some risks by altering the content of our atmosphere. We do need an alternative for fossil fuels for a number of reasons.

What is needed in the debate is to stick to science and a critical examination of the track record of the experts to estimate how much they can be trusted in the future; also, good old common sense is a great help.

First, let us examine how the experts performed in predicting weather the recent past.

It wasn’t long after Hurricane Katrina that Al Gore insinuated that it, and all current and future hurricanes, is caused by man-made global warming. After this, the politicians, the media and even many scientists jumped on the bandwagon.1

Time Magazine ran this headline on Aug 29, 2005:

“Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?”

The article reads:

“So is global warming making the problem worse? Superficially, the numbers say yes.”

Politicians called for more restrictions on man-made activities causing CO2 emissions.

Then the scientific experts joined in by making alarming hurricane predictions supporting the idea.

There is a problem for those making predictions, however. When the time period for the prediction is over, we can then evaluate in black and white whether or not it was correct.

For the 2006 hurricane season, experts were predicting more Katrina-like storms, giving the jitters to millions of people across the land and fuel for global warming scare tactics. Experts were predicting up to 17 named storms, but we had nine. They were expecting ten hurricanes and we had half that number – five. 2006 was the calmest hurricane season in a decade and the first time since 1997 that only one storm made its way to the Gulf of Mexico.2

After the 2006 season ended, the experts were a little embarrassed but not discouraged. 2006 was a fluke they said, caused by a growing El Nino. 2007 will see terrible storms, they exclaimed. Again, they predicted Katrina-like storms for 2007, giving lots of fuel to the global warming camp. In fact, the predictions for 2007 were almost a duplication of 2006. The funny part is the results were also a duplication, with one variation – 2007 was even calmer than 2006. It had the least hurricane activity in 30 years.

In 2008 there was some increase of hurricane activity doing damage to Haiti and Cuba, but nothing stronger than a Category 2 reached the continental United States.

2009 was again much below average, similar to 2006, with no storm of hurricane force reaching the United States.3

The record shows a trend toward fewer hurricanes rather than an increase.

After listening to all the hype that didn’t materialize, my question is this. Were the experts’ predictions based on pure science, or were their predictions influenced by the doomsday expectations of the global warming crowd with their “consensus” of scientists?

If predictions of doom by scientific consensus were dismally off for the United States four years in a row, then why should we have faith in their climate predictions 100 years in the future?

If climate is not predictable within the space of a year, then why do these experts expect a linear progression of change for the next century and beyond?

In a somewhat ironic note, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. -not an expert, but definitely a spokesman – said in 2008, through the LA Times, that the lack of snow in the Washington DC area was caused by global warming. Then, after record-breaking snowstorms hit the area in 2010, his voice was nowhere to be found.

Now let us look at another area of prediction of a hot political topic by using scientific consensus.

In the Washington Post, Nov 19, 2007 we read:

 

The United Nations’ top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement. . .

The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Tuesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year’s estimate, documents show.

 

This is interesting. A consensus of the best scientists the U.N. can produce were off by a whopping 40% in predicting the HIV infections only one year in the future. If a consensus of scientists are so far off in using fairly easy-to-handle data as an increase in a disease one year in the future, then why on God’s green earth should we trust U.N. scientists who are predicting results of weather 100 years in the future?

Yes, that’s right. We are assured that current weather patterns caused by CO2 emissions will heat up the earth to unbearable proportions in a hundred years or less. In fact, the predictions get more alarming every day.

Here are a few headlines from the Drudge Report just within a period of a few days in 2007.

 

WARMING WARNING OF ‘UNRECOGNIZABLE’ EARTH

November 17, 2007

 

GLOBAL WARMING WARNING: EXTINCTION FOR THIRD OF ALL PLANT, ANIMAL SPECIES…

November 17, 2007

 

UN OFFICIAL WARNS IGNORING WARMING WOULD BE CRIMINALLY IRRESPONSIBLE

November 12, 2007

 

For years now, it seems that the news media gives us some alarmist warning almost daily about the dangers of global warming. Along with these warnings are statements such as:

 

“The debate is over…”

“All respectable scientists agree…”

“There is a scientific consensus…”

“Those who question are global warming deniers.”

 

Just as global warming is a charged issue, so is AIDS. Before the U.N. admitted its incompetence, anyone who dared suggest that AIDS was not spreading the way the scientific consensus said was targeted as a cold-hearted bigot. Only now, when the cat is out of the bag, can a skeptic speak openly about it, and then only with the highest of sensitivity.

The question that needs to be examined is this: how could respected U.N. scientists be off by 40% in their predictions of AIDS when they had all the tools at their disposal to make a fairly accurate prediction?

This same Washington Post article gives the answer:

 

Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS.

 

Perhaps a number of years from now, when it is undeniable that U.N. scientists were wrong about many of their predictions concerning global warming, we may read a similar statement as to why warming damage was so overestimated. It could read something like:

 

Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the effect of CO2 to help gather political and financial support for combating global warming and instituting cap and trade policies.

 

Indeed, global warming funding is big business. In 2009, the Obama administration raised Bush’s already high amount of $7.37 billion to $10.6 billion for climate-related programs, with a bonus amount of $68 billion from the stimulus passed in Feb 2009.4 If we include other nations in the U.N., there will be over $100 billion available to fight climate change. 5

If you don’t believe these respected scientists aren’t willing to stretch the decimal point a little to get some of these billions by sounding alarms, then I’ve got some acreage on Pluto I will be happy to sell you.

Just try to find a skeptic who is not mimicking the party line, yet is receiving any of these billions. You can’t do it.

The Climategate controversy created by insider leaked emails confirmed some of the worst accusations of the skeptics.

It was discovered that the U.N. scientists were sabotaging skeptical scientists’ research by either ignoring or denying Freedom of Information requests. The UK Guardian reported that of 105 requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU), which Phil Jones headed up to the end of December 2009, only 10 had been released in full.6

It has long been suspected by skeptics that the peer review process was stacked against anyone not agreeing with the standard, but, after Climategate, there is hard evidence. Let us look at one example.

Siberia is supposed to be the landmass with the most warming during the 20th century, so any evidence to the contrary would threaten orthodox conclusions. Many skeptics have been suspicious of conclusions drawn there.

Lars Kamel, a Swedish astrophysicist, was a skeptic who submitted a paper to be reviewed. Kamel analyzed the temperature records from weather stations in part of southern Siberia, around Lake Baikal. He claimed to find much less warming than the orthodox conclusions, despite analyzing much the same data.

Kamel told the UK Guardian: “Siberia is a test case, because it is supposed to be the land area with most warming in the 20th century.” The finding sounded important, but his paper was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that year.7

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summed up the orthodox view toward skeptics:

 

I don’t want to get down to a personal level, but all you need to do is look at their backgrounds. They are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder – I hope that they apply it to their faces every day – and people who say that the only way to deal with HIV/AIDS is to screen the population on a regular basis and isolate those who are infected.8

 

With a bias like this, is there any surprise that skeptics have difficulty getting peer reviewed?

Here is an anonymous quote from a scientist commenting online that sums up the thinking of many skeptics:

 

When I publish in my field I have to release my data and let people challenge it. Why have the raw data (not the processed data) claiming climate AGW not been released? Why has the statistical methodology used in the analysis not been made available? Why isn’t the raw data published online for independent analysis? Why were the Siberian tree ring data so selective? Finally, can I say that if you try publishing a viewpoint radically against the accepted truth in a scientific field you are in big trouble!

 

After the damaging emails weakened the orthodox global warming argument, it seems that scientists began taking a more jaundiced look at the 2007 IPCC report. Several disturbing revelations surfaced.

First, it was discovered that the prediction that the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035 was off by centuries. How could such a miscalculation be included in a report that is touted as being created by thousands of the best scientists on earth and screened by the best of minds?

It turns out that the Himalayan prediction came not from any of their supposed pool of climate scientists, but a magazine article in which nothing was peer reviewed. This magazine article was quoted by a zealous environmental group in their World Wildlife Fund publication, and apparently made it from there to the prestigious IPCC report.9

The UK Telegraph, Feb 27, 2010, succinctly sums up quite a number of other errors discovered:

 

…that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rain forest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other “extreme weather events” were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report.10

 

After all the billions spent in support of global warning research, we deserve better than this.

On the other hand, how much is spent looking the other direction? Where do skeptics get their funding? Do they get their share of the public funds? Hardly. The fact is that many of them get no funding, but work with their own time and money. A few have gotten some funds from oil companies and other corporations. Orthodox global warming believers attack them as if they are the ones receiving the majority of the funds, but are they receiving billions to prove their point of view, as are the warmers? The largest funding that can be attributed to the global warming skeptics is $19 million given by ExxonMobil over a period of years to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others who have come up with non-conformists data.11 Because of pressure from environmentalists, they have backed off the funding. Now, keep in mind that we’re talking about millions here, not billions, as in orthodox research. A billion is a thousand million. That’s over 5000 times the entire funding by ExxonMobil. Big difference.

Harris Rosen, Central Florida’s most famous hotel owner, has lashed out at false global warming-related predictions. He believes that because hurricane experts like William Gray have been making alarmist and false predictions over the past couple years, Florida’s businesses have lost billions of dollars of tourist revenue. He said that surveys show that 70% of the guests who do not return stay away because of the false and alarmist predictions.

Rosen is threatening a lawsuit so maybe an “I’m sorry” may not be enough this time.12

False hurricane predictions using global warming data are destructive, but nothing compared to false long-range predictions demanding long-range drastic solutions.

The hurricane predictions have the advantage of being proven right or wrong within a year, and now, after several years of drastic incompetence, they begin to lose their power to scare the daylights out of the people.

But, with global warming, the predictions focus on the end of the century, many decades away. There is no chance to prove whether the predictions are right or wrong before trillions of dollars are wasted, and civilization itself drained of its life-giving energy.

Let us briefly examine orthodox global warming points with detachment and see how it conforms to reason.

1. Authorities stress over and over that anyone who disagrees with them is a “climate change denier.”

If I have ever seen a piece of propaganda, it is the use of this phrase. If Hitler or Goebbels were alive today, they couldn’t have produced any greater piece of emotional diatribe to promote their cause.

For one thing I do not think such an animal as a “climate change denier” exists. Everyone left and right agree that the climate changes with time so this should be a non-issue.

To associate those who question orthodoxy with the neo-Nazis today who deny the holocaust is completely outrageous, and as low of an emotional approach as one can achieve. I’ve not seen anyone using this statement that is able to put together a logical sentence about global warming.

2. “The authorities agree.” Instead of explaining why they are correct, they merely try to make us think that all scientists agree with them; therefore, we must also agree.

Let me give several pieces of information that destroys this attack on people such as myself, and makes their arguments inconsequential:

(a) Skeptics are neither global warming nor climate change deniers. When the data verifies that it is getting warmer, we assume it is getting warmer; and when they indicate it is getting cooler, we assume it is getting cooler. To categorize those who disagree as not accepting that it has warmed some in the last century is extremely deceptive and disingenuous. This argument could be turned around and the skeptics could accuse many of being global cooling deniers since it has not warmed since 1998 (as of 2010 data). The disagreement is not over whether there is overall warming in the last century, but the cause.

Most skeptics believe CO2 does have an effect on warming, contrary to what they are accused of thinking. They just believe that it may not be the major factor as believed by bureaucrats.

The bureaucrats (and some scientists), on the other hand, consistently state that man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming. This position disagrees with their own scientists they quote. The IPCC report of 2007 gives the belief that around 50% of global warming is caused by man-made emissions. Bureaucrats generally speak as if it is 100%. This is very deceptive language, even based on their own data.

The 50% figure is very inflated and fanciful, according to many climate scientists. Models are not capable of proving the exact figure, but the data I have studied indicates it is very minimal.

New analysis of NASA satellite data may force a revision of the warming effect of CO2. They show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than IPCC computer models have predicted.12A

Computer models can only be as accurate as their input data, and IPCC models have been feeding the computers a huge error in the amount of heat released into space. When (and if) this error is corrected, projected warming will be substantially less.

The question then is – are researchers honest enough to make the correction when funding may be at stake?

(b) Financing research. Data presented from the skeptics is often dismissed merely because of the accusation that anyone who disagrees is a lackey of the oil companies. True, oil companies have financed a small amount of research, but this is distorted beyond all reality, to the point of projecting that the poor little U.N. scientists are fighting a monster of overwhelming proportions to present the truth.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States government alone (as previously noted) spends $4 billion per year on climate change research. This accounts for about 99.5% of such money spent in this country on global warming research, and anyone who voices skepticism in any degree rarely gets any of this money.

(c) Projections by orthodoxy are inconsistent and change from year to year, decade to decade in unbelievable proportions, even to reversing conclusions.

During the last century, consensus has shifted at least four times between predicting global cooling and global warming. Global warming was often presented with the idea that an apocalyptic situation is near. Over a hundred years ago, it was predicted that Canada would be wiped out and billions would die in an impending ice age.13

In 1971, NASA’s James Hansen’s research was used to predict an ice age. On July 9, 1971, the Washington Post stated that the temperature was expected to decrease 6 degrees over the next 50 years due to automobile emissions, and the next 5-10 years could trigger an ice age.

The prediction was wrong in both cases. The temperature went up over the next decade, the fifty-year predicted period is almost up, and the temperature is higher still.

Presently, interpretation is totally reversed. James Hansen is now the poster boy for the orthodox man-made global warming theory. Hansen’s calculations are currently used to predict global warming instead of cooling.

Hansen does not have much of a track record for making predictions. In 1988, he told the U.S. Congress that temperature would rise 0.3°C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1°C), and that sea level would rise several feet. It never even rose an inch.

In 2001, the third IPCC report of the U.N. predicted a sea level rise of somewhere between 4 and 35.4 inches by the end of the century. Then, in 2007, the fourth report predicted 7 to 23 inches. Then, to top it off, the non-scientist Al Gore predicted up to 20 feet!

Does this sound like guesswork or what? The 2001 prediction of a sea level rise between 4 and 35.4 inches is a variance of almost a thousand percent!

That would be like me saying, “The wind speed tomorrow will be between 5 and 50 miles per hour.” If I predicted such a thing, a person of common sense would look at me cross-eyed, and figure I didn’t have a clue as to what the wind speed would be tomorrow.

The 2001 IPCC Report also predicted a steady rise in temperatures from the turn of the century to the year 2100, but temperatures have held steady or decreased in the last decade.

Now, look at the change of the minimum and maximums between 2001 and 2007:

 

Minimum: Sea level rise was increased from 4 inches to 7 inches, an increase of 175 percent.

 

Maximum: The maximum was reduced from 35.4 inches to 23 inches. That is a reduction of 35 percent.

 

If this wavering and inconsistency sounds like science to you, then I have some new ocean front property I’ll sell you in Idaho.

(d) Actual history does not agree with present CO2 global warming theory.

Between 1850 and 1940, the earth experienced a global warming trend. During this period, the release of human-caused CO2 was insignificant.

Between 1940 and 1976, we had global cooling and many scientists were predicting an ice age. The fact that the earth cooled when we had our first major surge of human-caused CO2 gives powerful evidence that the current alarmist trend is just that — an alarmist trend.

(e) As there is an increase in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is a decrease in its greenhouse effect. This fact is often overlooked in computer models.14

The truth is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does produce an effect, but it is much smaller than projected by alarmists. You would think that CO2 is the main cause of the greenhouse effect, but it is only estimated to cause between 4.2% and 8.4% of it.15 That variance in estimate of about 100% just shows how difficult it is to pin down the exact effect of the gas.

In addition to this, an alarm is raised by the IPCC telling us that CO2 will remain in the atmosphere 50-200 years. This contrasts with geologists who say the time is more like five to ten years.16 Big difference. After reading about the deception in the IPCC from the leaked e-mails, I tend to go with the geologists.

Sometimes I think the alarmists do not believe their own doctrine, for most of them fight tooth and nail against the best two current solutions available, which are hydropower and nuclear energy. Instead, they offer us wind and solar power, which are unlikely to ever create a dent in CO2 emissions within the near future.

 

 

Not All Agree

Researchers Fred Singer & Dennis T. Avery tell us:

 

A survey of more than four hundred German, American, and Canadian climate researchers was reported in the UN Climate Change Bulletin in 1996. Only 10 percent of the researchers surveyed said they ‘strongly agree’ with the statement ‘We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway.’ Close to half of the researchers surveyed-48 percent—said they didn’t have faith in the forecasts of the global climate models, the only strong argument in favor of quick, decisive international action to counter a dangerous global warming.

A 1997 survey of U.S. State Climatologists (the official climate monitors in each of the fifty states) found 90 percent agreeing that ‘scientific evidence indicates variations in global temperature are likely to be naturally occurring and cyclical over very long periods of time.’

In 1998, more than 17,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition, expressing doubt about man-made global warming and opposing the Kyoto Protocol. More than 2,600 of the signers of this anti-Kyoto petition have climate science credentials. The petition was hosted by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine.17

 

Here is what Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT has written about ‘An Inconvenient Truth’:

 

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.18

 

Here are a few of Al Gore’s inaccuracies as stated by Senator James Inhofe:

 

• He promoted the now debunked ‘hockey stick’ temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate.

• He attempted to minimize the significance of the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age.

• He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist.

• He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930s were as warm or warmer.

• He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice. He left out that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

• He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing.

• He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices.

• He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way outside of any supposed scientific ‘consensus’ and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.

• He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier’s retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing.

• He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa’s Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits.

• He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving.

 

Al Gore completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004.19

A high court judge in England seemed to agree with Senator Inhofe and ruled that “An Inconvenient Truth” made nine claims that were not scientifically founded.20

There are many more arguments that can be made to show that the debate is not over on the truth of man-caused global warming. I just want to make enough points to instill doubt in the mind of the reader that what orthodoxy tells us may not be fully true. There are numerous good books by skeptics. One of the best I have found so far is “Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years” By S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery.

“So, you doubt the scientific consensus,” says the conformist. “What do you suggest we do then, drive gas guzzling SUVs and Hummers? Should we keep building coal-fired plants and drill for oil until the last drop is gone? Surely you must accept that CO2 has some effect. Should we do nothing?”

 

 

The Answer

Global warming alarmists have an unrealistic view of global warming skeptics. Among popular untrue assumptions are:

False assumption one: Skeptics do not believe the earth is warming.

The truth: The vast majority of the skeptics do believe the earth is warming and accept the scientific data until proven otherwise. There is a variance between satellite measurements and earth-based measurements. The satellite measurements, which are thought to be more accurate, show a lesser warming than the earth-based measurements, but alarmists ignore this fact.

False assumption two: Skeptics believe that humans are not a factor in global warming.

The truth: Again, the vast majority of skeptics believe that man-made emissions are a factor, but a small factor or, at worst, an unknown factor; and not the magnitude of alarm believers proclaim. It’s a little like accepting the scientific probability that a comet will hit us sometime in the far future. It could happen, but the probability is not high enough to lose sleep over. The earth could continue to warm for some time, but skeptics believe in the probability that a natural cooling cycle will kick in sooner or later and offset this.

False assumption three: Skeptics are like the flat-earth people of the past and reject science.

The truth: From my experience and study, the skeptics are much more scientific in their thinking and reality based than are the alarmists. Many of the alarmists pick and choose pieces of data that seem to fit their mindset, whereas the skeptics are more likely to look at the whole picture. For instance, most alarmists ignore the fact that from 1940-1978 the world had a cooling trend, even though we were experiencing the first major surge of CO2 emissions.

False assumption four: Skeptics do not care about the earth or the environment.

The truth: This is an attempt to demonize opposition to their consensus thinking. Skeptics are just as concerned (as a whole) as are the alarmists about Mother Earth. The difference is that alarmists want to press forward with drastic changes that often make little sense or will have little effect. Skeptics want to make changes that will have a measurable positive effect and help mankind, as well as the environment.

False assumption five: Skeptics do not want to do anything. At least the believers want to do something.

The truth: Even though skeptics are not worked into a frenzied state of alarm, many are happy to work toward common sense solutions to reducing man-made emissions. After all, they do have some effect and the safe path is to eventually reduce emissions.

This brings us to what should be some points of consensus regarding this problem. Here are items on which both believers and skeptics can agree:

 

(1) The earth is limited in oil resources. Sooner or later, we will have to switch to other energy sources. We might as well start now working in this direction.

(2) Limited oil resources could lead to many future wars and conflicts, which could be avoided by developing alternatives.

(3) We import close to 70% of our oil from foreign sources, many of them openly hostile to us and with the ability to hold us hostage. Anyone with a common sense on either side would agree that reducing these imports is desirable.

(4) Burning oil produces greenhouses gases, and both sides agree it would be safer to reduce them rather than to increase. Even many skeptics are concerned, just not alarmed to apocalyptic proportions. It would thus be desirable environmentally, from both sides, to reduce dependence on oil.

(5) Both sides generally feel it is desirable to reduce our dependence of coal-fired plants. These not only release CO2, but other contaminants such as mercury and more radioactive elements than a nuclear plant.

 

The truly big issue concerning global warming is how to reduce manmade greenhouse gas emissions? Unfortunately, there are two huge divisions, which are:

Division One: The alarmists want to reduce greenhouses gases in ways that will limit or remove certain freedoms. For instance, most support greenhouse gas decrees and laws plus taxes and fines, not only nationally, but also through the United Nations. Many consider the Cap and Trade legislation in the United States as a necessary but drastic solution. They believe this risk to our freedom is necessary because of the alarmist situation.

The skeptics only want to use law where absolutely necessary, giving no extra power to the U.N. and working with the free market as much as possible.

Division Two: The alarmists generally lean toward socialism and are anti-capitalists. They generally favor solutions that promote their social agenda and big government. There are exceptions, of course.

One of the worries of the skeptics is that the global warming movement has attracted the support of many ex-communists, socialists and enemies of the United States. These skeptics have grave concerns that the global warming movement could be a Trojan Horse to destroy our economy and freedom, and yet produce little effect on reducing greenhouse gases. They see the alarmist cries as a ploy to further their agenda more than true concern over rising sea levels.

It’s too bad this last division exists, because it has little to do with global warming itself. Instead, the division is over the true motivations of the movers and shakers behind the movement.

In seeking a synthesis that can unite, we must take the two above differences into consideration, and create goals that both sides can accept. Here are a few:

 

(1) Promote hybrid technology.

The best selling hybrid car, which is the Honda Prius, gets around 50 miles per gallon, yet is still a comfortable car for general use. Others are coming forward with more fuel-efficient hybrids all the time, and plug-in cars are being introduced.

The plug-in Prius is expected to average at least 112 MPG. Part of the reason is a lighter, more efficient lithium-ion battery. This new generation of batteries will not only make hybrids more efficient, but will pave the way for the first truly practical all-electric vehicles.

Both sides of the equation stand in the way of maximizing this solution.

The believers will mouth support of the hybrids, yet are slow to actually buy and use the most fuel-efficient cars. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen a global warming believer asked what kind of car he drives and it turns out to be a standard fuel-guzzling SUV; asked why, believers like Robert Kennedy Jr. have a ready answer such as, “I have a big family and need one.”

Congressman John Kerry had a more creative answer. He merely said, “This is my wife’s SUV.”

Many wealthy alarmists, such as Al Gore, offset any savings on the road when they take private jets, where one trip can burn many times the amount an SUV does in a year. Barbara Streisand has SUVs, but usually ops to drive a motor home to work. The carbon footprint of her mansion has to be enormous.

In 2009, hybrids accounted for less than 3% of cars sold in the U.S., and even less in 2010. This seems hypocritical when over 50% of the voters elect lawmakers who want to use drastic measures to reduce our carbon footprint.21 Something doesn’t add up here. If we were in a state of emergency, then it would seem that the least a global warming supporter could do is buy a hybrid. This would have a much bigger impact than switching to fluorescent bulbs.

Another interesting fact about hybrids is that their sales spike whenever there is an increase in the price of gas. This indicates that people switch to them, not to save the planet, but to save a buck. There’s no way of knowing how many skeptics buy hybrids, but I would guess there are quite a few. I plan on buying one for my next car, and I am a skeptic.

We have a problem with hypocrisy of the alarmists, but there is also a problem with the skeptics. Some of them are very negative toward hybrid technology for no good reason, and make fun of people who drive them. Hybrids make good ecological sense, are economical to drive, reduce the need for foreign oil, and are comfortable to drive – some even say fun. The only downside is they cost a little more, but that will be offset as more are sold.

Hybrid vehicle technology makes a lot of sense, especially when over 100 mpg is reached. Resistance is futile. It’s only a matter of time before the majority supports it.

 

(2) Solar Power

Both sides support the use of solar power, but view it from different perspectives. The alarmists seem to believe that it can be a major factor in energy independence. The skeptics seem to be more practical and see it as helpful, but hardly making a dent in our energy needs in the near future.

In 2009, according to the Energy Information Administration, solar energy only accounted for a mere three tenths of one percent of the nation’s energy needs. This means there was only enough solar energy sold to supply one person in 333 with this alternative source.22

Again, there is something strange going on here. Over half the people demand solar as a solution to global warming, but they will not buy it themselves. Since this seems to be their number one choice, you’d think well-to-do alarmists would install solar panels, but few do. Even wealthy Al Gore was criticized for having no solar panels; shortly after his film “An Inconvenient Truth” he acquiesced and stated he intended to install them. The last I heard, he finally put in a few.

My question to alarmists is this: if you really see impending doom through global warming, and solar energy as the best solution, then why will you not install solar panels yourselves, especially in the states with government incentives?

The answer must be the same as to why they do not buy hybrid vehicles.

As far as being a clean renewable energy source, solar power is a definite improvement over fossil fuels. Some see it as free energy and completely pollution free, but this is not quite so.

Producing the materials (vast quantities of steel, glass, and concrete) for deployment of a solar hardware requires about 3% as much coal burning as producing the same amount of electricity by direct coal burning.23

In addition to this, solar panels often use cadmium compounds, which are very poisonous and must be replaced and properly disposed of periodically.

The greatest pollution problem is space, and this item alone could prevent standard solar energy from supplying more than a couple percent of our energy needs – unless a breakthrough is made.

The authors of the popular book “Superfreakonomics,” after consulting experts, make this observation:

 

Although a widespread conversion to solar power might seem appealing, the reality is tricky. The energy consumed by building the thousands of new solar plants necessary to replace coal-burning and other power plants would create a huge long-term warming debt… Eventually, we’d have a great carbon-free energy infrastructure but only after making emissions and global warming worse every year until we’re done building out the solar plants, which could take thirty to fifty years.24

 

Consider this: If we could convert 100% of the sun’s energy into electricity, a square foot of land at the equator would supply enough energy to light a 125 watt light bulb. But then if we take the nighttime or the variable weather into consideration, we would only have enough for a 22-watt bulb. The big problem is that we only convert about 14% of this into energy, so this reduces the power to 3.1 watts. Finally, if we move our solar collector to a more probable location in the United States – where most of us live – the power is reduced to around a single watt.

To build a solar energy plant equal to the power of a typical coal burning one of a billion watt capacity would occupy a space of 40 square miles.

To even come close to supplying our energy needs, we would need about 400 plants, which would require (figuring maintenance roads and access) 24,000 square miles of ground, which is almost equal to the surface area of Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and New Jersey combined.

On this ground, there could be no farming, no fishing, no hunting, no camping etc., and would be a great eyesore on the environment.

It is true we may have a breakthrough in energy conversion, but even if efficiency went from 14% to 20%, it would remain impractical as a large-scale energy source.

Another problem is that in large population centers (New York, Boston, and Chicago) where the greatest amount of energy is needed, the amount of sun available is much less, and transporting electricity from solar power over long distances is impractical and involves large energy loss.

And Great Britain and other northern nations are out of the question. It would take about half of the surface area of that country to supply power through solar means. If you ever lived there, you would understand.

The main reason there is not greater proliferation of solar power is the cost. Each watt created by solar power just costs more than those produced by coal, oil, nuclear or natural gas.

 

 

(3) Geothermal

Again, both sides support geothermal energy, but the supply is very limited.

This has some potential here in the United States, but until greater technology is developed to retrieve it from deep within the earth, this will only supply a small amount of our needs. We currently receive about a third of one percent of our electrical power from geothermal,25 and the maximum projected would be 4.6%.

 

 

(4) Bio-Fuels

The most discussed bio-fuel is ethanol. Many from both sides of the environmental spectrum support this alternative.

The advantages of ethanol are that it burns cleaner than regular gas and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Some claim that it reduces pollutants and carbon within the engine, extending its life. There seems to be no disadvantage.

But…

I talked to a mechanic a while back who told me what he thought was a major problem of which most is not aware. He said that because ethanol burns hotter than regular gasoline, it causes the O-rings to harden, causing engine problems. He told me that if I wanted to get maximum mileage out of my engine to not use it often. He said using it one tank out of ten might be useful to keep your engine clean, but not to use it regularly.

Another major drawback is that it requires a tremendous amount of energy to create this energy source. The main source for ethanol in the United States is corn, and when the energy to run the farm equipment, create fertilizer and run the refineries to create the ethanol is considered, the net energy savings becomes negligible. Some contend that it takes more energy to create ethanol than it releases, and others a little less, but all have to concede it is like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. We borrow energy to create energy.

Another strike against bio-fuels is they are made from grain, which causes the cost of such products to rise dramatically. This not only creates hardship for people in the United States – where corn, milk and beef are more costly because feed prices have risen – but this also means that food exports to Third World countries will decrease and prices will rise. Corn prices in Mexico have gone through the roof thanks to ethanol production consuming so much of it. Unfortunately, things will only get worse because do-gooders in Congress are mandating increased ethanol production.

The elephant in the room that tells us that ethanol from corn will not be a big part of any long-term energy solution is this: if we converted all the corn produced in the United States to ethanol, leaving none for animals or humans to consume, this would only give us enough fuel to replace 12% of our gasoline.26

Truly, any mandate that forces us to convert a higher percentage of our land to corn or corn-to-ethanol production is not in our best interests.

Yet another major drawback is that more ethanol production requires more land, and the land would be in continuous use. This country, and the world, has a limited amount of farm ground available. We will be lucky to have enough food to feed the world, let alone have excess to convert into fuel.

In 2011, ethanol production provides about enough energy to power the United States for one day. We are paying a high price for such a small benefit.

Some are under the illusion that the energy value of one gallon of ethanol is equivalent to one gallon of gasoline. The truth is that it takes 1.53 gallons of ethanol to equal the energy in one gallon of gasoline.27

If we already do not have enough to be concerned with, a news story tells us that a big problem is being created by nitrogen fertilizer run-offs in the Corn Belt states. This waste is making its way to the Mississippi River and then to the Gulf of Mexico, where it contributes to a growing 7,900 square mile dead zone with such oxygen depletion that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate.28

When all things are taken into consideration, it seems to make much more ecological sense to drill for oil in ANWR in Alaska, (or anywhere for that matter) where only a couple square miles will be affected.

What effect do bio-fuels have as far as releasing greenhouse gases? Advocates say none, and here is their logic: bio-fuel only releases the CO2 from the plant that was taken in from the atmosphere. Corn takes in CO2 from the atmosphere, and burning it puts it back in making for a zero sum gain. Therefore, there are zero overall increases produced in CO2.

But, not so fast… A lot of energy is needed to grow the crops, and this includes gasoline, oil, coal, natural gas and other energy sources. Even if clean-burning natural gas is used, this means that more coal has to be burned somewhere else. Because it takes as much or more energy to create bio-fuels as they save, there is not much net reduction in greenhouse gases.

 

 

(5) Conservation

Both sides support energy conservation, but, again, each has a different approach. The alarmists want mandates with the force of law behind them, and the skeptics want to work with free will and work with incentives.

In U.S. households, simple heating and cooling accounts for about 90% of domestic energy used. Therefore, anything we can do within reason to make homes more energy efficient is helpful. Innovations are being made all the time and are being accepted and incorporated.

The second major goal of energy conservation is our vehicles of transportation. Again, the alarmists want mandates enforced by law and the skeptics, as a whole, prefer incentives.

Right now, hybrid technology offers the best solution, as mentioned earlier, but small economical gas-powered vehicles and all- electric vehicles are becoming available.

Unfortunately, the above five solutions are about the only ones widely supported by global warming alarmists.

“But,” says one, “they support wind power, don’t they?”

Don’t be so sure.

A few years ago, almost all environmentalists, global warming alarmists and the political Left endorsed wind power as the panacea for all our energy problems. It didn’t take long, though, before a crack in this united support began to occur.

The first problem began to surface when environmentalists became aware that birds, sometimes even endangered ones, were being killed by flying into the great revolving blades of the windmills. Suddenly, the question emerged: was this green energy worth the sacrifice of a few birds? Some thought yes and some no. Thus, the division began and is increasing. Then, a coalition of environmental groups sued the Texas Land Commissioner to delay or completely halt the construction of a giant wind farm of 60,000 acres south of Corpus Christi. The suit alleges that the windmills “could kill untold numbers of migratory birds and damage the bay.”

(American Statesman, Dec 5, 2007)

Soon other problems surfaced – pollution problems. No, it wasn’t greenhouse gas pollution, but other types.

First, noise pollution. Those who lived near a wind farm discovered these machines do not operate in silence, but give off an annoying hum. Some wind farms have been threatened with lawsuits for disturbing the peace.

Second, visual pollution. When the first wind turbines came out, most people thought they looked cool, but as they proliferated, the visual novelty subsided. Now, even strong environmentalists are fed up with the visual pollution. Even such global warming alarmists as the late Ted Kennedy and Robert F Kennedy, Jr. condemned windmills if built in their own back yards.

And that is just what has happened. For almost a decade the Kennedys opposed the construction of a wind farm near Cape Cod.28 What kind of message does this send to other wind energy investors? Perhaps to stay away from a project that may not get approval, even after ten years.

Actually, the proposed wind farm is about six miles out at sea and, from the Kennedy home, they are barely visible even on a clear sunny day. Still, this is seen as an invasion to the Kennedy pristine view. Ted Kennedy gave his reason for opposing the green energy:

“But don’t you realize — that’s where I sail!”29

In the beginning, Robert Kennedy Jr. didn’t seem to have much of a reason to oppose the wind farm (outside of wanting a pristine view) but, after he came under fire from fellow environmentalists, he came up with some additional reasons. He added that the wind farm could hurt the fishing industry and destroy tourism.

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound filed a lawsuit in June 2010, claiming the federal approvals violated the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and National Environmental Policy Act.

If the $2.5 billion project is ever completed the electricity from it is expected to cost double that of other current sources so making a profit may be a problem.

On the other hand, proponents believe it will increase tourism and add more jobs than it will cost. A wind farm at sea can be a great tourist draw, especially to environmental types.30

The third problem with wind energy is with weather pollution. Research is just beginning on how a high density of wind turbines may affect the weather.

Charles Meneveau, a turbulence expert at Johns Hopkins’ Whiting School of Engineering said that “dense clusters of wind turbines also could affect nearby temperatures and humidity levels, and cumulatively, perhaps, alter local weather conditions.”31

Believe me, as soon as environmentalists realize that wind turbines could alter weather, many more will turn against them.

Wind has other drawbacks. One of them is very similar to solar in the fact that the materials for construction also require considerable outlay of energy (probably from coal) to produce.

There are also a limited number of geographical areas where there is sufficient wind to make wind farms economically feasible. We would be limited in how much we could use this source, even if we decided to move ahead full speed with it.

Many think that when wind farm construction is completed, the power plant is home free expense-wise. This is not the case, as maintenance and repairs have been higher than projected. One will often see non-working wind turbines because of some operating problem waiting for repairs.

A final problem is their unreliability. Wind does not blow consistently 24 hours a day, and since electricity from wind power cannot be stored, there will be gaps where power generated at one time may be only half as much as the day before. A community that uses wind power must have a backup source of power for windless days.

Some fairly large companies who have invested in wind power have later abandoned the projects because of financial loss. But, there are other, mostly smaller, companies that persist in perfecting this source in the hope of a better, cleaner world.

 

 

Other Alternatives

There are a number of potential green technologies that alarmists encourage and act like they would support if developed, but would they?

They claim to encourage ocean wave technology, but what if new methods of energy production turn out to kill a few fish, like the windmills kill a few birds? Suppose one of the Kennedys finds a wave turbine in the way of his yacht – what then?

Global warming alarmists claim to support putting solar reflectors on the moon and microwaving the energy back, but what if there is an increase of cancer from the microwaves – or even the rumor of such? All of a sudden, the alarmists would seek to sabotage the many billions spent on the project.

Others support going to the moon and mining for Helium 3, which is believed to be a source of clean nuclear energy. But will someone find some danger in the nuclear processes that will be developed for converting it to energy? You can bet on it.

Still others want hydrogen power, but when alarmists realize that it presently takes the burning of more coal to create hydrogen then the power released, the enthusiasm will change to protest.

Then, we have the granddaddy hope of them all – hydrogen fusion. The technology to produce energy using this method has not arrived yet, and it will most probably cost many billions of dollars to perfect. Today, many alarmists support research on nuclear fusion, but some are just spooked by anything with the word “nuclear” in it.

It would be a shame to spend a trillion or so developing nuclear fusion plants, only to be met with screaming protesters wanting them shut down because of some miniscule danger that might develop.

The problem with working with the alarmists boils down to this: there are only three partial solutions that they presently accept. (I say “presently” because they may even turn on these).

These three are solar, geothermal and conservation. Solar and geothermal combined supply less than 1% of our energy needs, so no solution is in sight from these sources.

When this is pointed out, they always turn to the importance of conservation. But the stark truth is this: conservation is not a solution. It has never in our history resulted in a permanent reduction of energy consumption. Even with the most supportive president and Congress, the best conservation has done is make growth a little slower than it would have otherwise been.

But hope springs eternal. With no evidence whatsoever, alarmists keep telling us that conservation can be a major factor in solving our energy problems and CO2 emissions.

This is just plain false. Conservation can slow energy growth and that is all. There is no evidence it can do more than this.

Now, here is what is scary about the plan put forth by the alarmists. They want to mandate by law a great reduction in any energy source that releases CO2, but have no plan to replace the energy that will be eliminated. If Al Gore has his way, and we reduce energy consumption that produces CO2 by 90 percent by 2050 with no way to replace that energy, what will happen? Using conservation only, we would have a depression that would make the Great Depression seem like the good old days.32

Alarmists seem to think that if they pass a law saying we have to reduce CO2-related energy use by 90%, such energy will somehow be magically replaced, as if by osmosis of some kind.

It would be nice if such blind faith worked, but that’s exactly what it is – blind faith.

Cap and Trade legislation is the first step in this direction. Some critics call it “tax and trade” because the additional cost that will be placed on consumers will have the same effect as a tax increase on all citizens, rich and poor.

After the stock market crash in 1929, Herbert Hoover had blind faith that reducing the money supply would somehow help the money supply, but, of course, it made the depression much worse.

Even so, reducing energy does not create more energy. To increase energy, as the world desperately needs, there is only one simple solution: more energy must be developed and produced.

There is one form of energy which should appeal to both alarmists and skeptics. This energy has virtually zero CO2 emissions and has a safety record in the Western hemisphere higher than any other source and doesn’t even harm birds, bugs or animals. It has the potential to provide us with all our energy needs for a thousand years and more. The good part is the technology is already here.33

This sounds great as a source of energy, but, even though alarmists feel we are in an apocalyptic time that needs drastic measures, they fight this solution tooth and nail.

What is this safe and abundant energy source?

Think nuclear.

Copyright 2012 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

 

Is Everything Predetermined?

This entry is part 50 of 57 in the series Mysteries

Question Fifty-One

Is Everything Predetermined?

There are two major views on this. The first is that everything is predetermined and meticulously planned out. We really have no free will, but just think we do as every move we make is already set in stone.  Many religious people with this belief think that those who are saved and will go to heaven, or damned and will go to hell, are already determined. If your fate is to go to hell there’s nothing you can do to change it.

The other group has a bit more logical approach.  They see us as having free will. The future is malleable and we can make if it what we will.  Where we wind up in this world or the next is determined by our decisions.

It is interesting that many in this second group have a belief that moves them back into place with the first group.  And what is that?

Many of them believe that God knows every single thing that will ever happen.  A thousand years ago God knew I would be writing this very sentence I am finishing now. He not only knew I’d be scratching my nose right now, but He knew who I would marry and the exact number of calories I would consume today.

The trouble is that the only way that God could know such things is if everything were predetermined and we had no free will to change it.

For those who think that God knows every detail that will ever happen I would ask why He would even want to know.

Does it not make much more sense to see that God knows his plan and what the end will be, but is unconcerned about he minutia.

When Leonardo DaVinci envisioned the Mona Lisa he undoubtedly had an idea of how he wanted the finished product to look.  There was no way he could have predicted each brush stroke as the work progressed. Yet he had free will to make whatever strokes he wanted or any mistakes that happened along the way.

Even so, it is with God, and man who is in the image of God.  We can plan the future but wouldn’t want to know all the details about it, even if such a thing were possible.

Before we were born we work out a plan for this life, but we do have free will and things do not always go according to plan. Then once in a while things go better than planned.

After we get here and begin to mature we work out various other plans for life. We have complete freedom to choose.  Even so, there is a memory of our pre-mortal plan in our soul and this gives us an inclination to go in the direction of our plan.  Most try to go in this direction, but others ignore it.

All plans are a product of free will and if the plan is solid and strictly followed the person can see many, but not all, of his projections come true.

On the other hand, many detours and problems occur when pursuing a plan that were not foreseen, causing the plan to develop in a way that no one could have predicted.

Then there are times that the person realizes his plan is not a good one and he replaces it with another one.

Such things happen though the application of free will, intelligence and planning in both this world and the spirit world.

A question many have is whether our days are exactly numbered.  Is there an exact time allotted for each life?

When making our life plans before birth we have a good assessment of the probable length of time we will live and this assists us in making our strategy for maximum use of the mortal life. We usually live within a year or two of that assessment, but that sometimes will change.  The person could abuse his body more than expected or even commit suicide.  Then he may go on a health kick and extend his life an extra ten years or so.

Many also wonder about accidents and fluky events like winning the lottery.  Are they preplanned?

Some accidents and handicaps are preplanned before we were born.  Often it is determined before birth that the entity must undergo some painful life changing experience in order to attain maximum growth.  Without such an event it may be seen that the guy’s ego or life would just go out of control.  So, yes, sometimes accidents and even lucky flukes are preplanned.

Then there are times that accidents just happen because of carelessness or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many try and see everything that happens, both good or bad, as an intricate part of a plan, but many things happen that are just random events that we need to deal with in the best way that our intelligence will allow.

A simple example may help to clarify.

Suppose you had a plan to get on your boss’s good side so you’ll get a raise.  There are a number of ingredients in your plan such as putting in extra hours, throwing him a surprise birthday party, making his job easier and so on.  Then, after the birthday party that went according to plan, you go to the parking lot, get in your car and back right into your boss’s car scratching his fender. Woops!  That was something that was definitely not in the plan.  If you still want that raise you’re going to have to handle this situation skillfully.

In the movie Oh God!, George Burns spoke truly when he told John Denver that we are responsible for what we make of this world.  We are also responsible for what we make of our individual lives.

Let us then use our free will and make the best of it.

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Why Do Some People Suffer Pain and Disease While Others Do Not?

This entry is part 49 of 57 in the series Mysteries

Question Fifty

Why Do Some People Suffer Pain and Disease While Others Do Not?

A partial answer is obvious. Some people take better care of themselves than others. If one person drinks and eats too much, takes drugs and abuses his body then, yes, he’s likely to have numerous physical problems.  If another guy eats a good diet exercises and lives a positive life then he is likely to have better health than the abuser.

What is a mystery to many is you’ll often see two or more people living in similar circumstances, taking similar care of their health, yet one will suffer with some dreadful disease while the other gets off scott free.  One may die early of ill health and the other live to old age.

Some just chalk it up to genes, but many from the same gene pool with similar habits experience a wide variety of health.  Others with supposedly bad genes take very good care of themselves and enjoy good health and a long life.

What is the reason for the great disparity here? To see the whole picture let us tabulate the things  we do in life that influence our health.

(1) Diet. This is a big one.  Millions have born witness that a change in their diet resulted in improved health and many studies have linked the chances of good health to diet.

(2) Exercise. Exercise is particularly good for the heart, but the whole body benefits.

(3) The Environment. Clean air, pure water and sunshine are indeed beneficial.

(4) Attitude. The mind definitely has an effect. Studies show that when given a sugar pill as a placebo that about 30% of the patients show an improvement.

Something I find amusing is that in tests of Rogaine for hair growth, 26% of those who were given the real thing experienced some new hair growth.  But get this. The other half of the control group who were given the pretend Rogaine also had positive results. 16% of them grew some new hair.

Imagine that! 16% of the population can grow new hair with the power of their mind alone.

So even after we examine all the accepted means to keep our health we find there is still a missing ingredient or two. We still find many people in similar circumstances with a variety of health experiences.

What is the X Factor here? Surely there is not an effect without a cause.

I’ll tell you the missing ingredient.  It is unorthodox and all will not accept it but I’ll give it out anyway with the hope that some will benefit.

As pointed out, the power of thought is very powerful and a true ancient teaching is that “energy follows thought.” The power of thought directing energy affects us in other ways than merely being positive or negative.  It is important that our thought be placed in the right direction.

And what determines the right direction? That was determined by you or for you before you were born.

In each life in which we are born there is assigned to us one important thing that we have to learn.  There are, of course, a number of lesser things to absorb, but there will be one major lesson we are supposed to master.  We sometimes learn that lesson in one life, but often we fail and have to come back in another life and continue to work on it until we get it right.

Examples of various lessons we all learn in one life or another are:

(1) To be a faithful spouse or partner

(2) To be a good parent

(3) Develop musical talent.

(4) Develop writing ability, acting, dancing or some other creative endeavor.

(5) Learn business principles or how to create abundance.

(6) Become a healer

(7) Become a teacher

The list could go on and on but this gives the general idea.

Just about all of us have a feeling that we have some purpose that we must find, and that there is something we must do or learn to fulfill it.  The question is, how do we find it? It is not that easy because that which we must learn is something that we haven’t mastered before and since we humans are a lazy lot, we tend to want to do what comes easy for us.  The new lesson to learn will not be easy for us but will be a difficult road.

Few of us find our lesson and master it right away, but will often run from it instead.  The interesting thing is that signposts of the great lesson that awaits us keeps confronting the pilgrim again and again.  When the person finally heads the right direction in learning he or she will feel not only a peace inside themselves, but a flow of energy.  This flow of positive energy is a great aid in the health of the body.

Unless part of the lesson has to do with disease itself the person who finds his path will generally have good health – that is if he takes reasonable care of his body.

On the other hand, if the person ignores his inner guidance and rejects the lesson he is supposed to learn his energy flow will be disrupted and the vital force of various parts of his body will be low causing all kinds of physical problems to set in.

Each of us, even atheists, have an inner voice that guides us and when we follow it, knowingly or unknowingly, then our vital energy and health will be in a high state.  If we resist that inner guidance then we will suffer blockages of energy and suffer disease and pain.  If the pilgrim continues to resist things will get so bad that he eventually will look to the skies and ask, “Why me!”

This is an important point for the seeker for it often marks the beginning of true reflection that changes his direction toward the needed lesson.

So basically the answer to the question of ill health and pain in our lives is this.  They are signs that are telling us we are headed in the wrong direction.  It doesn’t mean the person is a bad person.  People who suffer physically are often very nice people, but even he nicest of people make mistakes and take some wrong turns.

The suffering person may need to make a correction in diet, exercise, attitude, find his lesson, listen to inner direction etc.  It could be a number of things, and if one finds himself in pain and suffering through ill health then he should make a powerful endeavor do discover his wrong turns in life and correct them.

You will never find a happier person than one who has endured great pain and suffering but corrected the situation by finding the path that restored his health and vitality.

“The truth will make you free.”

 

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Do Miracles Really Happen?

This entry is part 48 of 57 in the series Mysteries

Question Forty-Nine

Do Miracles Really Happen?

There are two types of people in this world:  Those who believe in miracles and those who do not.

Those who do not believe see all the miracles of the Bible as being fables that are passed down, and if there is any truth to the stories that there is a natural explanation for it.

These people explain away modern day miracles as either something accomplished by the power of mind over matter or the story was exaggerated.

It is interesting that these non-believers are in the minority.  All polls show that over 70% of the U.S. public believe in miracles and over a third claim to have experienced one themselves. 63% say they know someone who claims to have experienced a miracle.

For those who say these believers are uneducated consider this. 73% of medical doctors believe that miracles happen in the present time and 55% say they have witnessed one or more with their patients.

So, who is right here, the minority or the majority?  In this case I side with the majority.  Miracles definitely occur.  I personally know this to be true because I have experienced a number of them myself. Once a person experiences a thing he must either accept it or deny reality.

So what are we talking about when we speak of miracles? “If we are just talking about a quick recovery from sickness, that is no miracle, “says the skeptic.

Though healing of any kind is pretty miraculous when you think about it – that is not what we are talking about when we speak of miracles.  We are talking about events that standard science would deem to be impossible, such as:

(1) A terminal, supposedly incurable disease, cured quickly or even instantly.

(2) Receiving some supernatural communication that warns of danger and saves a life.

Here is a LINK to an example.

(3) A near death experience.

(4) Seeing an angel or a vision.

There are many more that could be listed. Most of us have heard some pretty fantastic accounts that even stretch credibility for a believer.

So, does a miracle defy the laws of nature or of science?

No, they do not. Miracles happen through the application of law, not bypassing it. Imagine that you were driving down the highway and suddenly were transported back in time a couple centuries and found yourself surrounded by a group of people. They watch you drive your horseless carriage and think this is the greatest miracle they have ever witnessed.  You get out of the car and show then your iPad that has a Star Wars movie loaded into it. Not only are they amazed by the iPad, but the spaceships and the Deathstar seem way beyond anything man could put in a tablet. It isn’t long before the group is arguing whether you are a god or a devil.

Just as modern humanity uses electricity, engineering and intelligent application of law to produce our miracles, even so does Higher Intelligence use subtle energies and laws unknown to us to manifest miracles beyond normal human ability.

A question that many ask is, “Why do not miracles happen to me?” This question is asked by a wide range of people, from the mildly curious to those who are desperately ill or distressed.

It does appear to many that miracles appear somewhat randomly. It seems that many very good people suffer and die with no miracle whereas another who may not seem that deserving gets one.

Since most miracles revolve around physical healing let us ask what one could do to manifest a miracle if he had an incurable disease?

To understand the answer we must realizes that there are two sources of miraculous healing power.

(1) Each of us has a connecting thread that links us to God, the Source of all higher power. It is possible to draw spiritual energy from this Source that will produce a miraculous healing.

(2) There are highly intelligent beings in the spirit world who assist humans from time to time. If you get their attention and a healing does not violate the plan of your soul, then they can assist with a miracle.

Of course, most of those who manifest a miracle in their lives have faith that God has power to help them, but there is an ancient law that applies here and it is this.

Energy follows thought.

Those who manifest miracles generally place a lot of positive thought, prayer and contemplation toward being healed.  There is a point reached when enough energy is directed toward an end that something happens. Just like when you place a certain amount of sugar in a glass of water you will reach a saturation point where the sugar no longer dissolves.  Even so, applying a certain amount of positive thought energy toward a goal eventually creates a point of tension and makes the impossible happen.

We must realize though that there is a reason behind all illness and any miracle must not take away from the lessons we may learn from it.  We’ll talk more about this in the next chapter.

 

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Can The Human Soul Be Annihilated?

This entry is part 47 of 57 in the series Mysteries

Question Forty-Eight

Can The Human Soul Be Annihilated?

There are many, who see themselves as merely a machine that is turned on, and then at death, when the machine quits working, all individual identity will be as if it never was. All that makes him an intelligent human being will be annihilated, according to this view.

I always thought it would be interesting, after I pass over to the other side, to greet hardened atheists after they die. When they discover they still have a consciousness they will be forced to admit there is life after death, and this of course leads to the logical conclusion that there is also Higher Creative Intelligence of some kind.

A question that persists among believers is whether or not existence and identity itself can be destroyed. There are several trains of thought on this.

The Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, Urantia followers, Armstrong followers and others see it this way.

We began at birth and at that time God created all that makes us individuals. Then, at death, instead of going to a spirit world, we sleep and only exist as a memory in the mind of God. Later, at the great judgment, God uses this fantastic memory to recreate each one of the billions of humans to stand before Him. At this time, the evil doers will be made aware of how wretched they are, but will only suffer for a short time and then be lovingly thrown into a lake of fire and burned up into nothingness, never to be heard of again.

Other believers either see the wicked as suffering in hell for eternity or annihilated.

So, again we ask, what is the real truth here? Can our essence really be destroyed or do we persist forever?

To understand the answer we must examine the various parts of ourselves. We all realize that while living that we have a physical body and that body will eventually die, decay and lose its form.

On the other hand, there are other parts to ourselves besides the physical body. In the beginning we existed in he bosom of God as a point of light or intelligence. The deeper a diver descends into the ocean the more protective gear he must have. Well, we decided to descend deep into physical matter and this required several layers of protective gear. Among those we can understand are the emotional body as well as the mental body.

These parts we add to ourselves are not the real US but are vehicles we use to explore and understand the creations of God.

The true you or the true me is not the body, feelings or mind, but that which has power of decision which uses these things. This part of ourselves cannot be destroyed and persists forever. It had no beginning and will never have an end.

Even though our vehicles have a beginning and end we use them for a very long period of time. We will use them as long as the universe persists and then when the universe folds up we will rest in the mind of God, and after the rest, assist in creating and exploring a new universe.

We have spent millions of years arriving at the point where we are now and even though our core essence cannot be annihilated it is possible to suffer the destruction of our personality makeup.

Jesus warned about this when he talked about the sin against the Holy Ghost which will not be forgiven. It’s not so much that it will not be forgiven as that the effects of such a thing cannot be undone.

As the seeker progresses from life to life he eventually establishes contact with Higher Intelligence that will guide him toward eventual liberation in the Kingdom of God. When this happens he has a choice. He can either accept the higher guidance or ignore it and deny its existence. If, over a period of time, he rejects the Holy Spirit again and again he creates a barrier between him and Higher Intelligence.

Once this barrier of his own making is solidified he loses his connection with God and his vehicles that make up his personality begin to disintegrate. After this happens only his essence remains and he has to wait until the dawn of another creation, billions of years hence before he gets another opportunity to progress.

So the answer is, no, our essence cannot be annihilated, but we can suffer some very long delays in our progression lasting for eons of time.

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

Keys Writings 2014, Part 4

This entry is part 5 of 33 in the series 2014

March 11, 2014
The Seven Initiations Continued
Larry W
Truly inspiring info. From your recent Initiate characteristics posts and also from this audio series I see the path more clearly. You said baptism symbolizes the second Initiation, rising out from the WATER -interesting. Did you also say the Baptism of Fire is part of the second Initiation? Or does Baptism of Fire pertain to third Initiation?

JJ
Various degrees of the baptism of fire can be had by all initiates and even those approaching initiation. All of us are capable of receiving some fire from the Spirit and it will be sent to us when we are open and are in the right time and place. What sets the higher initiates apart is they follow the higher guidance to wherever it leads.

Tom:
Tom to JJ….do all baptism have to be merging in water and coming out because my Methodist Minister just spanked water on my head and my brother also was sprinkled with water on his head when he joined the Mormons…….are we saved or not?

JJ
Ruth was correct in that baptism is symbolic. It symbolizes you coming out of emotional control (water) and into control of the mind (air). Control by the mind takes you out of error and thus saves you from sin (error).

Sprinkling doesn’t represent this symbolism accurately so baptism should be by immersion.

 

Baptism
To Tom:
Whether you are baptized correctly would be the least of my worries. If you find someone who is willing to baptize you by immersion, fine and if not fine as long as you follow the highest you know.

According to Mormon scriptures Adam didn’t have anyone to baptize him and was led by he Spirit in to the water to be immersed and that seemed to do the trick. You could do the same in a swimming pool or any body of water.

Here’s another scripture for you:
D&C 22:2 Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.
D&C 22:3 For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in the days of old.

 

March 16, 2014
Devachain
Tom
Did you talk about the deva state or sleep state in the article. I am unable to find it…maybe included it in the book if you want.

JJ
The astral world where the people are living out their ideal life corresponds to the devachain. It is kind of like sleep in that they do not have a full consciousness of their relation to physical reality but in other ways their consciousness has a greater sensitivity.

 

March 17, 2014
The Key to Truth
Stephen,
Great description of what happens after the body dies JJ, many thanks. Can I just ask, how much of what you have described do you ‘know’ to be true? I use the word ‘know’ carefully, as representing direct ‘knowledge through experience’ rather than a piecing together of the puzzle so to speak.

The Internet is full of such teachings, some of which contradict each other, so if you were to suddenly say “Well young padewans, let me tell you a little story about a fine man who lives in Boise,” then I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only one here who would sit up and listen 🙂

JJ
If you are seeking the truth you are asking the wrong question in the wrong direction.

If I were to tabulate direct experience that seems to verify various teachings I give out what does that accomplish? It merely puts me in oppositions to dozens of others who claim direct experience that seems to prove my direct experience is either a lie or illusion.

Many there are who claim direct experience who are either…

(1) Outright lying.
(2) Sincere but caught in an illusion of some kind.

If someone claims direct experience of a non physical reality the highest you know using physical brain logic is that he had some experience that affected him. You would have no idea if the experience reflected reality as it actually is.

You’ll note that the greatest teachers do not use authority of experience to convince anyone. Where in the Bible does Jesus say – “Now this teaching is true because I have experience that verifies it.”

Where does DK say such a thing? Instead he says:

“The books that I have written are sent out with no claim for their acceptance. They may, or may not, be correct, true and useful. It is for you to ascertain their truth by right practice and by the exercise of the intuition. Neither I nor A.A.B. is the least interested in having them acclaimed as inspired writings, or in having anyone speak of them (with bated breath) as being the work of one of the Masters. If they present truth in such a way that it follows sequentially upon that already offered in the world teachings, if the information given raises the aspiration and the will-to-serve from the plane of the emotions to that of the mind (the plane whereon the Masters can be found) then they will have served their purpose. If the teaching conveyed calls forth a response from the illumined mind of the worker in the world, and brings a flashing forth of his intuition, then let that teaching be accepted. But not otherwise. If the statements meet with eventual corroboration, or are deemed true under the test of the Law of Correspondences, then that is well and good. But should this not be so, let not the student accept what is said.”

To attempt to get people to believe you by saying something like, “You must now believe my teachings because of experience, God, an angel or Thor working with me means that my words are to be accepted….” this is an attempt to place the mark of the beast on students.

This is something I am careful not to do.

It is the reason I have said that a person with soul contact can find more truth in the National Enquirer than one without can find in the Bible.

In the end the source of the words are not important. What is important is the words that one runs by the soul.

There is nothing in the Alice A. Bailey books that that indicate that I should accept anything because of any experience rendered. When I found my first book of hers and read a couple paragraphs I knew I had encountered a teacher of substance just because of the words reflecting on my soul and nothing else.

It is a human inclination to want to find some human source who tells him, “Hey, I have had an experience with God or the unseen and that means you can now trust everything I say.” Many ache to hear this so they can relax and just trust this outer source from then on.

On this earth journey there is no such final source outside of the source within – the soul. And you never know what your soul will verify to you.

It may tell you that some guru that all your friends think is infallible is full of illusion. On the other hand, it may verify something a serial killer says as something that is true. He who follows the soul within will not discount any source as false no matter how outrageous and will not automatically accept others no matter how close to God they seem.

 

March 18, 2014
Missing Plane Mystery

An educated guess by me on the missing plane is that it was pilot suicide. The pilot’s wife left him the day before the incident and he was probably quote distraught. Often suicidal angry people want to take other people out with them. We may never know what happened.

Here is a psychic’s comments:

“I do believe that the plane was hijacked by several onboard (more than three, along with one master mind who was not on board),” she told CBS Detroit in an email Tuesday.

Robinett cushioned the information by saying “nothing is absolute. Not all psychics or mediums have the same “strength” to their abilities. Thus one may “see” something others may miss. And then there is the impressions we receive that must then be interpreted by the said seer.”

She added with this case, “all I have is the visions that I have received with no specific coordinates.”

But with those “flashes,” this is what she believes:

It was planned for over a year.
I wasn’t a suicide mission.
I believe they had a location set up to land.
There was communication on the ground with a team/fleet of people.
I have felt the location having a mountain region, along with a jungle feeling and may be near a small Island by Madagascar.
There are hidden *underground* areas.
I saw tables with smartphones/cell phones, open wallets, passports.
It was hot and humid and there is crystal clear water/ocean nearby.
I do believe that the government knows more than what we are being told. This could be a good thing, however.
I also believe that several governments have a good idea where this plane is and are keeping the public busy with speculations as they take care of deeper issues connected with this.

 

March 22, 2014
Question
Tom asks for an example of our thoughts creating a hell for us.

Let us suppose you are a Catholic and believe you have to have the last rites of a Priest or you will go to hell. Then you die without receiving these rites. It is likely that your thoughts and fears will take you to such a place for a while, which place is created by the collective thoughts of Catholics in illusion.

March 23, 2014
Tom wants to know more about what can cause us to go to one of the hells in the astral world. Here are a few points to consider.

(1) Are you in hell now because of the way you live your life? If so then you need to change it so the quality of life will improve. We make our own reality here and the next world. Here our reality materializes slowly, but in the next world it manifests quickly.

(2) Would you be happy being around people who are similar to yourself? In the next world like gathers to like and if you are a difficult person to live with then you will gravitate to difficult people in the astral. On the other hand, if you are loving you will attract loving people.

(3) Does your conscience bother you? If so then resolve this by letting go the hold of the beast which causes guilt.

(4) Have you caused others needless pain and suffering that has not been resolved? If so, tuning into these people will throw that pain back at you very powerfully in the next world.

If you are following the highest you know and show goodwill to all you should have nothing to worry about.

 

March 23, 2014
Torture
Jody, you seem to blame the group here for your recent troubles since they started when you came across us. Let me assure you of this. There are no black magicians here and no one has any desire to do you any harm. The fact that your troubles started when you came across us could be felated to two different things.

(1) Pure coincidence.
(2) Some dark entity or force does not want you to advance in the light and is determined to stop you by making you think we are the bad guys.

Whenever a person takes a step that will have a positive effect a negative force arises to pull him backwards.

Here are some comments I have previously made on this principle:
For example, when I received the revelation that I was supposed to marry Artie it was amazing the army that gathered around her to try to talk her out of marrying me. Her daughter thought that I was like Jim Jones. She called everybody she knew. She called her dad, which is Artie’s past husband, and convinced him that I was some weirdo with one hand with quirks like Igor; that I was just really weird. She painted the strangest picture. She called her grandma and her grandma flew up here. She immediately got on a plane to save her daughter from this terrible person. Her daughter conjured up this image of me out of the blue and communicated it to everyone we knew. Within days Artie had an army around her to try to talk her out of what she received within herself for we had both received confirmation that we were supposed to be together.

Then one day we were talking on the phone after her mom was coming up and her ex-husband was afraid for her life and her soul and was afraid for her daughter’s safety because she was around a mad man. The image built up was amazing. We’re talking on the phone and she said, “Maybe we should just lie low for awhile until things calm down then we can continue the relationship.” I knew at that point that if I let the point of tension go I would lose her and I knew I had to do something. She didn’t think I would lose her but something within me told me that I would. There was this army gathering around to pull her away from what she had received within herself.

As we were talking on the phone she said, “It’s just too much to handle. I think I’ll lay low.” There was a moment of silence where I felt the spirit and I knew she was feeling it during the time of silence. I said, “What do you feel right this instant?” She said, “I feel peaceful. I feel good.” I asked, “Do you want to pursue this feeling or do you want to pursue the opposite of this feeling?” She said, “I want this feeling.” I said, “So, what are we going to do? Are we going to pursue this feeling or are we going to quit?” She said she wanted to pursue this feeling so I told her then we’re not going to give up. We’re going to continue this relationship no matter what happens, no matter what your mom thinks, no matter what your daughter thinks, no matter what your ex-husband thinks, no matter who comes pounding on your door demanding that you not see me. We will continue this relationship and this feeling will continue. I asked, “Is this a deal?” She said it was.

To her credit, she didn’t go back on her commitment. Most people would. I’ve seen this happen time and time again. People get close to the presence then an army of negativity comes to take them away from that next step and they yield to that negativity. I’ve seen it happen time and time again. The negativity is so powerful. Then when you yield to it you have a false sense of peace because you don’t have the bedlam around you anymore. You seem to have a peace but it’s not the real peace. It’s not the peace that Artie felt when I asked her what she was feeling. She decided that she wanted to pursue the real peace. To her credit she withstood all the assailments she got from her mother, her daughter and everybody who came out of the woodwork. It was beyond the imagination. She withstood them all and she stood her ground and we continued the relationship and are still together.

I’m very thankful that she stood her ground that way. Not many people do because when you make a step forward, even with something simple, like say you want to quit smoking. Are there any smokers in the group? Rick is. Rick is good at quitting smoking. He’s done it about a hundred times. But when you try to quit smoking doesn’t it seem like everyone who smokes comes out of the woodwork offering you cigarettes? It seems like an army comes to you to get you to try to start up again. In any step of progression that you make you will have an army of negativity to try to pull you back to not only where you were before but lower than you were before. It’s like the scripture that reads, “When a man casts out one devil, the devil goes forth and finds seven more, more evil than himself. And they come back and they possess the man. And the last state of the man is worse than the first state.”

This is what happens. It’s dangerous to move ahead. It’s actually dangerous; dangerous to be a disciple of Christ. It’s dangerous to move ahead. It’s dangerous to progress. It’s not easy because when you do, an army will surface and this army, coming out of the woodwork, will have the faces of your friends, the faces of your family, your religious leaders, your political leaders, your neighbors, and they will all try to pull you back so your final state will be worse than it was when you tried to make the step forward.

The only way through this is to take the step forward and stand on that step forward no matter what happens. When you take that stand you’ll find out that all the winds and the storms that are surrounding you are illusion. They don’t really exist. You just thought they were real. You give them power but they have no power. They have no power to pull you back. You just thought they had power. When you really take a stand and make a firm decision, you can stand. There is nothing that can pull you back. There is nothing that can stop you from your onward movement once you attain that faith in yourself and in your relationship to the spirit you can move ahead. Remember you can always move ahead. There is always a way. When you begin to make a step, the more important step it is, the more difficult it will be and the greater will be the illusion that you must take a step backward.
https://freeread.com/archives/1717.html

 

March 26, 2014
Attrition
Jody:
And as for your post about black magicians, I am still waiting for an answer to that post of yours I responded to, JJ.

JJ
I looked over your posts and I assume you are referring to this question”
“And what are the ‚Äòabilities’ of a white magician? If what happened to me was from a “black” magician, then I would infer that “white” magician would be able to battle, fight, retaliate, hold there own against a “black” magician and therefore be able to locate and identify such a magician using your terminology of course.”

First of all it is highly unlikely that either a black or white magician is paying any attention to you. There are seven billion people on this planet and only a handful of real magicians on either side. You’d have to be a person who is likely to make a big impact on the planet to draw attention from either side. I am currently posting an audio on White Magic where I deal with white and black magic. The basic difference between the two is white magic deals with the soul and spirit and black magic deals with matter and materialism. Jesus was a white magician and Hitler was an agent of black magicians.

Your problem is more than likely caused by impish entities from the lower astral world. They are not magicians but some of them like to cause trouble on the physical plane or may be directed by magicians. It is also possible that your problems are created by thoughtforms created by yourself which have followed you from past lives. A third possibility is a combination of the two.

Whatever the case, the problem exists because a door of some kind has been opened and you need to close it.

Here is an account of dealing with such a problem from my book – The Lost Key of the Buddha. I have been attacked by dark forces a number of times and this gives some keys to overcoming them.

“Since the attack I have been racking my brain thinking of the principle that could overcome this force. I tried all the obvious ones: prayer, positive thinking, affirmations and even the Song, but nothing produced any significant change. It wasn’t until I just attempted to ignore the distress and worked on the highest I knew – which at this time is the book, taking care of life’s needs, and attempting to say the Song with intense meaning – that I noticed a real improvement. As I experienced some improvement I kept asking what the principle behind the progress was. A number of things helped, but not one of them seemed to be the total answer. Finally, after a period of deep reflection a word came to my mind that unfolded the principle.”

“And what was that word?” asked John, who I felt did not need to ask this question.

“Yes,” said Elizabeth. “What is the word? You’ve got me curious.”

“The word is attrition,” I said.

“Attrition!” said Elizabeth. “What kind of key word is that?”

“Do you know what the word means?” said John.

“Well, it seems like it is a gradual wearing away of something,” she said.

“And how would you explain it?” John said looking at me.

I replied, “Elizabeth hit on the standard definition which is basically the wearing away of a thing through friction. But the word can also imply disintegration through lack of attention. I remembered that we sometimes used the word in real estate in relation to neglected property. Property can fall apart through lack of attention or attrition. In hard times the real estate industry complained that we lost sales agents through attrition. When salespeople did not have enough business to keep their attention, they fell away and went to greener pastures.”

“So, in other words, all you have to do is ignore the problem and it will go away,” said Elizabeth.

“It’s not quite that simple,” smiled John. “Isn’t that right, Joseph?”

“It is,” I said nodding. “Right after the attack the agony was absolutely impossible to simply ignore. The intelligence behind the attack was vying for my attention and received one hundred percent of it. There was no ignoring possible. I was continually forced to acknowledge the presence.”

“So how are you applying the principle of attrition without ignoring the force?” asked Elizabeth.

“Here’s what I discovered,” I said, leaning toward her. “I had no power over whether or not the presence was bringing pain, and there was no way I could pretend that it was not there. So I looked for the areas where I did have power. When I started working on the book again it took all my strength to take my attention away from the force and place it on the writing, but even though it was difficult, I did manage to do so. When, after a time, I realized that this seemed to lessen the hold of the force, I began analyzing what I was doing. The answer wasn’t so much that I ignored the pain and the force, because I was very much aware of it. Instead, I found that, even though it was difficult, I did have power over where I placed my conscious attention. I then found that when I sustained my attention away from the negative to the normal duties I had before me, the power of the force began to diminish. This diminishing of it’s power through the denial of attention is attrition. When this word came to me this evening I realized that attrition of the enemy’s power through the diversion of attention was the key to its defeat.”

“So you’re not ignoring it, but just not giving it your attention? Tell me again what the difference is?” asked Elizabeth, looking flummoxed.

“Generally, when you ignore something, you pretend that it does not exist and give it no attention at all. With this force there was no pretending, and because it was painful I was forced to give it some attention; but I found I could divert attention and thus take away some of its power. Somehow it seems to feed off my attention.”

“Well spoken,” said John. “You have no doubt heard the maxim, energy follows thought. How do you think this principle applies?”

“Great point,” I said, as if a light bulb had turned on in my head. “If the negative force is able to be the focus of my thought, then it’s energy can follow that thought and sustain its power. By diverting my attention or thought away from the negative, and forcefully placing it upon the positive, energy will follow, for only good energy will follow good thought.”

“Well said, again,” said John smiling. “But you already knew the basic principle of energy following thought along with the benefits of positive thinking. How does the principle you saw go beyond the clich√©s accepted by the masses?”

“The general idea of positive thinking did nothing,” I said. “It was only when I roused all my will and made a decision to force the direction of my attention away from the force, bringing the principle of attrition into play that things got better.”

“Along this line you might find something the Master said of interest,” said John. “Grab the Bible again and turn to Matthew chapter eleven, verses twelve and thirteen.”

I opened the Bible and read: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.”

“Do you have any idea what this means?” he asked.

“I remember reading this scripture before,” I said. “I couldn’t make a lot of sense of it. It seems to say that those pursuing the kingdom of heaven suffer violence, and violent people somehow take it away from the just.”

“But what period of time is mentioned by Jesus?”

“It looks like it was from the time of John the Baptist to the time that Jesus spoke those words–probably about the middle of his ministry.”

“And was there a lot of violence during this period?”

“Well, John the Baptist was put to death, but it seems that Jesus and his followers were able to go about in peace.”

“So this did not seem to be a time when there was violent persecution does it?”

“I guess not.”

“And have you read anything in the scriptures about violent people taking the kingdom by force during the first couple of years of the Master’s ministry?”

“I don’t even know if the kingdom can be taken by force,” I said.

“If you want to check with your Concordance you will see that force and violence are not the only options for translation here. I can see why translators rendered the verse the way they did, but they were not looking at the context of the meaning. For instance suffereth violence is more correctly rendered enthusiastically pressing forward, and the phrase by force was used by Jesus as society currently uses the phrase, Carpe Diem, or seize the day.”

“So how would you translate it in words we can understand?” asked Elizabeth.

“I’ll do better than that. I’ll just tell you what the Master said from memory with my own translation into English. You have to realize that he spoke this verse and others many times with different wordings to different groups. He said this thought dozens of times during his ministry. To get a true impression of the meaning you have to reverse the order of the verses.”

John paused a moment and related the words from his own recollection.

“All the prophets and wise men before John dreamed, prophesied, and taught of the kingdom of God. Many had enticing visions, and wished with all their heart that they could reach out and take the kingdom, but they could not grasp it, enjoy it themselves or present it to their people in its fullness.

“But from the days of John the Baptist until now things are different, for the Spirit of the Lord has descended, and the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Many sense the opportunity and are pressing forward with forceful enthusiasm. Those who successfully press forward are those who aggressively seize the opportunity – or Carpe Diem, as we say today.”

“Carpe Diem,” mused Elizabeth. “Now that’s a translation I can understand, especially since seeing the movie Dead Poet’s Society.”

“So Jesus was basically saying that when the opportunity for the Kingdom presents itself, we must seize the day?” I asked.

“Basically,” said John.

“What does this have to do with aiding me in mastering this evil force?”

“Let me expand on this Carpe Diem idea as presented by Jesus,” he said. “His point was that to obtain the Kingdom, or higher consciousness, we must forcefully seize the opportunity when it presents itself. Taking the kingdom by force, as the Bible says, is not a bad way to word it.

“Many in the New Age movement are making a great mistake in teaching that we must go with the flow. The trouble is that there are two major flows of energy to go with. The first is the spiritual flow and only a few are attuned to that. The second is the flow of force toward matter, or materialism. As far as the vast majority is concerned this second flow is the problem because it is by far the most powerful. Therefore, if the average seeker goes with the flow, he will flow the wrong direction, away from the Spirit.

“The seeker must resist the negative flow and tune into the spiritual. He can only do this with the exercise of tremendous force of will. When he first seeks the flow of Spirit, the registration will be weak, and to hold on to it to increase its strength, he must Carpe Diem or seize hold of the new energy with great force of decision and will. When he does, the more prominent flow of matter will pull hard on him, tempting him to let go of the budding new energy. Going with the dominant flow at this point leads to disaster, but going with the still small voice of the Spirit leads to salvation.”

He paused and looked us over as if to make sure we were registering what he was saying, and added, “But if the seeker holds on to the new energy and by force of will makes it his dominant energy, then going with the flow becomes a positive thing.”

“Interesting,” I said. “I have heard that true spiritual teachers walk you all around a subject before they hone into the major point. Is this what you are doing?”

“You speak of a true principle,” he said. “The reason for this is that a teacher of light always desires a full comprehension from the student, and if he just answers a question in a word the student will fall short in his understanding.”

He paused again, and said, “I can see you are anxious to see how this fits with your problem, so let me continue.

“To move along the ladder of spiritual progression we must set ourselves on our next step, and then, by a tremendous force of will, fix our attention and focus on the objective.

“This is the principle you must apply in overcoming this attack you are suffering. Now tell me, what are the positive items of focus you have come up with?”

“I think he’s talking about the list we made,” said Elizabeth, looking toward the desk.

I went to my desk and retrieved my notes. “Here are four things we came up with.”

“Tell them to me,” said John.

I read, “Focused attention (meaning focusing intently on the light), service, love, and courage.”

John looked thoughtful for a moment and added, “Courage is more of an attitude acquired through experience, but the first three are very applicable to developing the Carpe Diem principle. By causing you great distress the negative force lives off of all this attention it has diverted. The trick is to destroy it through attrition of its energy, forcing your attention through strength of will toward the light of the soul, to service to humankind, and to the love of all. As you have found, your consciousness has been seriously diverted away from these noble pursuits because of your great distress. This causes a vicious circle which continues to feed the negative.”

“You’re right,” I said. “Before this attack I naturally thought of positive things, but afterwards it has been extremely difficult.

“Difficult, but not impossible,” said John, looking at me intently. “By seizing the kingdom with violent force of will you can force yourself to focus on those noble pursuits and starve the dark forces, causing them to go elsewhere for nourishment. This is why sleep is such a powerful healer. During sleep your attention is taken away from the many forces tearing your body down. A good long rest can weaken these destructive forces through attrition, so when you arise, the positive energies of the body have power over the negative ones.”

“Yes, of course, you are correct here,” I said. “That is the idea I saw when I received the key word. I realized that I could starve the darkness with attrition.   I just needed to use the power of focused will and move my attention. It’s kind of like you were saying, John, I can cause my attention to sleep as far as the negative is concerned.”

“So now that you see the principle, what will you do differently than before you saw it?” said John.

“Before I saw the principle I tried to dwell on the positive, but I let the pain and distress consume my attention. Now that I see the principle, I may still feel pain, yet will force myself to not put attention on it. I will force my attention away from it until the negative force is starved to death through attrition.”

“You’ve got it,” he said. “This is one of those subtle, but important truths. There is a huge difference between putting all your attention on the positive during the good times, and keeping it there during times of great distress. “Joseph, I want you to teach this in a future book. It will help a lot of people if they can be helped to understand. This is one of those principles that enabled Jesus to maintain his poise, control, and faith even while on the cross.”

“But not many people have an overwhelming spiritual problem to deal with,” said Elizabeth. “How would this apply to them?”

“Most people have all the problems and distress they can handle,” said John. “Just as it can help Joseph, it can help them.

 

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Is There A Devil And Evil Spirits?

This entry is part 46 of 57 in the series Mysteries

Question Forty-Seven

Is There A Devil And Evil Spirits?

It is interesting that the idea of Satan ruling a great kingdom of evil spirits didn’t seem to get much traction until the time of Jesus. The Old Testament mentions him a few times but the word in the Hebrew merely mans “adversary” so any adversary of the good path could have been considered a satan.

As far as evil spirits go, the Old Testament only mentions them twice and both times they were sent by God (not Satan) to cause trouble.

There are several references to people having “familiar spirits” but this term comes from the Hebrew OWB and refers to a medium, most likely the trance channelers of the day. There is no mention of evil spirits in connection with them but Israel was commanded to ignore them and pay attention to the prophets instead.

Apparently, by the time Jesus arrived a belief in Satan and evil spirits was quite popular as he did quite a few of his healings by casting them out.

There are two lines of thought concerning Jesus and evil spirits.

(1) Those who take everything literally believe that in each case where Jesus healed by casting out actual evil spirits that he indeed did cast out evil entities who were in league with the devil himself.

(2) The other idea is that Jesus was merely working with peoples’ belief system. Since many believed that disease was caused by evil spirits, then appearing to cast them out worked with their belief and increased their faith and power to be healed.

So which one of these two ideas is true? Is there really a devil along with millions of evil spirits causing problems for us in the modern world?

Let us look at the idea of Satan first. Since the word merely means “adversary” then to ask if there is a satan is the same as asking if there is an adversary. The answer is quite clearly, yes. You can take any idea of what is good, present it to the world and adversaries (or satans) will come forth to oppose it.

So, among people with good intentions there are certainly many who are met with adversaries right here among the living.

But what about the next world? Are there adversaries there? Obviously if people continue to have free will after death they will all not agree on lots of things and adversaries will appear there also.

But is there one main guy who is The Satan?

There is hierarchy in all things and, of course, some adversaries will have more power than others, and there is always one who is the most powerful. I suppose we could tag this character, whoever he is, with the name of Satan, though I doubt if he sees himself as evil.

Hitler was one of the great adversaries to appear on the earth, but he thought he was doing good things and would have been insulted to have been called Satan.

So, are there evil spirits?

To answer this one must merely ask, “Are there evil people living on the earth in physical bodies?” Most would call the murderers, rapists, tyrants, thieves, etc. evil. So when these people die do they take their character with them or are they suddenly changed into good people? Obviously, we still keep our identity. If a person is evil in mortal life then he will still have evil tendencies as a spirit making him an evil spirit, for want of a better word.

So, did Jesus really heal by casting out evil spirits?

Rarely is a disease caused by a person being possessed by a human spirit that is evil. Such possession does happen now and then, but is not the cause of all the disease we see about us.

But, if we look at it from another angle, Jesus did indeed heal by casting out evil. The human body is a great living instrument and within it are billions of smaller lives. Each cell in our body is a living thing as well as each organ we possess. All disease is the result of the life forces in the body taking on a life of their own, causing a lack of harmony. A cancer, for example is a living thing and getting rid of it is indeed seen as casting out an evil life.

Jesus caused the negative life that was in the sick bodies to depart and adjusted their life forces so they were harmonious, and by this measure he healed by casting out disrupting life or evil spirits.

 

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE