- Keys Writings 2015, Part 1
- Keys Writings 2015, Part 2
- Seeing by Darkness
- Keys Writings 2015, Part 3
- Keys Writings 2015, Part 4
- Keys Writings 2015, Part 5
- Keys Writings 2015, Part 6
- Keys Writings 2015, Part 7
- Keys Writings 2015, Part 8
- Keys Writings 2015, Part 9
- Keys Writings 2015, Part 10
- Keys Writings 2015, Part 11
- Keys Writings 2015, Part 16
Feb 7, 2015
I have been contemplating why we are so defensive when someone comes on the list and disagrees with us?
First of all Blayne, let me congratulate you on the presentation on a kinder and more gentle you. I have indeed noticed a difference and overall the change has been for the good. On the other hand, we do not want the desire for kindness and harmony to stop us from defending the truth in a civil manner.
Unfortunately, when we as humans are disagreed with, the tendency is to insult and call names rather than merely presenting a dispassionate logical reply. Then in many arguments a measured reply presenting an opposing belief is seen as an insult to the other party which then replies with insults which creates a vicious circle.
I have established standards for myself in dealing with opposition and have applied this pretty consistently since the Keys began.
(1) No name calling.
If everyone in an argument would abide by this one rule it would often keep the hurt feelings from getting out of hand. I do not think anyone can find one example of derisive name calling on my part in all the millions of words I have written online.
It is interesting that I have been accused of name calling a number of times. This has happened when I commented on the content of a post while making no attack on the person writing it. Some people get insulted when you make a negative comment on their words and take it the same way as if you insulted them as a person.
If, for instance, one says, “that is not a good argument” the receiver may take this as saying, “You are not a good person.”
I have had this happen a number of times in various confrontations I have had. Those who feel insulted for having their argument analyzed are difficult to deal with, but analyze we must. There should be no claim of truth that should be immune to civil analysis from the plane of the mind.
(2) No personal attacks or insults.
Again, I have stayed away from doing this but some take it as a personal insult to disagree with their argument. Now I am not beyond a little healthy sarcasm now and then. For instance, on Allan’s forum one member came after me sounding quite disturbed and I asked him if he had his bran muffin yet that day. They seemed to think that was the meanest thing they ever heard and commented on it for days.
(3) Be Accurate
In an argument I try and represent the opponents views accurately. To do this I will quote enough of his words to give an accurate representation and then comment.
Normally, I do not get criticized for not being true to this, but Allan and his group have been the exception. They really laid into me for distorting their views, even though I did my best to accurately represent them with quotes. The problem from their point of view is that I did not supply enough quotes. If Allan or others from his forum wrote a 2000 word reply then they wanted the whole 2000 words in the post somewhere.
I finally figured out how to accommodate them by clicking “show message history” at the bottom of a post and it the adds all the recent posts on the topic at hand. I think this produces unnecessary clutter as all posts are available by going through the forum, but on his forum I started showing the history after the complaints.
Now, on the other hand, when Allan and his forum comment on my views they will rarely quote me but use their own words to describe my beliefs and these are often highly distorted. Many of my posts on his forum are merely for the purpose of correcting their false impressions of my views so they can reply to what I really believe and say, not to what I do not think or say.
(4) Show kindness and good will when the opportunity presents itself.
Now some have come on the Keys with both guns blazing and as long as you disagree with the guy it seems that any act of goodwill will be trampled under foot. There are some who just will not respond to good will and others that do. I wait for the right opportunity and will outreach when the time seems right. Sometimes this works and sometimes it does not. Some people just do not want to get along unless you agree with their views.
You are right, when you first came on board you gave me a very rough time and were very challenging. But you did not call me names or insult my intelligence or that of the group, at least not that I recall. We went at it mind to mind, but after the dust cleared we respected each other and became friends.
You were not here during the intense discussions with Allan where he compared us to swine, called me spiritually dead, compared me to a used car salesman, told us that his group was spiritually superior to the Keys, called me a “latter-day Pharisee who has obstructed entrance into the Kingdom for those who are your followers,” and even told me that he is the voice of my Higher Self, which is basically saying that if I do not agree with him I am rebelling against my own soul.
These insults were not returned in kind by myself, but I attempted to deal with them mentally in a civil manner. Most members followed suit but a few responded more strongly than was necessary.
Overall, I am treating him with the same principles that I did with you, but since he is a different person I may come across somewhat differently.
I think that sorting out disagreements in a civil manner can be very productive. Some of my best teachings have surfaced in response to some strong disagreement.
On the other hand, it is good to be reminded now and then to go with the better angels of our nature and be considerate rather than lashing out – yet still stand up for that which is true.
Good points Blayne and I have made some of them myself to Allan, but they seem to go over his head.
Here is a statement he made this morning that distorts what we really think:
It has been suggested by members of the Keysters forum that if it is true that the Gospels are an allegory — in contradistinction to actual historical events — that such a work would be a lie and even a worthless fraud.
I didn’t say anything about such a work being a worthless fraud and I do not know anyone who did. As I said, rather than quoting us he often takes a response as it registers in his emotional body and regurgitates it for an argument against a non existent straw man. If I believed in the way that he portrays then I would be condemning my own Immortal books which contain a lot of allegory rather than history as it actually occurred.
If an argument is to be productive then the two must first understand the other’s point of view and represent it correctly.
Feb 8, 2015
The Fiction Conspiracy
Hmm, but, you did say it would be a lie, repeatedly, no? And then went on to indicate that it would undermine the value of the Gospel if built on a lie? At least that’s the way I understood the multiple times you have presented it. If that’s the wrong impression, then please – set the record straight – are you saying that the Gospel could still be useful even if built on a lie or something else perhaps?
Sigh. I do not know how many times I need to repeat myself on this subject before the Allan group can understand.
I have basically said that if a thing is presented at being true, but is not true then it is a lie. That is pretty easy to understand for 99.9% of humanity but Allan has his group believing otherwise. He maintains that if a story is created that presents false history as true history then it is still true if allegorical truth can be derived from it. Because truth can be found then it is true.
If one can find truth in a lie presented as truth then the truth found therein does not cancel out the lie as Allan seems to think.
Using this reasoning then the Star Wars movie is true because there is some good allegorical truth in it. To the credit of George Lucas he did not present Star Wars as true history.
There is a big difference between presenting fiction with truth therein as being all true and presenting as fiction containing allegorical truth as fiction with truth to be discovered therein.
The first is an honest presentation, the second a dishonest one.
Moby Dick has a lot of allegorical truth and the Herman Melville received some of his inspiration from true history, but he never lied and presented the story as an actual historical event. If he did and such a thing were discovered then he would have gone down in history as a fraud. Even so his story would still be recognized as good fiction containing allegorical truth.
Now consider how Allan says the original Gospel was created. Jesus and his brother James had come up with some truths that they thought were beyond the scope of the average guy so they set themselves thinking of how they could write them down in a manner that would have a maximum impact. It could have gone down something like this:
James: Wow, Jesus, you teach some good material. You know what would be really great though? If you could do stuff like change water to wine, walk on water and raise the dead your message could really get some attention. As it is, not many are listening.
Jesus: You have a point. Hey, you know what you could do? You could write a wondrous story about me being a great miracle worker and hero who gives his life on the cross. This would kill two birds with one stone. The unwashed masses would swallow the story, get a few surface truths and promote it whereas you could structure it allegorically so the enlightened can see hidden truths.
James: That’s a great idea. I’ll get right on it and I’ll make you larger than life. By the time I’m done those fools will think you are the god of the universe.
One of the famous statements attributed to Jesus is “the truth shall make you free.” Now let us suppose that this was how the original gospel came to be written, but now a great discovery was made that proved the whole account was allegorical fiction. The people would finally be set free by the truth. What would be the effect?
The effect would be the same as when anyone finds out they have been lied to. They would be angry. And who would they be angry at?
James and Jesus who deceived them.
No one likes to be lied to and that is why telling the truth is so important that it is one of the Ten Commandments.
It is also one of the basic principles I teach which would be helpful to review again.
Here is the LINK
Could a person write a fictional account presented as true history, that could also contain some basic truth and allegory?
Yes. No one is saying this could not be done.
Would it be the right thing to do?
No. Intentional falsehood always enhances the veil between the entity and the soul.
Not only would it be wrong, but such a deception would be almost impossible to get away with.
Now Obama thinks he is pretty close to being a Messiah in our age. Let us suppose a close adviser wrote a book about him and presented the idea that he was a great miracle worker who walked on water, changed water to beer, fed thousands of homeless with a single basket of food, and levitated Republicans who disagreed with him. Could someone get away with this?
No. It would be impossible in this age and would have been quite difficult even in the days of Jesus. In the past 2000 years there is no fantastic historical fiction story close to this that that is accepted by any significant number of people.
Pulling off such a fabrication would be about as big of a miracle as the resurrection itself.
From the Book of Quotes on Truth
“It is not the discovery of truth that is an indication of your evolution. Instead, it is your power to perceive truth.”
“If we expect truth to always verify our desires we develop a mindset which becomes an enemy to truth.”
“To find the higher truth one must find the truth on the physical plane first.”
“When people use the phrase “my truth,” they generally mean “my opinion.” If we are honest with ourselves, we will see that the phrase ‘my truth’ and ‘your truth’ are illusionary statements.”
“The truth is always relevant and if your goal is to expose the truth your impact will be powerful and lasting.”
“Since all truth from God is reasonable then to abnegate reason is foolish indeed.”
Maybe if you, and others would stop replying to Allan then he would leave us alone? Maybe your attention to him is largely to blame for him being here?
I agree, but these guys provide some good entertainment value and I’m just curious how far we can go with this in clarifying the truth yet still have it denied by them. It is like looking straight at the sun and denying it is there. They insist that presenting fabricated history as being true history can be 100% truth as long as there is allegory included. It is so strange that they cannot acknowledge the deception involved.
It is difficult to have a productive debate with a member of Allan’s group because they reply with so many false assumptions that need to be corrected before any advance can be made. I just have time to correct those of Shohn here as follows:
At this point, I would figure that your fundamental premise could be restated: “IF the Gospel were allegorical, then it would HAVE to be built on a lie.”
I have corrected you guys on this point many times but you keep going back to the idea that I think allegories are lies. I DO NOT think an allegory is a lie just because it is an allegory neither do I think any piece of fiction is a lie because it is fiction. Let me repeat. A writing is a lie if that which is not true is presented to the reader as if it were true.
Jonathan Livingston Seagull is a great allegory, but it is not a lie because it is presented as allegory and does not present the idea that a real seagull had the transformation.
My view on this is extremely simple and it is amazing you do not seem to get it.
Anyway, you seem to disagree with the following notion: “He maintains that if a story is created that presents false history as true history then it is still true if allegorical truth can be derived from it. Because truth can be found then it is true.”
Which is a distortion of his position, because you don’t seem to understand.
I understand fine. I have gone round and round with your group on this point and no one has pointed out how that statement is a distortion. This really seems to represent Allan’s view. How does it not?
JJ is teaching a literal history with some pieces he views as allegory.
Okay, let me clarify my view for you one more time. I have never said that all the Bible is literal history and my teachings do not depend on this idea neither are they derived from it. So placing me in a box with fundamentalists preachers is just plain deceptive on your part.
Beyond what scholarship can prove the only way we can know the true history is by a personal revelation. I therefore operate on the premise that an event happened unless I have evidence to the contrary. I operate on this premise when I read any historical account.
Did Jesus walk on water?
I believe it is possible to walk on water so I accept this idea until I see historical evidence to the contrary.
Would I be upset or would any of my thinking or teachings change if I found out that it was just allegory and he really did not walk on water?
No. Nothing would change. All the principles I believe in and teach would be unchanged.
I rely very little from any history of the Bible for my teachings. The main thing I go by is the truth revealed in the actual words, apart from any history.
Another problem with your below argument, is that you have equated Star Wars with the Gospel.
You make it sound like I am making it an equivalent which I did not. The have entirely different purposes. My point was they can both be interpreted allegorically and Star Wars could have been presented falsely as true history. That point stands.
In order for your argument about lies to hold any water, I figure you might as well say that this very world is a lie, and by proxy G-d is a big fat liar,
I would have no reason to say such a thing, but you have a very good case considering your belief system.
JJ claims to be the teacher of this group,
Your bunch keeps accusing me of using “the teacher” as if it were a title which is a distortion. I merely say that I am “a teacher” as are others in the group. No one here addresses me as “Teacher,” but see me as “a teacher,” just as they are in many circumstances of their own lives.
Now Allan insists he is not a teacher even though he teaches regularly. I’d call that a denial of reality. This seems extra strange since he does call himself a prophet and most likely sees himself as the presently incarnated world savior.
when I found out about the Great “lie” (from those teaching the bible in the manner that you and those of your kind do, I went outside, smoked a cigarette (and quit smoking shortly thereafter) and it was probably one of the happiest moments of my life.
And when you find the true path to your Higher Self, you’ll be happier still. We are here to help.
Feb 9, 2015
The Josephus Controversy
In post #72511 Allan writes:
There were three historians writing and recording the historical events at that time, and it has been noted that with the exception of the one proven interpolation in the writings of Josephus, there is not a single mention of an historical man Jesus.
That is not quite accurate as there are two references to Jesus in Josephus. I would be surprised if you did not know of the first because it is made in reference to James, as follows.
But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned:
Most scholars accept this reference to Christ as being authentic. There are a few of atheistic bent who try to argue against it but their reasoning is weak and they have only conjecture to support a view that some Christian added this.
The second reference is probably what Allan was referring to as it is much more controversial.
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.”
It is common for unbelievers to dismiss this quote as being words added by zealous Christians in an attempt to prove the existence of Jesus. And what is their reasoning? There are two main items.
(1) Josephus, a non-believing Jew, would not likely have admitted that “He was the Christ” or that he was resurrected.
(2) Several church fathers quoted from Josephus before 300 AD and did not mention this passage.
Let us examine the first argument. John P. Meier, one of the most recognized scholars on the historical Jesus gives this view. He acknowledges that Josephus would not have stated that Jesus was the Christ or was resurrected. But he maintains that a careful analysis of the Greek reveals that the wording of these phrases is not in harmony with his writing style… BUT the rest of the passage is. Furthermore, he says that the rest of the text does not sound like an insertion made by a Christian. His belief is that the reference to Christ was there in the original, but was embellished by someone making a copy.
The original most likely read something like this:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with self-deluded pleasure. And he led astray a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And although Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) has not died out.
The second argument is that this passage was not quoted by the early church fathers. This is a weak argument for two reasons:
(1) The work of Josephus is a huge work, much bigger than the Bible. Few of the church fathers had read it all the way through.
If I quote several passages from the Bible and do not mention Isaiah, this does not supply evidence that he did not exist.
(2) The early church fathers did not feel the need to prove the existence of the historical Jesus. Even all the enemies of the early Christians accepted that there was such a historical person and did not argue otherwise. Arguments were not based on whether or not Jesus existed, but as to who he was and if he rose from the dead. The argument that there was not a historical Jesus is of fairly modern origin.
Josephus also talks about the historical John the Baptist which gives some extra credibility to the Gospel story. He says:
Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had John called the baptist urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing.
Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119
Some maintain that there is no mention of the existence of Jesus before about 300 AD but we have gospel fragments dating back to almost the first century.
The earliest fragment of the Gospels is that of John and was found in Egypt and dated shortly after 100 AD. This was only a few years after it was written just before the turn of the century.
Information on the manuscript may be found at:
Also found in Egypt were the Magdalene Fragments of the gospel of Matthew. Most scholars agree that they date back to the second century, but some argue that date clear back to 70 AD.
More information may be found at:
In addition there exists a fragment of the Gospel of Peter (not in the Bible) that dates back to just after the first century.
It is an interesting fact that there exists today approximately 5300 copies of ancient Greek manuscripts which are copies of the gospels. This number greatly exceeds the Greek copies testifying to any other man in history.
The fact that there is absolutely no mention of the quotations pertaining to Jesus in the writings of Josephus by any of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, is because these quotations did not exist until the fourth century. But this is also true of all the rest of the corrupted documents of the Church.
One cannot logically make a point blank statement about such a passage existing or not existing in the original. We can only look at the probabilities and the probability that the first quote is valid is high and that the second existed in some form is also significant.
The fact that there is no mention of these Josephus quotes by the pre-Nicene Church Fathers does not have much significance as during that time Josephus was used mostly by the Romans and few church fathers even used Josephus. In addition Josephus’ writings were so voluminous that few were likely to have read or possessed them all.
There is not a lot of good reasons to doubt the first quote. Here is what the scholar John P. Meirer has to say about it.
There are a number of intriguing points about this short passage. First of all, unlike the text about Jesus from the Slavonic Josephus, this narrative is found in the main Greek-manuscript tradition of The Antiquities without any notable variation. The early 4th-century Church historian Eusebius also quotes this passage from Josephus in his Ecclesiastical History (2.23.22).
Second, unlike the extensive review of Jesus’ ministry in the Slavonic Josephus, we have here only a passing, almost blasé reference to someone called James, whom Josephus obviously considers a minor character. He is mentioned only because his illegal execution causes Ananus to be deposed. But since “James” (actually, the Greek form of the English name James is lakobos, Jacob) is so common in Jewish usage and in Josephus’ writings, Josephus needs some designation to specify which Jacob/James he is talking about.’ Josephus apparently knows of no pedigree (e.g., “James the son of Joseph”) he can use to identify this James; hence he is forced to identify him by his better-known brother, Jesus, who in turn is specified as that particular Jesus “who-is-called-Messiah.”
This leads to a third significant point: the way the text identifies James is not likely to have come from a Christian hand or even a Christian source. Neither the NT nor early Christian writers spoke of James of Jerusalem in a matter-of-fact way as “the brother of Jesus” (ho adelphos Iesou), but rather-with the reverence we would expect-“the brother of the Lord” (ho adelphos tou kyriou) or “the brother of the Savior” (ho adelphos tou soteros). Paul, who was not overly fond of James, calls him “the brother of the Lord” in Gal 1:19 and no doubt is thinking especially of him when he speaks of “the brothers of the Lord” in 1 Cor 9:5. Hegesippus, the 2d-century Church historian who was a Jewish convert and probably hailed from Palestine, likewise speaks of “James, the brother of the Lord” (in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4);8 indeed, Hegesippus also speaks of certain other well-known Palestinian Christians as “a cousin of the Lord” (4.22.4), “the brothers of the Savior” (3.32.5), and “his [the Lord’s] brother according to the flesh” (3.20.1). The point of all this is that Josephus’ designation of James as “the brother of Jesus” squares neither with NT nor with early patristic usage, and so does not likely come from the hand of a Christian interpolator.9
Fourth, the likelihood of the text coming from Josephus and not an early Christian is increased by the fact that Josephus’ account of James’s martyrdom differs in time and manner from that of Hegesippus. Josephus has James stoned to death by order of the high priest Ananus before the Jewish War actually breaks out (therefore, early in A.D. 62). According to Hegesippus, the scribes and Pharisees cast James down from the battlement of the Jerusalem temple. They begin to stone him but are constrained by a priest; finally a laundryman clubs James to death (2.23.12-18). James’s martyrdom, says Hegesippus, was followed immediately by Vespasian’s siege of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). Eusebius stresses that Hegesippus’ account agrees basically with that of the Church Father Clement of Alexandria (2.23.3,19); hence it was apparently the standard Christian story. Once again, it is highly unlikely that Josephus’ version is the result of Christian editing of The Jewish Antiquities.
From A Marginal Jew Pages 57-8
Feb 11, 2015
Welcome to the forum, Clay. I came across Clay on Allan’s forum. I was impressed that he attempted to teach Allan the error of using past lives as a claim to authority in the present life. Basically he saw the principle behind the Beast as we see it and I figured anyone that insightful belonged over here so I invited him to join us.
That is a great quote rom Niels Bohr, one of my favorite scientists. I think you have to look at the big picture to see the full meaning. Notice that he said that the opposite of a fact is”most surely a falsehood.” The problem for many is they cannot accept this and even argue against two plus two equalling four. This, Niels Bohr would not do.
On the other hand, what is often considered to be a great truth is composed of many facts which may overlap with another great truth and may seem on the surface to be contradictory.
Fo instance, Newton’s laws of motion were a great breakthrough and considered to be the establishment of a great truth that wouldn’t be challenged.
Then along came Einstein with the Theory of Relativity that demolished the idea that Newton had the ultimate truth on the matter.
BUT: These two great truths did not contradict each other – they only seemed to on the surface. In reality, Einstein merely fine tuned the original truths discovered by Newton.
Einstein followed the principle that i have taught here often which is:
Examine that which is considered to be truth by the many and look in the opposite direction. In doing this many new truths will be discovered.
I owe many of the teachings I have presented to the group over the years to following this approach.
Feb 13, 2015
We are glad to have you here Clay. It is not every day we get a new spiritual warrior joining us who thinks outside the box.
This group is different than most – and very different from Allan’s in that we are generally more impressed with original thinkers than with those who just agree line by line. Don’t get me wrong, agreement is good when accomplished through reason and the soul, but unusual thoughts are great also in that they force students to stretch their minds.
You put forth the idea that Jesus may not have expected to be resurrected. Now many here may not accept that, but it is good food for thought to consider such a thing. It is interesting to imagine oneself as a teacher like Jesus and then be delivered to the authorities and pit to death. Then you go to the other side and meet a spiritual being who tells you he is going to send you back and bring you back to life. Then you think to yourself, “This is going to be interesting.”
I’ve never liked the idea of looking on Jesus as an infallible God incarnate who could do no wrong and would do the right thing almost like a programmed robot. Then later on when I realized that he did struggle to attain just as you and I – then I was able to look upon him with much greater respect and admiration.
It is ironic that we can appreciate a brother who has struggled and attained much more than a God who can just snap his fingers and make anything happen.
From what you have posted here and on Allan’s group I would say that you seem like an interesting character and I think the group would like to know more about you. It seems you stated you were retired so you may be around my age. I just turned 70. It is hard to believe I am 70% of my first 100 years in this life.
Are you married, single? What does your wife, family and friends think of your philosophy? Have you been in trouble with religious authorities? What did you do for a living and what part of the country do you live in? What would you consider the ideal spiritual group to join?
Will look forward to your comments.
Feb 14, 2015
Outer vs Inner
Clay had a very entertaining confrontation with Allan in his forum about the use of past lives. He especially gave Allan a bad time about using famous past lives to establish his authority in this one. He uses James, the brother of Jesus the most often but also uses Thomas Paine and St. Francis.
Clay took a similar stand to us that one should not use a past life claim as a means to establish authority over other souls or to give your message weight. He told Allan that if his teachings had value they would stand by themselves without such claims.
Here was Allan’s response:
If someone known as Allan Cronshaw conveys to them that they are accountable to the Original Teachings and the Truth, then this is of no meaning. After all, opinions are like a**holes — everyone has them. If, on the other hand, I demonstrate that the original Church taught the doctrine of the pre-existent soul — and what I write is drawn directly from the original first century teachings (bypassing the Church of Constantine) — and every believer not only has the ability to access this storehouse of knowledge within themselves, but also learn directly from the Indwelling True Prophet — then when they fail to prove the Truth themselves, they are held accountable for their failures. Just like you are held accountable after having been told the Truth.
It seems that Allan thinks that even if great teachings are presented that they will be seen as mere opinions unless some outward authority is thrown in. Therefore, the claim that Allan is the reincarnation of James, “of whom heaven and earth came into being” is a great help to him in causing people to accept his teachings.
Does he have a point, after all someone on his forum pointed out that even Buddha talked about his past lives. What was missed though was that Buddha didn’t use his past lives to establish authority, but relied on his teachings.
Allan does have a point though. It is indeed true that claims of famous past lives, contact with resurrected beings, masters and channeled spirits are a great draw. There are many teachers who manage to establish a significant flock with mediocre teachings merely because of some such claim. Several claiming to be Jesus are getting quite a bit of attention. Others claiming to be Joseph Smith have done quite well and have established churches. Still others claim to be Elijah, Moses and even George Washington in order to give their words more authority.
Channeling a higher entity also establishes an authoritative draw. Neale Donald Walsch hit it big by channeling the Big Guy himself with his Conversations with God books which sold millions. Others channel Jesus, arch angels, masters or maybe just intelligent spirits such as Jane Roberts did with Seth. The idea is that these other worldly figures know more than us and we should listen to them.
What a novel idea it would be to just tune into the highest you know and write new teachings as well as expand on older ones, but with no claim of authority except that which lies in the words themselves, weighed by the reader’s own soul. Ah, to let the reader verify, not because of outward authority, but by the power of the inner voice of the Spirit that never fails. Such verification has true depth, understanding and majesty.
This has been my approach to you my friends over the years. I have realized that there are claims I could make that would draw a larger audience with little effort, but who would these people be that would be coming on board? They would be those who are drawn to outward authority and would cause anything we build to shift to rule by outer authority.
Instead, we must follow a slower more stable path and not make the mistakes made by teachers in ages past who started a great work only to have it corrupted within a generation by those who worship the beast of outer unjust unearned authority.
I will take whatever time it takes to throw out a net of teachings that can be verified by the inner God, instead of the outer, until the time is right for the union of souls that will create the next step in spiritual evolution for the human race. This will provide the outward proof that my teachings have merit and that they were not just invented by my lower personality. Until then the inner verification will be felt by one here and one there until critical mass is reached. When this happens everything will change.
I hope to see it in this lifetime, but if not, I can come back, but in this age I am determined to get the foundation correctly set.
It is also important to note that my writings were rejected by JJ even before I made my first post across the Keysters forum.
It would be nice if you would argue with the real rather than a distortion of the real. You make it sound like your writings as a whole were totally rejected. This is just not true. Many here on the Keys, including with myself, believe many things in your writings. We just do not accept 100% of them and may discuss the ones that do not seem true or right.
What you indicate as complete rejection was merely us starting out by presenting one of your teachings and then discussing its pros and cons.
I have no problem with anyone doing that with anything I have taught and don’t see why you are so offended by it.
Another important point is that JJ rejected what I wrote about the nature of the scriptures — even condemning the fact that the historical man Jesus knew and approved of writing the Gospels in this allegorical and esoteric manner.
More distortion… I did not condemn Jesus for approving “of writing the Gospels in this allegorical and esoteric manner.” Jesus has not told me what he thinks of the way any of the gospels are written so I can’t even give an opinion on what Jesus may or may not have approved.
Further, I have no beef with anyone using allegory to present truth. I have done this many times myself and do not condemn myself.
What I did say was that IF a false historical narrative was presented as a true historical narrative then this method of presentation would have been deceitful, or a lie.
Now you claim that it would not be a lie if the allegory taught truth. This is strange thinking indeed.
DAD: Jimmy. You told me that Johnny punched you in the nose and now I hear from witnesses that this just is not true. How do you explain this lie?
Jimmy: It’s not a lie, Dad, because Jimmy’s words hurt me like a punch in the nose. You do understand allegory, don’t you?
Therefore, when rightly understood, JJ is being used as a catalyst that invokes certain Laws in his rejection and condemnation of who I was in my previous lives, the essential Truths that I write about, and even his condemnation of the historical man Jesus.
I have never condemned you or Jesus for who you might have been in past lives. I disagree with your approach of using past lives as a claim to authority for what you teach in this one – which puts pressure on new seekers to accept you without using appropriate reasoning and investigation.
You keep saying over and over that I condemn you. I have never condemned you. I have disagreed with you on some matters. A disagreement is not a condemnation. Unfortunately, those who are too attached to outer authority often see disagreement as condemnation. This illusion is why so many authoritarians do all in their power to negate all disagreement, especially from those close to him.
There are exceptions to all things and in teaching about reincarnation a teacher may give out a couple past lives of his for teaching purposes, but where the error is made by many is that they attach themselves to a respected authority from the past and then project the idea that if you reject me then you are rejecting him.
Imagine someone saying:
I was Jesus in a past life so if you reject my words it is just like rejecting Jesus.”
“I was Galileo in a past life so if you reject me you are like the flat earthers.”
Few identifying with a famous past life actually use this wording but they often project this authority to manipulate the support of followers.
Thanks for handling Shohn, Blayne. We come close to speaking with one voice here. Let me add one thing.
Shohn wants me to answer questions about past lives. The trouble with this 21 questions approach is that you cannot keep anything to yourself if you play this game for if you answer enough yes or no questions anything can be discovered and if you are willing to play that game you might as well spill your guts on all you know. The true disciple makes sure all of his words are true to the best of his knowledge, but he doesn’t tell all he knows and has the right to keep certain things to himself just as all do.
I therefore have made it a policy to not answer positive or negative on any past life questions about me that shed any new light. I may have been nobody or a somebody, but whatever the case I am me now and that is what counts.
It would be funny when I come back again if there were numerous people claiming to be J J Dewey reincarnated indicating that followers need to listen to them because my writings carry weight in the future. In that case it would do little good for me to wave my hands and say, “Hey guys, I’m the real JJ.”
Since it is difficult to glorify yourself this would accomplish little good. On the other hand, if i start teaching again there may be those who would sense a similar vibration and make the connection. Even so, whatever I write in a present life and how it registers with the soul will be the important thing.
Again JJ I am sure I am going to have much I disagree with you about, but it does seem like you are able to engage in reasonable debate and discussion.
Some of my best friends here have expressed very strong disagreements with me in the past including but not limited to Blayne, Dan, lwk, Ruth, Susan Manning, …
And yet they are still here and still and value my words.
Because I value theirs as I will do yours.
I had many strong disagreements with my good friend Wayne who was featured in my Immortal books. He has since passed but I have and will always love him as a good loyal friend.
Now there have been others coming on board with both guns blazing that have retreated thinking I was the antichrist or his best friend, but you can’t please everyone.
An interesting thing to note here is that you tell us that you are still a faithful Roman Catholic who goes to confession and services. This was highly ridiculed by Allan’s group who seemed to equate you as being a spiritual Neanderthal for doing this.
Hopefully, you noticed that no one criticized you on this point here. We accept the idea that the guidance of the soul leads us all on different paths for the highest good and learning.
I was happy to get out of my religion but others are still in theirs and none of us have a problem with that. The path of each individual is unique. The important thing is to follow the highest you know and if any seeker is doing that I ask for nothing more.
Your post Clay brings to mind my comments on the advice to the church of Ephesus. Apparently, you still honor your first love.
Freedom Without Responsibility
The Master follows the praise with some criticism:
“Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.” Rev 2:4-5
Scholars are somewhat mystified as to what was the “first love” of the church at Ephesus. Some think that it was the original enthusiasm, brotherhood or ideals of the members that just wore off and they were being admonished to get themselves recharged.
A closer examination will reveal that this was not the problem. To understand what the first love is we need to return to the key word which is “permission”.
As written earlier, the first real step toward enlightenment and movement on the path occur when the seeker gives himself permission to follow his internal authority rather than the outward. To discover the first love we must ask ourselves what the seeker was attracted to that caused him to take the steps to find the path in the first place – before he followed his internal self. In other words, what virtue did he have before he was enlightened that made him move toward Spirit to begin with?
The answer leads us to his first love.
Before he was ruled by internal permission, his life was governed by external authorities who gave him permission. These external authorities were seen as representing the voice of God. As such, the seeker took these outer commands and instructions very seriously. He felt that if he disobeyed the prophet, priest, guru or book it was the same thing as disobeying God. He was thus very assiduous about honoring that voice and being a good servant for God, as he understood the concept. This was his first love.
Then, at the start of his new journey, he discovered that the authorities representing the voice of God knew no more about the truth than he did – that his internal voice was what he needed to follow.
The problem is that there are two internal voices. One is the voice of the Spirit and the other is the voice of the lower self, expressing lower desire. When the seeker first begins his journey on the path it is true that he does indeed contact the real voice, but neither is he perfect nor has he overcome selfishness. The lower voice is much easier to hear and requires no meditation or concentration of attention to get its message. Thus, when the aspirant begins his spiritual journey, he hears the lower voice much more than he hears the higher.
In the past he had some protection from following the lower nature because he followed his “first love,” his teachers and the voice of God they represented. Despite their faults, these outer authorities admonished him to exercise self-control over his passions and lower nature. They encouraged him to have self-discipline.
When the seeker discovers his inner authority and gives himself permission to ignore the outer, he (for a period of time) goes from one extreme to the other. He goes from obeying every external word that seems to come from God to ignoring all he has learned in the past.
What does he do now? Now that he has released himself from outer authority he follows the inner, but the trouble is that the spiritual voice does not lay down the law in detail, as did the outer. If he has a decision to make and does not receive clear instruction from the Spirit, he falls back on lower desire. When he makes this mistake he is left with a choice between lower desire and outer authorities… BUT he has rejected outer authorities, so in all areas where he has no clear communication through the soul (or perhaps ignores that communication), he is left with following lower desire.
The net effect of this situation can be summarized as follows:
(1) The seeker makes the breakthrough and clearly hears and follows the still small voice.
(2) He releases himself from the bondage of outer authorities.
(3) He feels free and this freedom seems to be what enlightenment is all about. He now goes overboard and follows every desire that comes to him, ignoring the discipline he learned in the past.
This explains a popular criticism that many who consider themselves “enlightened” receive from the rank and file religious people. With some justification they will accuse them of being carnal, undisciplined, licentious, rebellious, etc. The seeker will often laugh such criticism off as being somewhat primitive and unenlightened, and continue to follow any impulse that feels good to him. This takes him away from the soul for a period of time. He will find that he will need a wake-up call from the Master’s voice to set him back on track.
In a moment of sanity, when he sees that the lower impulses lead to disaster after disaster, he hears the higher voice:
“Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.”
Upon hearing this message he realizes that he has discarded many principles from his past that harmonize with the voice of the Spirit. He has merely used his new freedom as an excuse to follow his lower nature. He sees that if he continues on the current course he will lose contact with the true inner voice and the light (candlestick) will no longer shine within. He must “repent,” or change course. He must honor those things from the past which were good and lead him toward Spirit, and follow the voice of the soul to yet higher realms of understanding.
Feb 16, 2015
Karma and Forgiveness
On the cross Jesus cried out for the Father to forgive those who crucified him because they knew not what they did. Interestingly, it doesn’t say anywhere that Jesus himself forgave them though we assume he did since he preached forgiveness and asked for forgiveness of his enemies.
This brings up an interesting question. If you sin against a kind man and he forgives you, are your sins forgiven also? If so, then we could have these circumstances occurring.
Those who crucified Jesus would suffer no pain or debt for having him nailed to the cross.
Jeff steals a watermelon from his neighbor and is caught. The neighbor is not so kind and would just as soon see Jeff rot in hell.
So will Jeff suffer more for stealing a watermelon than those who crucified Jesus just because of the luck of the draw? In other words, he was unlucky in that the guy he stole from didn’t believe in forgiveness for his ilk.
If it is true that you can steal or abuse a forgiving person and not suffer any karma then all a wise criminal would have to do is make sure his victims are the good people. Since good Christians believe in forgiveness all he has to do is select Christian homes and burglarize them, rape their women, steal their cars or whatever he wants. He will refrain from doing any damage to the bad guys because he knows they will not forgive him.
Thus the good guys forgive and suffer while the bad guys do not forgive and do not suffer.
That doesn’t sound quite right, does it? And if an idea, concept or philosophy doesn’t make sense it means that it is either wrong or there are some missing pieces to the puzzle.
To get the correct picture in mind the seeker must understand what happens to him if he does not forgive and the benefits he receives if he does.
If he does not forgive then he begins to harbor a grievance. Such a grievance gathers dark emotional energy like a cancer that can cause lack of energy, disease and unhappiness in his own life. Thus the one who does not forgive becomes a greater victim to his own self than the person who sinned against him.
In addition remember the principle that energy follows thought. If one does not forgive then the negative thoughts will cause a link between himself and the perpetrator. This link is like a ball and chain that ties him to the abuser forcing them to meet again in this life or the next. He could vary well wind up an even greater victim in the next encounter or life.
There is no salvation without forgiveness. When one forgives he is saving himself.
So what about the person you forgive? Is he released from debt?
Not quite, though he is likely to benefit. Concerning debts Jesus said, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.’ Matt 5:26
If you steal $100 from a friend and he forgives you the friend is still out the $100 and you still have an extra $100. The utmost farthing will not be paid until you generate $100 and do something positive with it. If your friend doesn’t want it back then you give it to someone who needs it to balance the books.
So if God, Jesus or you forgive an abuser how does he benefit? He benefits because a negative link is not established between you and he. Without forgiveness a vicious circle is created. The guy hurts you, then you hurt him. He is now angry and he hurts you back. Forgiveness stops the circulating negative energy and frees up the mind for higher focus. This causes the abuser and the abused to see more clearly so they can make greater progress.
In addition the advanced disciple transcends forgiveness for he sees nothing to forgive. He exercises the Lion Principle. If you get in a cage with a lion he will most likely do you a lot of damage and this could be very hurtful. When looking at the caged lion you know he can kill you but you do not get irritated at his behavior. Why?
Because he’s a lion and that is his nature and there is nothing you can do about it. If you do not accept the lion for what he is you could feel hurt all the time.
Even so, irritating people are what they are whether they are in our lives or not. If we let them get to us then that is like entering the cage with the lion. Keep your emotional distance and realize that they just are what they are and there is generally nothing you can do to change them.
When the disciple sees with true vision he realizes there is nothing to forgive. You can’t go around being angry all the time at a lion for being a lion, even if you meet one. The same applies to hurtful people we meet.
If one has to forgive he has already gone too far – he already has a grievance. The key to liberation is to not allow the grievance to settle in the first place. If you do, then the path to forgiveness must be discovered.
I think there is always something you can generally do to change them, and that is let your light shine, return kindness to them despite what they did to you etc.
Valid point Blayne. I should have clarified my thinking a little better. We must have the attitude of mind that if they do not change, if they will continue to be mean spirited then we will not allow them have any negative influence on us. We should always leave the door of the mind open to opportunities to influence change for the good.
Reminds me of a time when I was selling advertising by phone in my younger years. I called this particular guy who woke up on the wrong side of the bed who hated sales calls to begin with. He really laid into me in a nasty tone calling me every name in the book. I responded as pleasantly as possible in return. Five minutes after the call ended the phone rang and it was him apologizing. He said that my kind response in return to his rudeness made him ashamed of himself and he wanted to apologize and buy an ad.
This was an exception to the rule, but once in a while the good path pays off.
Copyright by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE