Series: 2015B

Feb 16, 2015

Free Will

Clay:

It was a simultaneous “knowing” of all experience, past, present and future as having already transpired, and always and forever determined, yet the underlying actor was free. All of creation was determined from beginning to end in the mind of G-d, but there is still a deep freedom and learning that transpires despite the predetermination.

JJ

I can see how you would come to this conclusion after having a mystical experience, but I do not think the reality of the whole experience was retained in your physical brain.

There is a plan for each creation of God just as there is a plan for any creation that we (who are in the image of God) also make. I can draw up a blueprint for a house and initiate plans for building it. I can thus know the beginning and the end as well as much of the middle.

In building the house one starts with a set of blueprints. With these and a drawing of the house in hand I can now visualize pretty well how the plan will unfold.

Next I hire a contractor and proceed with the building. Just as we get started my wife decides some changes are in order. Instead of two and a half baths she wants three and the master bedroom is too small. She wants it bigger with more closet space.

We redraw the plans and proceed. A couple weeks into the project the contractor comes to us and tells us that the changes we made will cost more than expected. We reluctantly agree and I reminded my wife that this extra cost was not part of the original plan.

As we move ahead with building the house a number of unplanned events occurred.

A construction worker fell and broke his leg.

The building inspector was picky and caused several delays.

A hailstorm occurred and damaged some of the building materials.

The price of building supplies went up.

A survey revealed our property line was incorrect and we had to move the location of the fence.

In spite of unplanned events we moved forward and finished the house. “Just as we planned,” we said to ourselves, satisfied with the result.

Yes, the final product turned out as planned but in between the original plan and the finished house, many unplanned events occurred.

This is also the way it is with one’s life. Before you ere born you saw reality with a much wider vision than you do now and planned out a number of things that was to happen in your life in order to achieve maximum benefit and progression.

After incarnating and proceeding with life it will seem that some events in your life and directions you take are a part of some plan that you are supposed to follow. In many cases you will be right. On the other hand, because of free will and bad decisions on your part the overall plan will suffer delays and setbacks. Many things happen that are just caused by a fairly random series of events, but if you follow your inner guidance you will wind up accomplishing your objective set before you were born.

Just like the guy who successfully builds his house despite setbacks, you can have a successful life even though many unplanned events occur that slow you down.

Just as this principle applies to us who are reflections of God, it also applies to Higher Lives.

It is of extreme importance that we realize that we have free will and using that will we can overcome all obstacles and accomplish the plans that we set before birth as well as during this life. If there is no free will then we might as well follow the path of extreme selfishness; after all, if you do this then it was what you were supposed to do (according to this thinking).

 

Feb 17, 2015

Change of Plans

Clay writes:

It was a simultaneous “knowing” of all experience, past, present and future as having already transpired, and always and forever determined, yet the underlying actor was free. All of creation was determined from beginning to end in the mind of G-d, but there is still a deep freedom and learning that transpires despite the predetermination.

JJ

Like I say, if you had a mystic experience I can see why you would think this. It is interesting to note that many different people have had various mystic experiences and have come away with different conclusions, often contradictory.

There are four reasons for this.

(1) The person only saw a piece of the whole.

(2) He was only able to bring a part of the understanding back to physical reality.

(3) The reasoning mind interprets incorrectly what he has experienced.

(4) The experience is filtered through his emotional body and contains much illusion that is pure fiction.

There are two views on time that seem to contradict each other. The common view is that time is linear and moves from A to B and what happens in B is determined by free will.

Another view is that we live in an Eternal Now where the past, present and future is all one and everything in the future is already set.

Those who side with one view or the other insist the apparently opposing view is incorrect.

As usual, the truth lies between the two extremes. If we move our consciousness above the worlds of form to the realm of the beginning of creation wherein reside divine ideas then yes, we do discover there is an Eternal Now where the past, present and future of all creation springing from divine ideas is indeed one. BUT… even though this realm is linked to the worlds of form, it is not the same thing. Seeing the past, the present and future there is a totally different thing than seeing or experiencing it here.

To experience time we have to incarnate into time and once incarnated into time there is a separate past, present and future. Here the future is not set, but determined by the free will of the lives who reside here.

This is evidenced by the fact that no one in the history of mankind as ever been able to predict the future with 100% accuracy. Not even Jesus could if he were to give it a try. Not one person out of 7 billion on the planet could even predict a simple thing such as the two great catches that happened at the last Superbowl.

Here is another way to look at this. If we rise above the realm of time and enter the Eternal Now there is no time because our consciousness is not incarnated into it. Because there is no time there is no past, no future and no present as we understand it. Here all ideas are present which are the seeds of creation that manifest in time. One can follow these ideas into time. How they play out in real time is malleable, but in the realm of ideas they can be seen playing out in such a way that creation will unfold correctly. If life moves from the formless and non time into time and form then life will encounter the limitations of the past, present and future. Here the future will not be completely known or set and cannot be accurately predicted in detail, even by God.

It is interesting to note that most psychics are only about 10% accurate with their predictions. Good sensitives are lucky to achieve over 50%.

A couple different years I challenged the group to make predictions for the coming year. I told them that none of us were going to be 100% accurate but an intelligent bunch such as us should beat the law of averages. Some of us did pretty good. I had about an 80% accuracy level, but far from being perfect.

Clay

It is essentially G-d already knew each and every decision we would make, in each and every incarnation we would live, and provided exactly each and every situation that the soul needs to progress.

JJ

Okay, I’m going to scratch my big toe now. … There, I just did it. So, do you really think this was important enough to be a part of the great plan of God? What kind of being would have nothing better to do than go around planning the scratching of a toe a billion years before it happens? I certainly would not. Any being that does such senseless unnecessary planning has to be just plain silly. This would mean we must be worshipping a goofy god of some kind who makes trillions of unnecessary silly plans that are not needed or wanted or even appreciated.

Here’s another thought. Our essence is one with God; therefore, I can access the mind of God. So I access the mind of God and discover hat he has plans for me to scratch my toe in five minutes. Since I have free will I change the plan and scratch it in ten minutes instead. The fact that a plan can be known and changed proves that the future is not set in every detail for the change of plans was not in the plan.

There’s much more that can be said here, but I have to go rest my brain. That is probably in the plan, but I won’t resist.

 

Feb 18, 2015

A Reasonable God

Clay gave an interesting description of Catholic Mass on Allan’s forum. He says:

The Catholic Mass is the most powerful act of theurgic magic that has ever been discovered, yes I absolutely believe in Magic. The Work is an absolutely powerful technique for establishing the magnetic center in a man and being exempted from the Law of Accident and of certain A influences and start drawing more B influences. The Catholic Mass is a direct B influence, whether the person is even aware of what is transpiring or not and does much to establish the magnetic center. This is my experience.

JJ

I’ve never heard mass described this way Clay. It almost makes me want to attend to see how I would be affected. You obviously take in the symbolic meaning more than the average Catholic.

I attended the LDS church in my younger years and the only symbolic thing in meetings was the sacrament, called the Eucharist by Catholics. I never got much of a spiritual high out of that.

The Mormons though do have a lot of symbolic ceremony in their temple services. There have been numerous books written explaining their deeper meaning. They have been accused of borrowing a lot of it from the Masons, as there are similarities.

I do not think anyone here will criticize you for attending Catholic services. I realize though that many esoteric and new age groups feel it is backward to do this and the standard religious people will see you as being astray. Most of the members here are also looked upon with suspicion by both groups. I know there are LDS people on the forum who still attend their services and get value out of them as you do the Catholic and no one has a problem with them.

Each person’s path is different and what benefits one person may be seen as a big yawn to another. The core teaching here is to follow the highest each of us knows and this is different for each person as well as each life we live.

I thought I would comment on one more thing Clay said which was:

My personal experience is G-d is not rational, G-d is what I would describe as being trans-rational.

A lot of people see God’s thinking as being not rational by human standards. They give several reasons.

(1) They quote Isaiah: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.” Isa 55:8

They take this to mean that it is useless to attempt to understand God’s thinking. We should merely appreciate and worship him.

(2) A lot of things that happen in life, which is supposed to be planned by God, are not logical to many. It doesn’t seem right that some innocent people suffer and the guilty go free. The unfairness of life seems so great to many that they merely exclaim that God works in mysterious ways beyond what the logical mind can comprehend.

(3) Others have had a mystical experience that convinces then that the ways of God are beyond anything that logic can explain.

To find the truth of the matter the first Principle of Discovery is helpful which is:

Take the things you know (for reasonable surety) to be true and use them as a foundation or stepping stones for testing additional truths.

Keeping this in mind we must ask, “What are some things we know for sure that are the result of the workings of the mind of God?”

One thing that all believers do agree upon here is that the mind of God is behind the creation of this universe and everything in it.

But the interesting thing about this universe is that everything in it that can be proven to exist functions on reasonable and logical principles. We do not understand everything in creation but we are discovering more truths every day and, when discovered, they turn out to function logically. The laws of gravity, inertia and motion all work according to logical formulas.

All lives are remarkable pieces of logical engineering. Many discoveries by scientists have been made by studying the engineering incorporated in plants, animal and human lives.

The system set up by the cells in our bodies to insure that each get their supply of oxygen and nutrients put our human governments to shame.

So, when we look at creation that we know for sure is in front of us we see remarkable logical and reasonable feats of engineering, design and function.

There is not one thing created by God, that is available for all to see, that was not crested by logical and reasonable principles.

So, “what about quantum physics” says one?

The quantum worlds may function on different laws than the macrocosm, but they still function on logical and reasonable principles. Proof of this is that the next generation of super computers will use quantum principles. If the quantum world did not function on logical principles then a reliable quantum computer would be impossible.

There are manifestations in the spiritual and the physical world which the human mind has not yet figured out, but so far each thing that was unknown has become logical and reasonable when it has become known and understood. There is no reason to assume this will not be the case in the future.

***

The Sabbath

Clay:

For my personal experience, the Sabbath needs to be kept, not because God demands it, but because it is actually beneficial to us as spiritual beings, and so it does not matter which day you do it, as long as you do it at least once a week, at the barest minimum.

JJ

The basic principle you bring out is in harmony with my teachings on this. Here is what I have written in the past.

The principle behind the Sabbath is an eternal one and is always in effect. The ancient Hebrews and other peoples had to live by black and white rules which were a “schoolmaster” to the understanding of the “why” behind the rules.

This was why Jesus had such a clash with the religious rulers of his day. They were attempting a black and white obedience to law and Jesus sought to understand and incorporate the principle from which the law came.

Jesus enumerated the principle very well when he said:

“And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark 2:27-28

Quite plainly here Jesus told his critics that they were in error concerning the Sabbath for man was not made to be subservient to it, but the Sabbath instead was made for the benefit of humanity. The sons of men are therefore to be masters of the use of the Sabbath – the Sabbath is not to be the master of us.

We all realize that the Sabbath is a period of rest and it is generally recognized that a period of rest now and then is a good idea, but the principle goes deeper than that. The Sabbath period is actually a prime ingredient in the creation process itself. This is, of course, where we were first introduced to the Sabbath for we are told that God created the world in six periods and rested on the seventh period.

Preceding the creative process is a period of rest or stillness where the work to do is contemplated. The creator is not taking any physical action, but instead is in deep contemplation thinking of the work to be done. Then the effective creator will go forward and work on that which has been decided upon and labor for a period approximately equal to six times the contemplation period.

This is where many visionaries fail. They go forth and work one of two times the contemplation period and quit because the vision has not yet materialized. Then they create a new vision and fail again.

“He who endures to the end will be saved” means that one must work through the six periods of creation to be delivered from failure.

A key to understanding here is that the first period of creation may be of a different time period than the second and the second different than the third, etc, but if one understands the six periods he will always materialize his heart’s desire. I hope to elaborate on these six periods soon.

After the six periods are over a creation will be completed. The creator must take another period of rest and contemplate the value of the completed work. Then he must examine his creation as did God in Genesis and declare the work to be “good” or not worth keeping and revise or start over.

From Archive 1319

***

Brother Brown:

Do you have an opinion concerning what Yeshua said about the “flight” entered into, after one “sees” the Abomination of Desolation:

Mt 24:20 Pray that your flight will not be in the winter, nor on the Sabbath

Do you think Yeshua in bringing up the Sabbath, was referencing a specific time or day, or as JJ thinks, a period of contemplation? Just why should we pray our flight is not on the Sabbath?

JJ

The reason Jesus said this had nothing to do with the technicalities of the Sabbath. There would be two main occasions where the ancient Jews would be reluctant to leave their homes and flee. The first would be during the cold of winter. The second would be during the Sabbath. Because they had such a fear of offending God by not resting on the Sabbath many would not flee and lose their lives.

Fleeing is hard work and distracts from focusing peacefully on God.

 

Feb 20, 2015

Moral Guidance

Today I received a letter from an LDS mother. She and her husband have been losing interest in the church for she feels it is like attending kindergarten. They have been reading my writings and are concerned about their children. On one hand, they like the idea of the kids learning basic values the church teaches, but on the other they do not want them to get brainwashed into blindly following authority.

She wants to know what advice I may have.

It is rare to find a question I have not covered in the archives, but I do not think I have written about this yet.

As our society becomes more structured our kids face more indoctrination than ever before. Unfortunately, the schools are becoming worse than the churches. Many concerned parents are home schooling their children so they can protect their kids from bias and give them the education they desire for them.

In some situations this turns out to be beneficial, but in others where the parents are not good teachers or examples it may not. It is interesting that most of the kids who win the national spelling bee are home schooled.

Now we are entering an age where a lot of parents also want to home church their kids. They realize that the little crumb crunchers need to learn some of the basic lessons taught in Sunday School, but they do not want them indoctrinated or to get caught up in an authoritative system.

Again, the question is – what to do.

First I’ll tell you how I was raised. It was good for me, but wouldn’t be for many.

All the spiritual guidance in my home came from my mom as my Dad’s philosophy of life revolved around drinking partying and having a good time. I never heard him speak of church, religion, God or morality.

There was one time that my Mom did seek some moral guidance from my Dad. When my older brother approached dating age she decided that that some good moral advice from my Dad was in order so she asked him to give him some counsel. He took my bother in the bedroom, sat him down and closed the door, but my mom put her ear to the door and listened. She was somewhat horrified with what she heard which went something like this:

“Bill (my brother’s name)… You’re approaching the age where you’ll be dating girls, going to parties, drinking and having fun – so I have some advice for you. First, don’t get tied down to an old lady the way I have. Go out and have a good time while you’re young and can enjoy yourself. You’ve only got so many years here so do whatever it takes to have a good time. Just enjoy yourself and have fun. That’s about all I have to say.”

My mom was horrified, but the die was cast and my brother took my Dad’s advice. He was a hit with the ladies, did a lot of partying, drinking and had a good time. Later he had to overcome alcoholism, but overall he turned out to be a great guy, though he did turn out to be an atheist.

Anyway, after this experience my Mom was determine to get me to avoid situations where I would get any advice from my Dad. Neither of my parents attended church or took me there. My mother partied and drank with my Dad mostly to keep an eye on him.

As far as going to church went my mom didn’t believe in influencing me. She told me that if I wanted to go then fine and if not fine. The choice was up to me. Well, I went a couple times and found it to be incredibly boring so the choice was easy. I decided not to go.

I wasn’t totally devoid of guidance though as my mom gave me good moral advice on the basics. I learned to not lie, cheat, steal etc. She also taught me to say my prayers each evening. This was perhaps the most important thing she did for me spiritually as I never doubted the existence of God.

Having the responsibility for my spiritual course placed totally upon my shoulders was nice in a way for it gave me freedom of choice, but I felt a little uneasy in the fact that many others attended church while I did not. Maybe I would miss out on getting to heaven in the next world.

I’ve already written about my journey from this point so I’ll include part of it from the archives below, but don’t worry. I will get around to answering the main question.

When I was about twelve we moved from Boise to a farming area and lived not far from my sweet but overly religious grandmother. She took it upon herself to get me active in the church. Every Sunday morning she would just show up at the house to pick me up. Unfortunately she was such a nice person that I couldn’t say no to her. I don’t think anyone could say no to her.

She would wait for me to get dressed and take me to church.

I was so bored all I did was suffer in silence. The authorities interpreted this as reverence and always complimented me on what a good kid I was and stated that they wished the other rowdy boys were more like me.

After a few weeks of this I smartened up and kept an eye out for my grandmother driving up. As soon as I saw her car approaching I climbed out the back window and ran into the prune orchard and hid until she was gone.

Then a short time later we moved into a house that was just a few feet away from a Mormon church. My grandmother didn’t pick me up as I didn’t need a ride, but I did feel a little guilty about not going and went once or twice. Once when I was there, the Bishop grabbed me and took me in his office.

He sat me down and suggested that since I was now so close to the church that I should attend regularly.

I told him that I did not plan on it as I found church extremely boring.

When I said this he just about choked and incredulously gasped back, “Boring? How can you say that? What is boring?”

“The speeches for one thing,” I said. “They are so boring they put me to sleep.”

“How can you say that?” asked the Bishop. “We have wonderful speakers here who give uplifting talks. They are very inspiring to listen to.”

“Not for me,” I said.

“Is there anything else that bores you,” he asked.

“Yes,” I said. “The Hymns are boring beyond belief. They are almost painful, to listen to.”

The Bishop really gasped at this statement. It was as if he had never heard a statement like this before in his life. “I don’t understand you saying this. Our hymns are wonderful. I love to listen to them.”

“Well I enjoy listening to some good rock and roll,” I said, “and by comparison the hymns just don’t cut it.”

The poor Bishop seemed devastated with my attitude and I think he saw me as a lost cause.

After my talk with the Bishop I pretty much was determined to stay away from church as much as possible. There was one thing that nagged at me, however, and that was the idea that if you went to church and were good then you would reap a heavenly abode. If not then you would go to the lower regions where who knows what awaits you. I decided that maybe if I went to church once in a while I would be able to keep my foot in the door just in case.

One time when I attended the Bishop grabbed me again and took me in his office.

He said: “I hear you drink and smoke. Is that right?” He seemed a little incredulous since I was only 12 at the time.

I looked back curiously wondering where he had heard this. My parents drank and smoked so I thought that was all right to do. My friends and I would take advantage of cigarettes and beer whenever the opportunity permitted.

“Well, yes, I do sometimes,” I said.

“Well God doesn’t want you to do that,” he said.

“I wasn’t aware of that,” I replied.

Then he explained to be about the Word of Wisdom revelation through Joseph Smith and the harmfulness of the products and implored me to give up those vices.

I thought about it for a few seconds and decided it would be a good idea to give them up and told him I would do so.

(I do not smoke to this day and did not drink again until the church threw me out at age 33.)

He must have been pleased with himself as I’m sure he saw progress was being made.

Then a few weeks later he called me again into his office. He looked at me and said:

“You know that when you are twelve you can be ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood and become a Deacon. You are almost thirteen and you have not been ordained yet. Don’t you think it is about time you took the step?”

I answered back, “If I am ordained and decide I do not like being a deacon can I quit?”

“Oh, no,” the Bishop replied, shaking his head. “The Priesthood is eternal and you have it forever when you get it.”

“Then I do not want it,” I replied. “I’m not prepared to be a priesthood holder forever at this time.”

The poor Bishop. The last meeting he saw progress and this one he saw none.

I went to church maybe once in six weeks until I was into my thirteenth year. One Sunday morning I was on my way to my token church visit and I started thinking to myself something like this.

I have to figure out what I am going to do with this going-to-church business. This halfhearted attendance isn’t accomplishing anything. I either need to be like my Dad and not go to church and live life entirely by my own will and pleasure or take this church going seriously.

So what are the plusses and minuses here?

If I don’t go to church I could go to hell, but I could have a good time here and have lots of fun in my life.

If I do go to church I will be much more restricted by the religious teachings and bored to death in all the meetings I will have to attend. As I thought about it the boredom with the meetings would be the most difficult to handle.

Then I decided to put the whole thing in a wider perspective. If I go to church for a lifetime and behave myself I will then be entitled to an eternity of heavenly bliss and joy.

If I do not go to church and just pursue a life a pleasure then I risk and eternity of misery.

Logically it comes down to this. Compared to eternity a lifetime is less than an hour or even a minute. Now suppose someone came to me and told me that if I endured boredom for one hour that I could have anything I wanted for the rest of my life. Would I do it? Of course. It would be a no brainer.

Should I then attend church for a short lifetime to have an eternity of heavenly joy? Life is less than a minute by comparison to eternity. Logically, this also seemed like a no brainer. There’s only one problem I told myself. I was just not sure if I was psychologically constituted to handle the boredom of attending all the meetings and of all the churches on the planet I think the Mormons have more meetings than them all.

I then made a deal with myself. I decided that I would commit myself to full church attendance for six weeks. During this time I would attend every meeting there is to be had no matter how bored I was.

Then after six weeks I would assess the situation as to whether I could handle attending meetings for the rest of my life. If I could handle it then I would become a regular church-goer and assimilate the whole program. If I felt I could not handle it then I would take the same course as my Dad did and live a happy-go-lucky life without the burden of church.

I kept my agreement with myself and attended all the church meetings for the six-week time period. The first couple weeks I forced myself to go and I just endured the boring lectures, classes, meetings, hymns, etc.

Then I started studying the other boys. I found most of them found church every bit as boring as myself and unlike me, who was going of my own free will, they went because their parents dragged them there. Once at church instead of just sitting quietly, as I had been doing, they seemed to make the best of entertaining themselves.

In Sunday School class they did all they could to aggravate the teacher. They threw spit wads and erasers at each other and made jokes about the teacher when his back was turned.

That said I just have to relate one memorable event. Around that time Sunday School class was taught by my friend Wayne’s grandfather whose name was True. Nobody liked him very much and the kids did everything in their power to aggravate him. When he was aggravated he would just scream at the class but we soon discovered that his bark was worse than his bite and the more the kids could get him to scream the more entertained they were.

I was often late to class and everything else and sometimes when I was strolling down the hall to Sunday School class I would hear True yelling at the top of his lungs: “This is the house of the Lord and you’re supposed to be quiet!!!”

“Not much quiet coming from him,” I thought to myself.

Then one Sunday, True was sick and the class was taken over by his daughter, Gladys. Immediately the kids had a nickname for her and started calling her Glad Ass. I’m not sure if she caught the nickname or not.

Anyway we made the mistake of thinking that Gladys would be a pushover just like her dad and everyone started horsing around. Then when Gladys turned her back and started writing on the blackboard the kid next to me, named Mark, picked up an eraser and threw it at another kid. Gladys must have had eyes in the back of her head because she immediately stopped writing, turned around and walked toward Mark with a very serious look on her face.

Suddenly the class went deathly quiet. Gladys forced her head about three inches away from Mark’s head and said: “If you do that again you will regret it.”

Then she turned around and started writing again on the blackboard.

Suddenly Mark sported a giant grin and the whole class lightened up. As a leader of the rebels we knew Mark was not going to let a slightly built female intimidate him.

A few minutes later Mark got hold of another eraser. He held it in his hand and looked over the room still wearing that big grin. When Gladys’ back was turned he threw it at another kid.

Instantly Gladys quit writing on the blackboard, turned around and walked toward Mark. She moved toward him and stopped again a few inches from his head. The class was quiet as a tomb wondering what she was going to do. Mark didn’t seem concerned as he was still grinning, but not so much as before.

Then after about three seconds of ungodly silence Gladys grabbed Mark by his two ears and with great force banged his head on the wall behind him about six times.

Then she stopped, turned around and resumed writing on the blackboard.

We were all absolutely stunned. I checked with Mark to see if he was okay. He said it hurt his ears more than it did his head.

For the rest of the class all the boys were perfect angels. The same went for the next Sunday, but when her father True returned things went back to normal.

Anyway a study of the other boys revealed that they made the best of their time in church as to relieving themselves of the boredom. I wasn’t really into aggravating the teachers even though my constant lateness to everything did manage to do that somewhat. I was not only late to church meetings, but also my school classes.

I remember one day I was so late to Sunday School class that I figured I better sneak in. I went outside the building and found a window to the class and motioned to a friend to open it. When the teacher’s back was turned I climbed through the window and sat in the chair.

The teacher turned around and looked at me and said, “Oh, hi, Joe, I didn’t see you there before. Would you please give the prayer?”

I looked around and then said, “Which do I give? The opening or closing?”

All the kids laughed because I didn’t know if the class was beginning or ending and I was put on the spot.

Anyway I decided that overall I didn’t want to irritate the teachers and authorities any more than necessary and sought for other ways to do my part in relieving the boredom.

One thing I did was to start a contest to see who could bring the most outrageous thing to eat or drink during the Sacrament meeting without getting caught. I took the cake on the eating part when I brought pork chops and ate them without getting caught, but my friend John Cannon won the prize on the drink. He brought a large Coke, sat in the midst of the congregation, and drank the whole thing with no straw without getting caught.

My friend Brent tried to match his record and came to church with a large Coke in his inside jacket pocket. To his surprise the Bishop called him to go up front and give the opening prayer. We all watched him as he walked up the isle. The weight of the Coke made his jacket sway back and forth and we thought the Coke was going to fall out and roll down the isle. We thought that would have been the funniest thing possible, but Brent managed to give the prayer and return to his seat without incident.

Anyway, after the six weeks I assessed the situation and decided that with a little improvisation that I could handle attending church and I decided to keep going. I just hoped that the things I would have to do to entertain myself wouldn’t keep me out of heaven.

I discovered that blending in with the other guys who were as bored of church as I was took the edge off dealing with the problem. I made a number of friends who went to church, usually dragged there by their parents, and enjoyed mingling with them after the service was over.

As we were talking before going home we often had our own theological discussions much more interesting than church services. Some of the questions for speculation were:

Do we still eat after we die?

This was probably the number one mystery to us as all of us enjoyed good food and didn’t want to go without it in the next world.

Then we wondered if we would still maintain our sexual identity and the part it would play in the upper and lower kingdoms.

A lot of people thought Jesus was going to come again before 1970. The elderly Mrs. Jones was always teaching that He would come in 1966. We hoped this was wrong as we all had a lot of fun stuff we wanted to do that it seemed the coming of Jesus would spoil.

We talked about the mystery of how some friends as they got older turned into religious babblers, especially after they went on missions. Whenever someone came back from a mission the question we wanted answered was whether or not “they” got to him.

I remember my friend Brent visiting me after a rebel friend came back from a mission. He entered the door with a somber look on his face.

“What’s the matter?” I asked.

He looked at me and said, “They got him!”

“They got who?”

“Nels,” he said. “I never thought Nels would go religious on us but they got him.”

“That’s too bad,” I said. “Maybe he’ll shake out of it after a while.”

“I don’t know,” said Brent. “He’s even got that missionary twang when he speaks.

Nels did partially recover but he and others scared us as to what we could become if we were not careful.

Older people in general concerned us. It was a mystery to us that they liked the big band music and couldn’t relate to rock and roll. It was a mystery as to why devout church goers were about 30 years behind on fashion and always drove so slow. We all hoped that was not going to be our fate as we grew up.

During these discussions I must have told someone I believed in reincarnation as one day the Bishop again called me into his office and said, “I hear you believe in reincarnation.”

“Yes” I said. “It makes sense to me.”

“That’s a false doctrine,” He said. “In fact it is the doctrine of the devil.”

“Is that so?” I asked incredulously. “Is there anything in the scriptures about it?”

“Yes there is,” he said and fetched a Bible and turned to Hebrews 9:27 and read: “It is given to man once to die and after this the judgment.” He put the Bible down and said, “See. This tells us we only die once. That means there is only one life.”

“It does seem to say that,” I said.

The Bishop looked at me again and added, “Furthermore, the Prophet has said there is only one life and we know he is correct because he speaks for God. Now will you accept there is only one life and stop telling people you believe in reincarnation?”

The prophet speaking for God didn’t impress me that much but I did believe the Bible was true and the scripture did seem to indicate one life. Based on that I told the Bishop I would accept the idea of one physical life, though at the time it did not seem a fair system.

While still in my thirteenth year I developed an interest in making homemade rockets. I was a little like the guy in the movie October Sky except my first rockets were completely homemade including the engines.

On the day after Christmas Dec 26, 1958 my friend Larry Larson and I were completing a rocket engine made of a CO2 cartridge fueled match heads from book matches. I was just finishing tamping the last match heads of the 25th book when it exploded in my left hand in the kitchen.

After the smoke cleared I looked at my hand and saw that it was a mangled mess. I thought I was going to lose my whole hand. Then I wondered about my right and was afraid to look at it. I could live with the loss of one hand, but what if both were damaged? Finally I drummed up the courage and pulled my right hand up before my eyes. I was greatly relieved to see that it was OK. My mom wrapped my hand in a towel and got a neighbor to drive me and Larry to the hospital. Larry had a couple pieces of metal strike his hand but he was not hurt badly.

After we got to the hospital they did surgery on me for eight hours. A lot of the work consisted of digging out match heads that were blown up into my wrist and arm. They finally sewed me up with over a hundred stitches.

As I was recovering I received a lot of visitors. There was one thing everyone said and that was how lucky I was. I didn’t feel very lucky, but everyone said I was lucky I wasn’t dead.

Another thing that just about all visiting adults, especially church authorities, said was:

“I bet this taught you a lesson to never make rockets again.”

I enjoyed tweaking them by replying:

“Well, I won’t be making them until I get out of the hospital. I will be more careful next time though.”

This statement always sent a jolt through their consciousness.

Actually, this was a truthful statement. I did plan on making more rockets after I got out of the hospital. In fact someone brought me a book to read on rockets and my interest was much greater than ever.

Reading this book changed my life in two different ways. First it increased my desire to learn scientific principles and secondly it was the first book I had ever read in my life. I read what I had to in school, but had never read a book through on my own. It took the boredom of a hospital room to force me to start reading so there was a silver lining in the accident.

As it turned out I lost three fingers and badly damaged the rest of the hand. Altogether I had six surgeries over a three year time period to make a useable hand.

After I got out of the hospital I built more rockets than ever, but safer ones. Instead of making my own engines I ordered them pre-made from Colorado. After church I often invited a crowd over to my place to watch the launching of a new rocket.

This kind of concerned church authorities as some thought was leading other kids in a dangerous direction. I had difficulty in convincing some adults that the new rocket engines that were pre-made were safe.

As I now look back I am surprised I didn’t get thrown out of the Mormon church earlier than I did.

 

Feb 23, 2015

Moral Guidance, Part II

It’s about time I finished my comments on the subject of the Lady wanting advice on guiding her children with or without church influence.

I gave some details of my youth because I had an unusual upbringing with no influence from my parents to attend church. Because I wound up finding the spiritual path on my own it is much more a part of my life than many I grew up with who were forced into attending church. Many of them grew up to be like their parents and forced their kids to attend church also.

There was one person in my family who did stimulate my interest in the scriptures and that was my oldest sister who was strong in the Mormon Church at the time. While visiting us she noticed that I had a strong interest in science, particularly astronomy. Always on the lookout to stimulate interest she said something like this to me:

“Did you know that in a revelation to Abraham that God revealed to him the secrets of the universe, the stars and the planets? In his book there are secrets to astronomy that regular science does not know.”

“Really,” I said. “I have never heard such a thing before. I thought the scriptures just had boring stuff in them.”

“Oh, no,” she said. “This is really fascinating. Would you like to read the astronomy part?”

“I suppose I could,” I said.

“I’ll tell you what,” she said. “Next time I go shopping I’ll get you the scriptures containing the Book of Abraham.”

“You don’t have to do that.”

“I insist,” she said. “You will want your own copy.”

The next day she delivered to me a leather bound copy of a beautiful book containing all the LDS scriptures. Out of about a thousand pages there were only a handful relating the writings of Abraham. I thanked her for it and decided that since she made such an investment in the book that I would at least read the astronomy part.

I read the revelation of Abraham about the heavens and their creation and found it different than I expected, but still quite interesting. Shortly thereafter I read the entire volume so her investment turned out to be well placed.

Even though results that are a part of free will are the most potent most kids need a little help from outer authority. Since each kid is different a wise parent will find that one size does not fit all. With some you can merely gently nudge them toward the good path. With others some strictness and strong discipline may be required.

A lot of kids require structure and influence from friends. For these, attending a church supplies them with friends who also attend and some of the guidance that many need.

Then there are kids like I was that don’t need the church. The more someone tries to influence a kid like I was to go to church the more would be the resistance.

Now many parents just do not have the will or the talent to provide at home what the church provides, but if they do they could set apart a time or two each week where the family gets together and discusses the scriptures or other spiritual writings. If they make this interesting it could be better than church.

Now let us get to the core question. What should a parent do when they realize that many things taught in the churches are either not correct or lead the child in the wrong direction, but still offer some good moral lessons?

This is an awkward situation. I will tell you what I would do, but of course, each parent must make their own decisions.

I would tell each of the kids that the choice is entirely theirs whether or not they want to attend church. If they decide to attend I would then ask them what they learned and discuss each lesson with all the children present. If there is something wrong or incomplete with the lesson I would supply them with more complete and truthful information.

Whether or not they attend church I would set apart at least one time a week to teach them something spiritual. In between I would look for opportunities to teach. Kids resist things that take a lot of time so numerous short sessions is much better than one or two long ones.

The way to instigate a short teaching session is to merely ask a question. The dinner table is a good place to do this. If the kids are interested in movies, like Star Wars, you could ask something like: Do you think God created life on other planets? What do you think they look like? Do you think that maybe they had their own version of Jesus?

If the kids are interested in a certain kind of music you could ask: “Do you think they listen to music like this after we die or do you think we’ll just listen to church music?

Questions are a good way to stimulate anyone’s interest.

One important point is that some kids are a lot smarter than parents think. There are a lot of twelve year olds who would read a book like The Immortal on their own if encouraged and many more who would enjoy having it read to them. Many children can comprehend adult materials better than we think.

There is a need for children’s stories that teach higher metaphysical truths in a easy to understand format. The popularity of the Harry Potter books illustrates that kids imagination can be captivated by mystical story telling. What we need are Harry Potter type books that actually teach higher principles.

I don’t know if I will have time to tackle such a project in this lifetime, but someone should.

Kids are indeed a precious resource. Every time I see my grandkids or think back to when my children were little my heart is touched by the great need to gently push them in the right direction so they can find fulfillment in life.

 

Feb 25, 2015

Diet, Health and Spirit

I received several questions from Allan’s group and thought the answers may be of interest to both groups so I will post this to both places.

Allan’s group is very interested in the vegetarian diet and considers it to be an important literal (not allegorical) step in spiritual progress. They are repulsed by the idea that I eat meat and do their best to convince me of the error of my ways. From my reading of posts on their forum I would say that they see the vegetarian diet as THE most important step one can take in making spiritual progress. Doing this seems to be more important than how one treats his fellow men, how much he loves, how close he is to the Spirit, the pursuit of knowledge etc. It appears they believe that unless one becomes a vegetarian for all time that he will hit a wall in his spiritual progress.

I’m sure they will disagree with my assessment, (as they do any assessment I make of their thinking) but this is the way they come across to me.

They claim that Jesus was a strict vegetarian and give references from the Gospel of the Nazirenes to back this up. This is a rework of The Gospel of the Holy Twelve produced by the vegetarian activist, Gideon Jasper Ouseley with the editing assistance of Emmanuel Swedenborg. He claimed it is a translation of a manuscript found in Tibet, yet the manuscript has never been produced. He claims the actual translation process was accomplished “in dreams and visions of the night” rather than the normal method used by scholars.

Most scholars who have examined it give it little credibility and believe it to be partially a compilation of fragments, gospels and pure imagination.

It is interesting that the biggest difference between this gospel and all other versions about Jesus is the emphasis on vegetarianism. Anywhere in the regular gospels where there is a mention of meat eating in connection to Jesus has either been changed or deleted. For example, when Jesus fed the 5000, this gospel has him multiplying bread and grapes rather than bread and fishes.

Then it leaves out Jesus showing Peter where to cast his net to catch fish, Peter catching a fish with money therein to pay a ax and Jesus eating fish after the resurrection.

When I read The Gospel of the Nazirenes it reads to me as a synthesis of what Ouseley thought was the best of available material with deliberate changes made to support his vegetarian agenda.
The other gospel that Allan supports as being true is the Gospel of Thomas. Most scholars do not think that the apostle Thomas actually wrote it but was compiled more than a century after his death and attributed to him. At least this one was translated from actual ancient manuscripts, however. This gives no evidence that Jesus had a vegetarian diet, but to the contrary it says:

“…when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.”

Jesus was often invited to dinner and since most people eat meat, this is obviously what he was often served. When he was served meat, did he eat it? If he was not a hypocrite then, yes he did.

Why?

The verse explains that:

“what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.”

So the Jesus in Thomas tells us that he is not that concerned about what you eat, as far as defilement goes, but is very concerned about the words you speak, or what goes out of your mouth.

Allan’s group maintains this has to be interpreted allegorically even though they seem to take the rest of it quite literally.

Now let us get to their dialog. One big problem I have with Allan and his group is they seem to have great difficulty in understanding my position on various teachings. For instanced, one posters states my position as follows:

“Basically, my understanding of JJ’s position is that, based upon the Alice Bailey teachings, the ONLY reason why a person would ever need to become a vegetarian is in order to read the Akashic records.”

This is not correct at all. I believe there are numerous reasons for seekers to become vegetarians. Gaining the ability to read the Akashic records is just one of many. Now one can still access the Akashic records on a meat eating diet, but a vegetarian diet will aid in sensitivity so the seeker can read with greater accuracy.

Edgar Cayce was a meat eater and he read some of the records and Alan often quotes him as a reliable source. Just becoming a vegetarian will not make you a more reliable reader of the records than was Edgar Cayce, a meat eater. The ability to accurately read the records is something that has not been attained by any regular mortal that I know. Do we even know of any who can read them better than meat eater Edgar Cayce? If so, let them produce some historical records that are not past life memories.

The ability to accurately read the Akashic records is more of a goal set before us of what is possible for us to accomplish rather than something accomplished by any significant number of seekers, vegetarian or not.

For me to accurately read the Akashic records would require a consecrated dedication toward that end in this life and would force me to take my attention away from other work I came here to do. We can only do so much in each life and the disciple must assess the work to be done and the tools he needs to accomplish it and proceed with wisdom.

Now Keith, our resident prophet in the Keys, may be able to read the records accurately. If you are reading this Keith, could you tell us about your diet? Are you a vegetarian?

I have taught various times that there are a number of advantages to a vegetarian diet. The most important advantage for a seeker is that it reduces the power our appetites and passions have over us and assists the aspirant to achieve the first and second initiations, which involves mastering the physical appetites, passions and the emotions to keep them under control.

BUT…

When a person has sufficiently placed these under his control he can eat meat and still maintain that control. He merely gains the ability to negate the extra carnal pull generated by meat eating.

Are there other advantages to a vegetarian diet?

Yes, if it is done correctly. Many vegetarians go on a badly selected diet that is not as healthy as that of the standard meat eater. If the vegetarian eats too much processed food, doesn’t buy organic, eats too much sugar, starch and cheese and doesn’t get his B12 then he may wind up in worse shape than most meat eaters.

On the other hand, an intelligently selected diet of living foods can do much to enhance the health. About two years ago I was feeling a little sluggish and went on a vegetarian diet consisting only of raw fruits and vegetables with no meat or animal products and nothing that was cooked for about six months. Then I resumed my normal diet and have felt a lot better since.

I am presently 70 years old and in good health and take no prescription or over the counter drugs. I feel like I still have a lot of mileage in me and hope this to be the case as there are still a lot of things I wish to accomplish.

I’ve gone on a vegetarian diet several times in my life and definitely notice the inclination to focus on the inner world and ignore the outer. This would have been fine for me if I didn’t need to give the outer world the attention needed to support my family. If you have work to do in the outer world then the eating of meat grounds you so you can focus better on the work to do. On the other hand, if one has no concerns about making a living or outer work then a vegetarian diet helps one to focus on the inner.

Many advanced souls who have had important outer work to do have eaten meat such as Abraham Lincoln, Joseph Smith, Winston Churchill, H.P. Blavatsky, Edgar Cayce, the apostles Peter and Paul in the New Testament and many more.

I’ve been asked to clarify how the vegetarian diet influences or affects the access to data from the Akashic records, access to principles, the higher or inner worlds etc.

To understand this we must understand the purpose of the body.

The first thing to realize is that we are not our bodies but the various bodies we occupy in different lifetimes are merely vehicles. Just as one person may own many cars at different times, even so do we have different bodies in different lives. But, just as you are still you whether you drive a Porsche or a Prius you are also you whether you are male or female, good looking or plain, strong or weak etc.

Because you are always you does not mean your vehicle does not have an influence on you. Your attitude and confidence may be quite different when driving up in a Porsche than in a Prius. The Porsche is also much more powerful and can get you from A to B much faster than the Prius. But both cars can perform the basic function of getting you where you need to go.

The important thing with out bodies, considering that they are vehicles is to keep them in the shape we need so we can accomplish what we need to do with them. The food, or fuel, we put in them has different effects. The number one priority is to feed ourselves with good ingredients so our vehicles will stay in good condition through our lives.

If your health is good you can accomplish just about anything that anyone can do in a body. Beyond the attainment of good health one can increase sensitivity according to the lightness of heaviness of foods eaten. Live foods grown above the ground are particularly light, those grown in the ground are more dense and meat is more dense still. By concentrating on eating the lighter foods the body as a tool will offer greater sensitivity to some types of contacts in certain grades of matter while dulling contact in the dense matter of the earth plane.

Beyond keeping the body in good shape and healthy one needs to assess how he wants to use his body and give it the materials needed so it will be an aid for him in accomplishing his goals rather than a hindrance.

The type of body we have does not cause us to become more evolved or spiritual any more than a Porsche will make you smarter than a Prius. Your spiritual evolution is not dependant on your body. We only depend on our bodies to help us in accomplishing our life’s goals whatever they may be.

There are certain types of spiritual work that become easier with a body adjusted by lighter foods, such as reading the Akashic records – a very difficult task to do accurately.

As far as one’s spiritual evolution and ability to penetrate higher spheres to ascertain true principles goes our ability is not strongly influenced by the lightness or heaviness of the body. The main way the body can distract here is if it is suffering will ill health or in a painful state.

Stephen King will be a good writer whether he is typing on a Mac or a Dell computer. His ability to come up with ideas and put them into words only depends on having a functioning tool. His will and experience as made him a good writer, not his writing machine.

Even so it is with my body. The main thing I need from it is to function well and not distract me with pain or disease. So far it is doing a good job for me as it doesn’t hinder me from accessing the realm wherein lies true principles. If other work requites a lighter or heavier body I will make changes but will always do what I can to keep it healthy and well.

 

Feb 27, 2015

Confirming Decisions

Yesterday I posted these words:

Part of my job (and others) is to find these souls and help them find themselves and dispel the negative cloud between them and their souls.

To this a reader responded to me as follows:

I am interested in anything you might elaborate on about how to dispel the cloud between myself and my soul. I am seeking that experience where I finally know without any doubt if I am on the right track. Till then I just keep going forward with my best judgment.

First, let me say this. We learn wisdom through our decisions and the tougher the decision the more we learn. Therefore, with many of the decisions of life the soul, or higher lives that are linked to us, just sit back and let us stumble around so we can learn our needed lessons. There are exceptions to every rule, however, and there are times when we reach an important fork in the road where the decision made is bigger than the individual, but will affect many people. There are times when this situation occurs that the seeker will receive a definite communication affirming the correct path ahead. This may come through an inner voice, a spiritual fire or a vivid dream.

Sometimes, after a disciple has this confirmation happen he may think decision-making will be easy from that point on because his soul will clearly guide him. He may then reach a point of decision which he thinks is important and seeks guidance with all his heart but nothing seems to come. He is again faced with what seems to be an important choice yet this time he is all on his own.

Why is this?

There are two reasons a person may receive confirmation:

(1) The soul sees from a higher angle of vision than yourself and in its eyes the first decision where he received confirmation had more far reaching effects. The alternative choice would have made things much worse for a significant number of people.

(2) Before you were born you planned out your life as much as possible and had certain decision points where the correct choice was essential. When you reach one of these points in your life you may get some type of clear confirmation as to which path to take.

If neither of these two reasons are at play in your life then the chances are that you will just have to reply on the highest you know and use your best judgment. Sometimes you receive no guidance because either choice you make will turn out to be beneficial. Let us say that you are faced with a career choice between being a doctor and a lawyer. You seek guidance as to which would be the better choice but nothing comes.

Why?

Because you will learn much and accomplish much in either profession. The choice may seem crucial to you, but to your soul it may not matter that much.

Now, we not only get confirmation on a positive path but there are times where the disciple will receive a powerful negative impression on a possible disastrous path.

Several times in my life my soul has warned me to keep my distance from certain individuals I have met.

Several times in my single years when I was considering pursuing marriage my soul sent me a definite unmistakable message basically saying, “No. This person may be a good individual, but she is not for you.”

There have been other times where I faced a decision and as I began to proceed upon a path I received a powerful negative feeling that even affected me physically. It made my mouth as dry as cotton and made me feel weak. When this comes I have learned to not ignore it.

Then there were other decisions in my life I personally thought were very important, but it seemed my soul did not for I was left completely on my own. I find that for most of our decisions we are completely on our own, left to our best judgment so we can learn to be as wise as our Higher Self.

An important point to realize is that even if the cloud between you and your soul is removed and you become soul infused you will not receive higher guidance on all things. If you did it would stunt your learning. If you are in close contact with your soul you will, however, find that decision making is easier because you will see more clearly into the future and how your decisions will affect it.

As to how to dispel the barriers between he seeker and the soul goes I have already written volumes on this. Those interested in reading more can go to freeread.com, go to the search feature and type in the words “soul contact” in quotation marks. Lots of reading on the subject will come up.

I will add this one thing. Even if you do not recall getting confirmation on a direction you can tell the value of a path chosen by how you feel inside as you are pursuing it. If you are moving toward a goal that will produce positive results then you will feel energized, your mind will be clear and you will find yourself at peace and happy when working.

If you are on a path that is against your best interests then you will lack energy, your mind will seem darkened and you will have to force yourself to do your work.

If you find yourself in this second situation the best course is to take care of commitments and change course at the first opportunity.

Happiness consists of three things: someone to love, work to do, and a clear conscience. Anonymous

 

Feb 28, 2015

Ripples in Divine Space

Ruth covered a lot of territory in her post. I’ll give out some information and principles and hope it covers her questions.

First she says: “When we die from our physical death, we have a life review with or from our Soul/Solar Angel/higher self.”

After you die and then make it through the lower astral realms you are reunited with your soul. You as a soul then go to the life review. Because your awareness is much greater after being reunited you already have a pretty good idea how the life review will go for you have done some personal reviewing already. The review is conducted by a small number (usually three) advanced souls out of incarnation. They review your life with you and note the successes and failures and what you can do to prepare for your next incarnation.

Then she wants clarification on who we are and our relationship with our soul, Solar Angel etc.

We covered who we are quite thoroughly in the first two Immortal books. Our essence is the power that makes decisions, making decision a prime key of knowledge. Our first decision in this universe was as a monad, a point of light and intelligence in Divine Space. The decision was whether to be or not to be. that was the question. You and I decided To Be and then To Become.

We then descended into and through the Atmic and Buddhic planes and then we were born as souls in the plane of the mind where form as we know it has its beginnings. As new souls we had difficulty with our progression so we were overshadowed by solar angels, great entities who had mastered form in a previous system. After the overshadowing it seemed as if we were one life with our Solar Angels and this allowed us to be guided by greater wisdom and intelligence as souls than we would have otherwise possessed.

When we incarnate the soul projects part of its essence, a fragment, into the newly created body. The body has a life essence and elementary intelligence of its own. It is something like a computer program compared to a computer operator who could be compared to the fragment of the soul.

The body acts like a veil and creates a barrier between you and the full consciousness of your soul. As you adapt to the body and its attributes you tend to identify with it in many ways and forget who you really are. You thus enter life with great limitations, but the limitations present a great challenge, and overcoming them gives opportunities for a lot of growth and progress.

To understand the linkages let us use the Law of Correspondences. Think of how much life is different and more limited for you when you are in a dream. You are still you, but not the whole you. The mental part of yourself is missing. Your dream self is created mostly from your emotional body. Because the mental part of yourself is on a higher plane you are not aware that you are d reaming and not aware of all the control you could have over your dream.

On the other hand it is possible to have vivid dreams where you tease part of your mind to enter the dream. Then you can become aware that you are dreaming and assume more control.

Even so, this earth life is like a dream of the soul. Just as your dream self is a fragment of your waking self, even so is your waking self a fragment of your soul. In addition the soul is a fragment of the full consciousness of the monad. But then the monad is a fragment of higher group life. This extends up to the One Great Life we call God.

Picture throwing a pebble into a still body of water and watch the ripples. The first layer of ripples are large and after extended they get smaller and smaller until they are no more.

Our monad is the first ripple in the waters of divine space. The next ripple is the soul, the next an incarnation as a human, the next the dream state and the final a dream within a dream that we sometimes have. Here the ripples end.

We incarnate again and again until we become soul infused and, while in the body, we function in the consciousness of the soul rather than be governed by other lower lives and influences. When this happens our Solar Angel realizes it has done its job as our heavenly nurturing mother and returns to its true home.

From that point on the pilgrim is overshadowed by his monad, his personal Father in Heaven.

***

SPRING VALLEY, N.Y. — A husband and wife thought to be Rockland County’s oldest married couple will celebrate their birthdays this weekend — with a combined age of 212.

Duranord Veillard will turn 108 on Saturday while his wife of 82 years, Jeanne, turns 105 in May.

JJ

When I read stories about those who have lived to a very advanced age I m always interested to see what kind of diet they have been on. Almost always it includes some type of meat. I read about a lady in Peru 116 or so years old whose main source of protein was goat meat from goats she raised. Then I read another around the same age who ate ham hocks every morning and yet another who ate a large dose of bacon and eggs every morning.

This story gives the diet of the 108 year old guy and I assume the 105 year old wife is on a similar one.

Veillard starts his day at 5 a.m. and does five to seven pushups. For breakfast, he has a cup of tea, oatmeal and fresh fruit. Lunch and dinner consist of fish and fresh vegetables. The centenarians nap early and often.

Sounds like a good testimony for fish.

One thing that most of an advanced age have common in their diet is they eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables and many raise them in their own garden.

Here is the link to the story

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/26/husband-108-wife-105-celebrate-82-years-married/24094901/

To read last years writings go HERE

Copyright 2015 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

March 1, 2015

Glamours

Clay wants us to examine the shadow side of ourselves. By this he seems to mean that we humans have numerous subtle flaws below the surface that we just kind of bury and do not want to bring in the daylight and examine.

He points out that even something that we may think is a virtue about ourselves could hide a flaw that we do not want to face. For instance we may take too much pride or develop an air of superiority about helping people, donating to charity, being sexually pure, being a good provider etc.

Such flaws do exist and they are a big hindrance to progression. DK calls them glamors. A glamour is basically a deception from the ego that gives us an inflated feeling of self importance.

A common example of a glamour that seems to be a virtue is a false humility. This is apparent when the guy may pretend to not be very good at a certain activity, but in reality he really is. Then when he performs he gets extra praise. In the end his humility was contrived to get extra strokes for his ego.

There are three deceptive hurtles the seeker must master on the path to liberation. The first is maya caused by the pull and attraction of matter itself. This would include the problems generated from the sex attraction,

The second has its seeds in the astral/emotional nature and this is where glamours originate.

The third are illusions and these have their seeds in the mind. These are the most difficult to discover because one can be free of ego problems, be fully intent on serving mankind, but tricked into a harmful course of action because of wrong foundation beliefs that seem to be good.

All three have their difficulties. Before one can see clearly to dispel illusion he must discover and master glamours. Seeing them in ourselves is difficult, but seeing them in others is quite easy. The trouble is that many we may see in others may be illusion or related to a glamour in the observer because we tend to judge others by how we ourselves think.

An associate may be acting in purity of heart but a flawed observer may judging him as only wanting his ego stroked.

We are the ones we need to concentrate on, not our neighbor. We have the power to change ourselves.

DK in the Bailey writings lists quite a few glamours.

Here are some.

1. The glamour of destiny. This is a glamour which indicates to the one whom it controls that he has important work to do and that he must speak and work as destined. This feeds a pride which has no foundation in fact.
2. The glamour of aspiration. Those thus conditioned are completely satisfied and pre-occupied with their aspiration towards the light and rest back upon the fact that they are aspirants. Such people need to move onward on to the Path of Discipleship and cease their preoccupation and satisfaction with their spiritual ambitions and goals.
3. The glamour of self-assurance or of what might be called the astral principles of the disciple. This is the belief, in plain language, that the disciple regards that his point of view is entirely right. This again feeds pride and tends to make the disciple believe himself to be an authority and infallible. It is the background of the theologian.
4. The glamour of duty. This leads to an over-emphasis of the sense of responsibility, producing lost motion and the emphasis of the non-essential.
5. The glamour of environing conditions, leading frequently to a sense of frustration, or of futility or of importance.
6. The glamour of the mind and of its efficiency and its capacity to deal with any or every problem. This leads inevitably to isolation and loneliness.
7. The glamour of devotion, leading to an undue stimulation of the astral body. The man or woman thus glamoured sees only one idea, one person, one authority and one aspect of truth. It feeds fanaticism and spiritual pride.
8. The glamour of desire with its reflex action upon the physical body. This leads to a constant condition of fighting and of turmoil. It negates all peace and fruitful work and must some day be brought to an end.
9. The glamour of personal ambition.

Then he lists glamours associated with the seven rays.

RAY I.

The glamour of physical strength.

The glamour of personal magnetism.

The glamour of self-centredness and personal potency.

The glamour of “the one at the centre.”

The glamour of selfish personal ambition.

The glamour of rulership, of dictatorship and of wide control.

The glamour of the Messiah complex in the field of politics.

The glamour of selfish destiny, of the divine right of kings personally exacted.

The glamour of destruction.

The glamour of isolation, of aloneness, of aloofness.

The glamour of the superimposed willupon others and upon groups.

RAY II.

The glamour of the love of being loved.

The glamour of popularity.

The glamour of personal wisdom.

The glamour of selfish responsibility.

The glamour of too complete an understanding, which negates right action.

The glamour of self-pity, a basic glamour of this ray.

The glamour of the Messiah complex, in the world of religion and world need.

The glamour of fear, based on undue sensitivity.

The glamour of self-sacrifice.

The glamour of selfish unselfishness.

The glamour of self-satisfaction.

The glamour of selfish service.

RAY III.

The glamour of being busy.

The glamour of cooperation with the Plan in an individual and not a group way.

The glamour of active scheming.

The glamour of creative work without true motive.

The glamour of good intentions, which are basically selfish.

The glamour of “the spider at the centre.”

The glamour of “God in the machine.”

The glamour of devious and continuous manipulation.

The glamour of self-importance, from the standpoint of knowing, of efficiency.

RAY IV.

The glamour of harmony, aiming at personal comfort and satisfaction.

The glamour of war.

The glamour of conflict, with the objective of imposing righteousness and peace.

The glamour of vague artistic perception.

The glamour of psychic perception instead of intuition.

The glamour of musical perception.

The glamour of the pairs of opposites, in the higher sense.

RAY V.

The glamour of materiality, or over-emphasis of form.

The glamour of the intellect.

The glamour of knowledge and of definition.

The glamour of assurance, based on a narrow point of view.

The glamour of the form which hides reality.

The glamour of organisation.

The glamour of the outer, which hides the inner.

RAY VI.

The glamour of devotion.

The glamour of adherence to forms and persons.

The glamour of idealism.

The glamour of loyalties, of creeds.

The glamour of emotional response.

The glamour of sentimentality.

The glamour of interference.

The glamour of the lower pairs of opposites.

The glamour of World Saviours and Teachers.

The glamour of the narrow vision.

The glamour of fanaticism.

RAY VII.

The glamour of magical work.

The glamour of the relation of the opposites.

The glamour of the subterranean powers.

The glamour of that which brings together.

The glamour of the physical body.

The glamour of the mysterious and the secret.

The glamour of sex magic.

The glamour of the emerging manifested forces.

 

March 3, 2015

Baptism for the Dead

Ken:

This thread is about “baptism ‘for’ the dead,” and I was hoping that there was someone who could share their precious understanding of how this activity validates the resurrection. How does “baptism ‘for’ the dead” prove the resurrection? And doesn’t “baptism ‘for’ the dead” disprove reincarnation IF it is referring to baptizing yourself for your dead friends and relatives? I mean, why else “baptize ‘for’ the dead,” if the dead reincarnate, for THEN they can baptize for themselves, that is, if this is what Paul was referring to?

JJ

I haven’t been following this thread that close but since it is continuing I will comment.

First let us quote the one scriptural reference to this doctrine:

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? I Cor 15:29

So what is the answer to Paul’s question? Why baptize for the dead if there is no resurrection. He may have well as asked “why baptize for the living or the dead if there is no resurrection?”

Why?

Because baptism is a symbol of rebirth, or reincarnation, or the resurrection of KRISIS.

When you are submerged in water in the first stage of baptism you are symbolizing a future reentering the womb where the fetus is completely submerged in water. Then when you are lifted out of the water into the air you are symbolizing a reincarnated self where you will leave the womb of water and again enter into the air where you will take in the breath of life and start anew.

The symbology also carries over to the resurrection of life. On a higher level we are submerged in water or the astral/emotional world, the main source of corruption and error. Then, in the better resurrection we rise above this emotional prison and enter into the air (spirit) into eternal life.

So what is the advantage of baptizing the dead?

Many after death get trapped in the lower astral zones and are plagued with guilt caused by their actions. In some cases a proxy baptism for them can aid in releasing this guilt so they can reunite with their souls.

The Mormons believe that they need to go clear back to the time of Adam with this ceremony, but their founder said otherwise.

“A man may act as proxy for his own relatives; the ordinances of the Gospel which were laid out before the foundations of the world have thus been fulfilled by them, and we may be baptized for those whom we have much friendship for; but IT MUST FIRST BE REVEALED TO THE MAN OF GOD, LEST WE SHOULD RUN TOO FAR.” History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.17, p.366

The too far is most probably the “endless genealogies” (I Tim 1:4) that Paul told us to avoid.

In other words, if one receives a revelation of a troubled spirit that may be aided by this ceremony then there could be a benefit. If we attempt to baptize those who have been dead for over 100 years then chances are they are already experiencing the resurrection of KRISIS and are already reborn back into the world.

Normally this ordinance should be confined to friends and relatives of the living to speed their journey back to their Higher Self.

 

March 3, 2015

Translation Problems

Ken makes some more comments on this scripture:

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? I Cor 15:29

He points out that the Greek verb here for baptized which is BAPTIZEIN can be translated as “washed” as the word was sometimes used in relation to ceremonial washings nor related to baptism. He also points out that the preposition “for’ comes from HYPER which can be translated as “over or beyond” rather than “for” meaning “in behalf of” in this verse.

He therefore, comes up with this translation:

“Else what shall they do which are washed (G907) over (G5228) the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then washed (G907) over (G5228) the dead?”

This translation makes no sense to me. As with many English words Greek words to can have more than one use and you have to look at the context to see the most obvious meaning.

In this context and the context of Paul’s writings as a whole it is obvious that Paul was referring to regular baptism rather than a mere ceremonial washing. The main evidence of this is that he linked it to the resurrection. He speaks of this symbolism in Romans 6:3-5

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Here and Col 2:12 he ties the symbolism of baptism by immersion to the resurrection.

It is also a historical fact that some early Christians did baptize on behalf of their dead. This gives added weight to the standard translation.

I checked about a dozen Bible translations and all, except one, gives the same meaning as the King James. The one exception is the Jehovah Witness translation which gives an odd rendering as follows:

Otherwise, what will they do who are being baptized for the purpose of being dead ones? If the dead ones are not to be raised up at all, why are they also being baptized for the purpose of being such?

This translation also does not make much sense to me.

William Barclay in his commentary discusses four possible interpretations but sums up his view as follows:

All these are lovely thoughts, but in the end we think that this phrase can refer to only one custom, which has quite correctly passed out of Church practice altogether. In the early Church there was vicarious baptism. If a person died who had intended to become a member of the Church and was actually under instruction, sometimes someone else underwent baptism for him. The custom sprang from a superstitious view of baptism, that, without it, a person was necessarily excluded from the bliss of heaven. It was to safeguard against this exclusion that sometimes people volunteered to be baptized literally on behalf of those who had died. Here Paul neither approves nor disapproves that practice. He merely asks if there can be any point in it if there is no resurrection and the dead never rise again.

As far as the method of baptism goes one would have to use immersion to complete the symbolism and this seems to be the method used by the early Christians.

Matthew 3:6, says they went “in the River Jordan;” and 3:16, says “he went up out of the water;”

And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: John 3:23

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. Acts 8:38

I tend to trust the interpretation the best that fits with the Law of Correspondences.

***

Tweaking

It is interesting to make some posts on Allan’s forum that tweak his mindset, but for no apparent reason he has placed me and Clay on moderation so my better posts are not going through. I have thus pretty much withdrawn, but he did say something today to which I thought I would respond. His back and white stance on allegory is really unreasonable so I thought I would challenge him using his own beliefs. He has said in the past that the Homilies of Clementine represent the real words of Peter.

Allan:

What happens if Moses was not an actual person — but is a personification of the Laws of Consciousness within the seekers own mind and being?

JJ

It is interesting that you cite the Homilies of Clementine as being authentic yet they are not written as allegory but portray the prophets as real people. Moses in particular does Peter speak of as being a literal, not an allegorical person. Here are some examples.

when our God-loved nation was about to be ransomed from the oppression of the Egyptians, first diseases were produced by means of the rod turned into a serpent, which was given to Aaron, and then remedies were superinduced by the prayers of Moses.

For instance, Moses, on account of his piety, continued free from suffering all his life, and by his prayers he healed the Egyptians when they suffered on account of their sins

Why? Did not God convert the rod of Moses into an animal, making it a serpent, which He reconverted into a rod? And by means of this very converted rod he converted the water of the Nile into blood, which again he reconverted into water.

Peter even notes that Jesus saw Moses as a real person:

He (Jesus), knowing the true things of the law, said to the Sadducees, asking on what account Moses permitted to marry seven, ‘Moses gave you commandments according to your hard-heartedness; for from the beginning it was not so: for He who created man at first, made him male and female.’

 

March 5, 2015

The Homilies of Clementine

I haven’t spent much time in my life studying the early church fathers or apocryphal scriptures and gospels. Most of what I have read didn’t seem to contain much light. Besides a lot of the writings purporting to be scripture are most likely written by pretenders attempting to portray their version of reality or God’s will.

Now along comes Allan and states a claim that the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Nazirenes and the Homilies of Clementine are authentic. I realized a number of people had this view of the first two but never heard such a claim on the Homilies.

Anyway, I decided the read the Homilies to see what was there

The problem I see for Allan with them is that the apostle Peter doesn’t seem to agree with his doctrine that most of the scriptural characters were not real but merely the basis of allegorical stories. I gave him four quotes from Peter speaking about Moses as if he were a real person. To this he essentially replied that Peter was just pretending that Moses was real because that was what the people thought and he didn’t want to upset them. He points out that Jesus spoke plainly to those “in the house,” but not so much to those outside the house.

There are several problems with this idea. First Peter referred to Moses and other Bible Old Testament characters as real to those who were “in the house” or his inner core of disciples. If Moses and others were not real, and Jesus taught this to close disciples, then surely Peter and his close disciples wouldn’t speak to each other as if they were real. They wouldn’t need to dumb down things for those in the house.

The second problem is that Peter in the Homilies does indeed tell us that some of the scriptures are not historically true. So far so good for Allan. But then Peter destroys Allan’s core teaching that these were ingeniously written as allegory. Instead of calling them true allegories, he calls them lies in history and teaching and tells his disciples that the false prophet Simon uses these lies to deceive people.

Peter tells his “beloved Clement” that Moses (who Allan says did not exist) called seventy Elders to teach the people and these seventy “in order that they also might instruct such of the people as chose, after a little the written law had added to it certain falsehoods contrary to the law of God.”

Then speaking of these false scriptures he says:

Simon, therefore, as I learn, intends to come into public, and to speak of those chapters against God that are added to the Scriptures, for the sake of temptation, that he may seduce as many wretched ones as he can from the love of God.

Clement asks Peter:

Wherefore tell me what are the falsehoods added to the Scriptures, and how it comes that they are really false. Then Peter answered: Even although you had not asked me, I should have gone on in order, and afforded you the exposition of these matters, as I promised. Learn, then, how the Scriptures misrepresent Him (God) in many respects, that you may know when you happen upon them.

Now Allan maintains that all the scriptures are true, but Peter disagrees as says that some are false and “misrepresent God.” Obviously, such scriptures would not be inspired allegory.

Then speaking of God Peter asks:

“For if He lies, then who speaks truth? … If He is not faithful to His promises, who shall be trusted”

This was the point I made earlier. It is important that we have teachers, angels and a God who does not lie to us, for a lie destroys faith.

Peter then explains that the scriptures which are lies are those which portrayed God as flawed or approving of sin or wrong doing. He tells us of certain scriptures he sees as being, not allegory, but just false. He says: “some of the Scriptures are true and some false.”

Then he goes on to name some of the false scriptures:

For, as I am persuaded, neither was Adam a transgressor, who was fashioned by the hands of God; nor was Noah drunken, who was found righteous above all the world; nor did Abraham live with three wives at once, who, on account of his sobriety, was thought worthy of a numerous posterity; nor did Jacob associate with four – of whom two were sisters – who was the father of the twelve tribes, and who intimated the coming of the presence of our Master; nor was Moses a murderer, nor did he learn to judge from an idolatrous priest – he who set forth the law of God to all the world, and for his right judgment has been testified to as a faithful steward.

Notice that he ended his statement saying that Moses did “set forth the law of God to all the world.” Hus he affirms the reality of Moses.

Peter made fun of the Egyptians for taking simple truths about God and reducing then to complicated allegory. He said:

And with diverse judgments, one reverences one and another of the limbs of the same animal. Moreover, those of them who still have a breath of right reason, being ashamed of the manifest baseness, attempt to drive these things into allegories, wishing by another vagary to establish their deadly error. But we should confute the allegories, if we were there, the foolish passion for which has prevailed to such an extent as to constitute a great disease of the understanding. For it is not necessary to apply a plaster to a whole part of the body, but to a diseased part.

So rather than the scriptures being written as only allegorically true Peter in the Homilies says that some are true, but because of lies and corruption, others are false.

I quoted Peter as identifying some of the false scriptures, but he also noted many true ones. Here he is speaking of what he sees as true Bible characters:

Therefore from Adam, who was made after the image of God, there sprang first the unrighteous Cain, and then the righteous Abel. Again, from him who amongst you is called Deucalion, two forms of spirits were sent forth, the impure namely, and the pure, first the black raven, and then the white dove. From Abraham also, the patriarchs of our nation, two firsts sprang – Ishmael first, then Isaac, who was blessed of God. And from Isaac himself, in like manner, there were again two – Esau the profane, and Jacob the pious. So, first in birth, as the first born in the world, was the high priest Aaron, then the lawgiver Moses.

He also spoke of three of Daniels friends who were thrown into the fiery furnace.

He spoke of Jesus, the Twelve Apostles and John the Baptist:

and as the Lord had twelve apostles, bearing the number of the twelve months of the sun, so also he, John, had thirty chief men, fulfilling the monthly reckoning of the moon,

He verified events and miracles in the Gospel account of Jesus such as

Jesus being tempted in the wilderness.

The miracle of calming the storm at sea.

Casting the demons into the swine,

Healing the man blind from birth.

To sum up Peter said:

He wrought many wonderful miracles and signs by His mere command, as having received power from God. For He made the deaf to hear, the blind to see, the lame to walk, raised up the bowed down, drove away every disease, put to flight every demon; and even scabbed lepers, by only looking on Him from a distance, were sent away cured by Him; and the dead being brought to Him, were raised; and there was nothing which He could not do.

It looks as if anyone who believes the real Peter is represented in the Homilies should accept the idea that most of he Bible characters were historically real including the devil himself. This was certainly not written as an allegory. Much of it may be fiction, but there is no clever allegory here.

***

Allan:

In the account of the Clementine Homilies, Peter warns his disciple Clement that Simon Magus has the ability to greatly deceive the Gentiles, because they fail to understand the vision of the authors in the composition of the scriptures — and the traditions that the authors used to compose the scriptures

JJ

That is not true at all. Simon’s problem (as well as those he deceived) was not that they didn’t see the “vision” of the authors, but that Simon used false scriptures, not created from any vision, but to deceive people away from the one God. There was no vision to be found in the deceptive scriptures. The only thing to be discovered was that they were false, according to Peter.

Allan

Thus, Peter warns that while the spiritual Jews will understand the deeper meaning — both the carnal Jews and the Gentiles will be greatly deceived and states:

JJ

Peter never talked about a deeper meaning of the deceptive scriptures. He talked as if they had little or no value.

Allan quoting:

“And with us, indeed, who have had handed down from our forefathers the worship of the God who made all things, and also the mystery of the books which are able to deceive, he will not prevail;

JJ

The deceptive books were the false ones and the only mystery that was kept from the people about them was that they were false. He wasn’t talking about some mysterious allegory. He made fun of those who used allegory to complicate teachings.

Allan:

but with those from amongst the Gentiles who have the polytheistic fancy bred in them, and who know not the falsehoods of the Scriptures, he will prevail much.

JJ

Peter talked about true scriptures and false scriptures. He was merely saying that the people did not know which was which. And he not only talked about false history, but also false teachings within the orthodox Old Testament. Peter gave no indication that something that presents false history and false teachings would be any use for allegorical interpretation.

Allan:

That the carnal Jews could not see beyond the symbols of the allegory,

JJ

The only talk in the Homilies about allegory is negative. Peter says those who misuse it: attempt to drive these things into allegories, wishing by another vagary to establish their deadly error.

Allan:

and their eyes and hearts were hardened so they could not comprehend the true meaning of the scriptures, is readily understood where Paul states that “their minds were blinded” by the Laws of God, “for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament… even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart” (2 Cor 3:14-15 KJV).

JJ

This says NOTHING about allegory being a problem for the people. A scripture can be written with no allegory and be plain in meaning and many will misunderstand it.

Allan

The 2nd century Church Father Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata explained: “…now that the Savior has taught the Apostles, the unwritten rendering of the written, this has been handed down also to us”. What Clement is stating is that it was Jesus who taught his disciples the inner spiritual meaning of the scriptures by opening their minds so their understanding could pierce through the garb of the allegorical enigmas that blind the perception of carnal men — i.e., 

JJ

He said nothing about all scripture being allegory or false history. And what did he do with these secret teachings?

Allan

“Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45 NIV).

JJ

This has happened to me.

Allan:

In the Homilies of his disciple Clement, the Apostle Peter portrays the scriptures as the “…books with the power to deceive”

JJ

You are distorting here. He is NOT conveying the scriptures in general this way, but the false ones used by Simon. Read the before and after.

Allan:

Further, it was stated by Peter in the Homilies of his disciple Clement that each person (who does not apply the Key of Knowledge) only sees in the scriptures, what they are predisposed to see and believe —

JJ

Finally you got something right and the way your group approaches the scriptures, the posts of Clay and myself, and other writings, in seeing what they want to see is evidence of this.

 

Allan:

And more important is the statement that those who attempt to read the scriptures from a differing mindset and objectives than the intended purpose of the original authors, will remain blind to “…the truth, but simply [see] what he wishes to find…” in the scriptures.

JJ

Right On! That is right on the money!

 

Allan:

The falsehood of the scriptures are the things that Moses Maimonides portrays as “…tales the reality of which seems impossible, a story which is repugnant to both reason and common sense, then be sure that the tale contains a profound allegory veiling a deeply mysterious truth; and the greater the absurdity of the letter, the deeper the wisdom of the spirit”.

JJ

And why are you quoting a twelfth century philosopher here who had less access to the truth of the scriptures than we do?

I’ve had people reject true accounts I have given from my life as being “repugnant to both reason and common sense.” So that measure is far from infallible.

Allan:

Allegories which Peter portrays as “…the mystery of the books which are able to deceive” — allegories that the Gentile mind

JJ

You keep repeating this quote over and over and it has nothing to do with allegory, but the false scriptures used by Simon.

Allan:

…believes literally because they accustomed to embracing bad and erroneous beliefs about God — i.e., “…because from their childhood their minds are accustomed to take in things spoken against God.” And therefore, as Peter states, “…even the falsehoods of Scripture are with good reason presented for a test.”

Thus the question: Can you pass the test? Or, do you believe absurd things against God as portrayed in the parting of the Red Sea, and the drowning of the Egyptians.

JJ

Peter’s criteria for testing the false scriptures is whether or not it presents God in a positive light and God parting the Red Sea presents Him in the most positive light in the entire Old Testament so I would say that Peter would think you are falsely speaking against God if you diminish God by rejecting the idea that He could have performed such a miracle.

After all, Peter definitely taught about Moses bringing the plagues to Egypt as well as turning Aarons Rod into a serpent. Just because something was miraculous didn’t stop Peter from believing it. In fact, right in the Homilies we are told that Peter preformed numerous hard-to-believed miracles and such events were obviously not intended to be allegory.

 

March 6, 2015

The Value of History

A reader in another forum asks:

IF scripture was history… what does/can that do for me as a seeker? ????? What would I need scripture for? I know some Jewish people that see scripture as history. So, they celebrate it as tradition … like a nationality would celebrate the traditions of their country.

Can you tell me why I should personally look at the scriptures as history??? You tell us they are history … BUT … so what? IF they are, what does that do for anyone?

JJ

First let me clarify something that I have attempted to do several times before. The main value that I have received from the scriptures does not depend on the history being accurate, but in the teachings. I have gained many good and useful principles and values from the scriptures that have little or nothing to do with accurate history.

For instance, Jesus said, “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” Matt 7:2

This is true principle even if none of the Bible is true history and even if it was written by the Devil himself.

True principles and teachings that register with the soul are not dependent on true history or an authoritative writer. Words that are true will stand on their own.

Shakespeare proved this principle in that he is perhaps the most widely quoted writer for supporting truth yet his writings were presented as fiction.

For instance he wrote:

To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.

That statement and others are so profound that it doesn’t matter where they appear. It would be just as useful if discovered in The National Enquirer.

Does the fact that teachings are the most important part of a writing mean that true history is not important?

No. True history is of great importance to the world. Without knowledge of our history progress as a civilization would come to a standstill.

So why should it matter whether a person presents imaginary history as allegory or presents true history either as allegory or for teaching or inspirational purposes?

An example of this is found in the story of he breaking of the four-minute mile. For thousands of years experts on the human body told people that this could not be done – that the human body just wasn’t designed to go that fast.

Then on May 6, 1954, Roger Bannister broke the barrier, running the distance in 3:59.4.

Now what would have been the effect of this if the newspapers related the story as an allegory that was not true history, but merely as an allegorical teaching of how we can overcome the obstacles in life?

People would have thought that was a nice teaching, but obviously the experts are still right that no one can break the barrier.

But what happened when people realized that this achievement was not an allegory, but real history? Humanity realized the experts were wrong and the feat can be done. Instead of taking thousands of years for the next four minute mile it took only a couple months. During the 1954 British Empire and Commonwealth Australia’s John Landy along with Bannister, ran the distance of one mile in under four minutes.

From that point on many were inspired to duplicate that accomplishment. Now breaking the four-minute mile is so common that some high school athletes are doing it.

So, what is the difference between in one who has discovered that many miracles in the Bible are true compared to another who sees them as mere allegory? He who discovers for sure that miracles have indeed happened in history will then logically believe that they can happen in his life. He will attempt to live his life in a manner that miracles can manifest.

I have had miracles happen in my life that would not have transpired if I had viewed the scriptural miracles as just allegory. And because of personal encounters with supernatural forces I know for a surety that many things considered impossible are indeed possible.

In addition to the supernatural in history regular true history is of great importance. Reading the true accounts of the Revolutionary War, what they fought for and the sacrifices made inspires people in the present to appreciate the freedoms they have and not take them for granted.

Studying the true events that led up to World War II can give us many clues that will help prevent World War III. The knowledge we have of history is one of the reasons we haven’t had a major war for 70 years now.

Our past lives are true history and many think it is important to discover who we were. Discovering them is the discovery of history.

Are all historical records completely accurate? No. But there is enough truth in recorded history to get a pretty clear picture of what happened. For instance, most events in World War II are not in dispute. It is the interpretation of those events that create conflicting ideas about much of history. We know for sure that the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The fact that there are many differing thoughts surrounding the event does not negate the event.

It was Edmund Burke who said, Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it. This is indeed a good reason to seek after true history.

 

March 7, 2015

Verifying Past Lives

I would suppose that many enlightened teachers of the past who knew that reincarnation was real refused to teach it openly. And why would this be the case?

Because as soon as most people learn of the doctrine they start wondering who they might have been. The trouble is that few are satisfied in thinking that they might have been a plain dirt farmer in some inconsequential time and place who died without making a mark on history. It is natural to think one might have lived some glorious life that was notable, made some great accomplishments, wrote great plays, created great art, led mighty armies, was a disciple of Jesus or changed the course of history.

The seeker needs to think of this reality. If you want to get a good idea of the quality of character you were in a past life then look at who you are in this one. Suppose you were to die tomorrow and then be born again in a hundred years and learn about the doctrine of reincarnation. Would you be disappointed to learn that you were just the present you in a past life instead of maybe Steve Jobs or Tom Cruise?

If you want to know what to look for in a past life then look at what you are now.

“But,” says the guy who thinks he was someone famous, “we are not the same in each life and our circumstances change. A person can reborn in the right circumstances in one life and become famous and do a great work but then in another life he may be more limited and live a fairly ordinary life.”

Yes, this may be true. It is possible that Abraham Lincoln is reborn today living a somewhat average life just trying to make ends meet.

If it may be the case that accomplished people in one life may live under the radar in another then how can we test the claims of one who claims to have been someone famous in a past life? We especially want to test them if they expect us to follow them because of who they were rather than who they are.

There are three things that can be done.

(1) The first is to use a regression technique to take the individual into a past life. A good regressionist can often take an individual back to a real past life, but this is far from infallible. Unless the person goes into a very deep state of hypnosis he may tap into a thoughtform or false memory of some kind. Often when people tell the hypnotist that they were someone famous further regression will reveal that he merely lived at the same time as did this famous person and admired him.

For instance, someone who worked for Steve Jobs and admired him may tell a regressionist in a future life that he was Steve Jobs instead of a guy who worked for him.

A guided meditation or light trance may bring up past lives with maybe 50-60% accuracy. You would then have to take them deeper to tell for sure. When the subject is in a deep trance he can recall minute details and even speak an ancient language from a past life. I had this happen when I did a regression for a television program. The subject started speaking ancient Aramaic effortlessly. The reporter was impressed indeed. Unfortunately they edited it out when they showed the program because they wanted to disprove reincarnation rather than prove it.

Now Allan claims he wrote the original manuscript of the Gospel story and says he can recall his life as James he brother of Jesus. I asked him what the tenth word in the manuscript was. His group gave me a bad time about this question, but it is one that could definitely be answered. If one goes back to a life and relives it in real time he can look at a page of print and see it as one can see something currently in front of his face and recall the first sentences word for word.

If the subject goes back and can recall in real time then it is quite likely he is experiencing a real past life.

Even here this is not a sure thing because we have he capacity through the soul to enter into the consciousness of others and can see through their eyes. It is possible that some regressions that seem very authentic have this happen, especially if some famous person is recalled.

(2) The second test is that of intelligence and talent. We have different personalities from life to life because of various circumstances and pulls from energies that affect us. For instance, one life one may be an introvert and another an extrovert. We do not take our personality with us, but we do take our intelligence and talents that were acquired through learning. If you played the piano in a past life you could relearn it quickly in this one. If you were Mark Twain in a past life you would still have a way with words in this one and most likely have a great sense of humor. Even though you would keep your talent at writing you may find yourself working at developing a new talent. Maybe Mark Twain would want to be a Rock star in this life.

Perhaps the most reliable test we can perform on one who claims to be someone famous is to compare what the guy’s intelligence has produced in this life to what the famous guy did in the past. If you think you were Mark Twain, but cannot write a good story then you are most likely fooling yourself. If you think you were Telsla but haven’t invented anything new and useful then you are probably not him.

If you think you were Jesus, but do not have power to teach or perform works like him then you can be counted as being in illusion.

If you think the gospel is an allegory that you made up while Jesus was still alive then you should be able to write something as innovative as that in this life. After all, it turned out to be the most famous piece of writing in the history of the world.

The story of Jesus has staying power because of the great teachings, the words of wisdom, the parables, the miracles and the crucifixion and resurrection which Allan says he wrote of while Jesus was still alive and well. If this is true then this James character certainly had a great imagination and talent for presenting a miraculous idea.

He should be able to do an even more profound work in this life because we progress rather than regress.

That’s right. If you were Mark Twain in a past life and become a writer again in this one then you should be better than Twain because we improve as we apply ourselves.

(3) Test the person with your inner self. If you are familiar with the famous person and one who claims to be him you need to ask if there is a similarity of vibration. If there is not then you can discount his claim. If there is then keep an open mind, but always judge each person by what and who they are now. Who we are in the present is the important thing.

***

Clay:

Thanks for the critique JJ and I agree with you 100%. I would like to add a couple of more issues. There exist an additional problem with past life recollection in that there are times when you are just given insight to the Akashic records of someone else’s life or an experience from history but there is a powerful lesson that you can employ in your life. You may see into the distant past some event that you did not actually live, but whose information is relevant to your development in this lifetime.

JJ

I agree. One of the problems we have in understanding the full reality from a mortal perspective is that the abilities of access for the soul is almost unlimited.

Clay:

I also do not like regressions and advise against them because unless you are very well trained prior to the regression, one’s ego is still too strong and is going to distort the reading and of course bring up events that one has simply read about or heard about that are buried deeply in ones subconscious.

JJ

Regression is not perfect but it is the most reliable I have found outside of personal revelation that I have had on others several times. This, however, is only given to me as seen necessary by my Higher Self.

Clay

I personally recommend a person go to a powerful reader of past lives as they are not as likely to want to glorify you and satisfy your ego needs to be a person of importance.

JJ

I have not found this to be true. I have had a number of psychics read my past lives and no two are alike and most are way off base. Unless a person is close to being a master the only way to read the past life of another is through a revelation through the soul or a recollection of a personal past life where you were associated with the person in question.

Here’s an interesting example. When I was in real estate a new client came into my office who I had never met before in this life. After talking with him for five minutes my soul revealed to me who he was in a past life. He was a close and trusted friend. I stopped in the middle of the subject and told him I knew who he was and explained it to him. Even though he didn’t believe in reincarnation in this life he seemed to take it to heart and we became close friends.

Here is another:

Shortly after meeting my second wife my soul told me who she was in a former life. It was someone that she had no knowledge of in this life. Instead of telling her who she was I asked her if I could regress her. When I did she went back to the life that was told to me by my soul, gave her correct name, and related details that she could have only given if she had been there.

Clay

Third it is a distinctly Western Phenomena that we want to parade our past lives as almost spiritual status symbols to demonstrate how advanced we are. Now instead of owning a huge mansion and driving a new Mercedes, we simply use supposed past live recollections to comfort us and satisfy our ego in this incarnation. So if we have not lived up to certain expectations we have of ourselves in this life or are insecure about who we are, we rely upon glorious past lives to give us pride and a sense of self worth and purpose.

JJ

Good observation.

 

March 8, 2015

The Song and Colors

Tom:

When one imagine light on oneself or on the group saying the song what color is the light? Can it be any color or white light? In the book the Immortal 1 and 2 pages 128-129 talks about John saying the song and the first verse is white light descending at an arms length. The second verse after it is said shows bright yellow, pink and magenta light coming into john’s aura. The third verse shows deep violent light with edges of gold coming into Johns aura. My question is do we imagine the same colors as describe in the book or what colors do we imagine coming to oneself and the group who says the song?

JJ

Good to hear from you again Tom. Don’t be such a stranger.

When seeing the light you can use one of three approaches.

(1) Visualize specific colors to create specific effects.

(2) Attempt to see the colors sent to you by your soul.

(3) Just go with the flow and get a general sense of light and enlightenment.

 

March 9, 2015

The Backsliding Soul

I thought I would make a few comments on Jim’s post the other day.

He says:

until a person is seeking some kind of a Power higher than them selves, which might be an unrecognizable god, than, that soul is not guaranteed to progress forward, or higher, every reincarnation,

JJ

It is certainly true that the recognizing of a power higher than ourselves and seeking it will be a big help to the person’s progression, but it doesn’t mean that he will make zero progression or go backwards if he doesn’t believe in or seek God.

Many atheists are further along the path than many believers. All on the path at one time have gone through a period of atheism as mental abilities are developed. Before being atheists most of them were unthinking believers in God for many lives but reached a barrier after they developed their reasoning abilities. Then what they saw as logic prevailed. They became frustrated with the unfairness and suffering in the world and the illogical beliefs of many religions and disbelieved for a number of lifetimes.

Then they made a discovery which was the mind could only take you so far in the search for truth. The pilgrim then works his way back to a renewed belief in God, but a sounder belief based on intuitive perception, soul contact and higher vision.

What hurts our progression more than anything is when we receive some light and reject it in word or deed. As I have said many times we must all live up to the highest we know and this is different for each person. Sometimes the highest we know is a guess and sometimes it will take us on the wrong path, but if we are true to ourselves the mistakes we make will be revealed and when they are the highest we know will be a decision to make a correction.

After the human entity becomes self-conscious and begins his journey through many lives his progress is very slow. Even though he starts his progress with a fairly ingrown sense of the Divine he is slow to learn his lessons. It is when he starts to actively question and seek answers outside of outward authority that his real progress begins,

If we were to draw a graph of the progress of a soul it would show very little movement for many lifetimes, but after this turning point is reached then the line on the graph would suddenly shoot upward and continue to accelerate until liberation is achieved. The last dozen or so lifetimes would see a tremendous upswing as these are times of tremendous learning.

So can we go backwards if we live a life where we go against the light? In some ways yes and others no. Let us say you learn to play the piano and afterwards you start beating your wife. Can you still play the piano?

Yes, of course. Your ability to apply your basic intelligence in this direction is not affected by your bad behavior. Even so, we can make many mistakes and still be born again with our basic intelligence intact. For instance, I believe that Hitler’s two previous lives were as Charles XII of Sweden and then Napoleon. He made some pretty grave errors in both of these lives but that didn’t prevent him from being a very savvy guy in his life as Hitler. History correctly records him as an evil genius.

So is there any negative effect for sinning against the light?

Indeed, yes. The person may still be clever in the ways of the world, as was Hitler, but his ability to perceive light and truth and contact his own soul will dramatically decrease. If he continues on the downward path then the barrier between himself and his soul will become beyond repair.

So, if a person lives a very carnal life will he be born again as an animal?

No. Human souls are only born as humans or self conscious entities. There are plenty of opportunities to pay our debts for our mistakes as human beings.

Some have had impressions of past lives as animals and conclude that we switch back and forth. What does happen is this. In between lives the soul can project itself and identify with any lower life form on this planet. It can project itself into the consciousness of a dog, a cat, a bug, a tree or even a rock. This is much different than being incarnated into lower life forms. Lower lives are governed by a group soul rather than an individual soul.

There is a possible exception though. If the pilgrim continues in error and takes the left hand path so a permanent barrier is set up to the light of the soul then all that makes him human begins to unravel and he is deconstructed. In this case fragments of him may incarnate as lower life forms. This only happens to a small number of stubbornly dark entities.

 

***

Jim:

Any one who has lived with pets, cats, dogs, horses, or birds, or even pigs, turkeys, sheep, or the list is unlimited, may recognize the very same spirit animating them as animates humans.

JJ

I was raised in a farming community and very familiar with numerous types of animals. They are similar to us in that their lives are a part of the life of God, as are we, but as far as consciousness goes they are very different. An animal is not self conscious as is a human. He cannot be embarrassed, could not care less if he is dressed in clothes and if you did put clothes on him he could care less about the style and color. An animal is as different from a lowly evolved human as a lowly evolved human is different from one near the end of his evolution. He who is near liberation will not incarnate and return to being a savage in consciousness and the savage will not return to being an animal because he has a self consciousness that he will not lose unless he winds up being a total failure and the fragments that compose him are returned to their Source to be reformatted in a future system.

And consider this. If a backsliding life could caused one to be born as an animal then one could also retrogress more and be born as a potato. The correspondence here does not fit.

There is no way to outwardly prove this but each person must run such things by his soul as well as run them by his sense of reasoning and the Law of Correspondences.

No one is rejected or shunned here if they do not agree with me.

 

March 11, 2015

Animal Consciousness

Reasons why humans do not regress in future incarnations and become animals.

(1) The consciousness of an animal is different than a human. If a human consciousness incarnated as an animal then it could be taught to communicate and even work on the internet.

(2) The degree of intelligence achieved is not lost which would be the case if we incarnated as an animal. Intelligence is just wrongly applied when a human entity becomes corrupted – as was the case with Hitler.

(3) Reincarnating as a crocodile and taking on its consciousness would not be seen as a punishment for the bad guys because once reduced to the crocodile’s consciousness the entity would be happy to be such an animal and probably feel blessed instead of cursed. There would be no lesson to be learned.

(4) There is no question that the animals share the life of God with us and share some characteristics in common with us, but they do not have self consciousness and do not see themselves as separate entities the way we do. This is why they have no desire in their natural state to wear clothes.

(5) By the Law of Correspondences if a failed human can be born as an animal then a failed animal could be born as a vegetable. Does not compute.

(6) There is a logical reason why on rare occasions people are regressed through hypnosis or meditation as animals.

(A) We are composite beings. That which makes up the human soul is a fusion of lower lives from the animal, vegetable and mineral. The composite human soul itself was not an animal in the past but parts of its makeup has been and those memories can be recalled.

(B) In between lives, during the dream state or in deep meditation one can overshadow any life that is of lower evolution than oneself. In these states one can have the thrill of soaring as an eagle, roaring as a lion or running as fast as a cheetah. During this overshadowing you can identify with the lower consciousness as if you were living in its body. The difference is that you can withdraw at any time and the evolving lower life cannot unless the body dies.

(7) The direction of the force of our progression always takes us forward, not backward.

That said, Jim’s reference to farm animals reminds me of a story I told the group years ago.

When I was a young teenager, shortly after my parents divorced, my mom bought a run down place in the country with chicken coops in the back so I decided to raise some chickens. I decided that I wanted to raise as interesting a bird as possible because I was doing it for a hobby as much as it was for fried chicken and eggs.

Now, my dad used to take me to fighting chicken matches and would always place some bets. Most of us realize today that this was a cruel sport because they attach steel spurs and the birds fight to the death. What made these special chickens different than regular chickens is that they would not quit in a fight but continue until one of them was dead or incapacitated.

Even though I felt sorry for these chickens I noticed several things different about them. First was that determination to fight on, no matter what. Secondly, they seemed a lot more intelligent than regular chickens and finally they were much more beautiful and colorful than any of the standard farm chickens.

Well, when we got these empty chicken coops and I decided to put some chickens in them, my mind reflected back to these beautiful birds. I decided I wanted to raise these, not to fight, but because they were a very high quality chicken. I found an old fighting chicken magazine my Dad left behind. This magazine advertised prized fighting chickens and also eggs from gamers around the country. I found an ad for eggs that interested me. I couldn’t afford to buy the fully developed birds but I did have enough money to buy some eggs from a prize winning line. They were supposed to be among the best chickens in the world. Even these eggs were expensive – about $10-$20 each by today’s standards.

I got a Banty hen to set on the eggs and in a few weeks I had the start of my fighting chicken farm. After a short period of time I had all the chickens I wanted but there was one in particular that caught my fancy. He was the prettiest rooster of them all and without question the toughest of the bunch. None of the other roosters dared challenge him. In addition, he was the most intelligent and he was fearless. I spent many hours just watching him and showing him off to my friends. I grew as close to him over the next couple years as I have any dog. Finally one day I came home from school and found a trail of feathers from the chicken coop to a pond several blocks away. In the bushes there I found my prize rooster still alive but mortally wounded. There were several small boys nearby and I asked them if they saw what happened. Fortunately they had. Apparently a large dog attacked my chickens and my prize rooster defended the bunch by attacking the dog. He fought the dog all the way to the pond and never gave up. The dog finally gave up but the bulk of a forty pound dog was just too much for my two pound rooster and he was wounded beyond repair.

It was one of the saddest days of my life when I had to end the little fellow’s life. I couldn’t believe how much I grew to love a mere chicken and how much I missed him. I still have feelings for him to this day.

A point to be derived here is that because this chicken entered into my sphere of consciousness, I would have no more dreamed of killing and eating him any more than I would my best friend. He did not fear me for he sensed there was no fear necessary. If a dog, a cat, a horse or even a chicken or a cow were to transcend regular consciousness, he can endear himself to his master and come under the protection of the master rather than become a victim.

In many ways we humans are in a similar situation to the animals. As we expand our ring-pass-not we catch the attention of the Masters, or the Brotherhood of Light, and certain entities among them will take us under their wings and nurture us.

https://freeread.com/archives/241.html

 

March 12, 2015

Nouns

Ken:

The demonstrative pronoun can be either male, female, or neuter, but it must agree in gender with the noun to which it refers. “The Logos” in the Greek is a male noun so the demonstrative pronoun with which it is associated cannot be translated by anything other than “HE” or “HIM”. “In HIM was life (Zoe)”.

JJ

Not really. If the noun refers to a male person this is true, but if it refers to a masculine noun where the gender is not applicable then it is usually translated as “it.”

For example Matthew 5:15 reads:

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and IT giveth light unto all that are in the house.

“Candle” comes from LYCHNOS and is a masculine noun but translators realize it would be silly to translated AUTOS as “he.” In this case where an individual person is not referred to then it is translated as “it”.

The LOGOS, the Word that created the universe was not Jesus, but a vibration from God as all words are vibrations, so the correct translation of AUTOS would be “it” not “he.”

Now let us look at John 1:4-5

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

You correctly say that life is feminine, but here life which is “the light of men” is called an “it” not a she.

The Concordant translators are very careful to not make an obvious mistranslation and I have found their translations to be quite accurate and not reflect the bias found in most other translations.

 

March 13, 2015

The Logos

Latuwr:

How do you really know whether or not the Greek mind viewed a masculine Greek noun as an “it” rather than a “he”?

JJ

Obviously you need to look at the context. As I noted it would be silly to call a candle a “he” just because it is a masculine noun. The context would logically tell us that it is an “it”.

Latuwr

The Apostle John, who I believe is still living on this Earth today, clearly teaches in the first chapter of his Gospel that the Logos refers to Messiah Yahushua:
John 1:14

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

JJ

There is no argument that Jesus is referred to as the Word made flesh. And after the Word is made flesh in the male person of Jesus we would then refer to him as a “He”. Jesus was the great example of the Word, the Christ principle, the creative force being manifested in human form, but the Word and the creative principle is much bigger than the man Jesus. All of us are expected to become the Word made flesh just as happened to Jesus.

The creative originating Word is neither male for female and would be correctly referred to as an “It”.

Latuwr

I submit to all that John is not teaching in Chapter ONE that a vibration created the Cosmos; nor is John teaching that a vibration was made flesh and dwelt among us.

JJ

It is a scientific fact that nothing solid can be found. All that can definitely be discovered as the basis of creation is vibration.

Latuwr

I agree that Rhema is formed sound which does consist of vibrations, but once Rhema becomes clothed with physicality, then Rhema becomes the Logos

JJ

Rhema merely refers to human conversation dealing with human words which is much different than the creative force of the originating sound, or the Logos.

Latuwr

whom John teaches was in the Cosmos and whom John teaches created the Cosmos, and according to John, the Cosmos, that is, the whole physical Universe, did not really know or recognize its Creator:
John 1:10
10 He was in the world (the Cosmos), and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
According to you view of things John 1:10 should really be translated in this manner:
10 It was in the world, and the world was made by it, and the world knew it not.

JJ

The Concordant version does use “He” in this verse because it is definitely talking about Jesus and not just the neutral Logos which is neither male or female.

This verse gives the false idea that the man Jesus created everything there is and this is just not true. He was a manifestation of the Logos which created everything there is as all creation is made of sound or vibration. Each age manifests at least one Word made flesh and we will eventually see many of them as Jesus was the “firstborn among many brethren.”

In addition to this there are billions of planets with human beings as ourselves and on each of these planets the Word is seeking to become flesh. There are many like Christ in the many worlds.

Jesus correctly differentiated himself from the One God or the Logos when he was called good and replied back:

“And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:” Matt 19:17

He could just as well have said:

“And he said unto him, Why callest thou me Logos? I merely represent the Logos, which is, God:”

Jesus said, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do:.” John 5:9

Even he who represented the Logos “could do nothing of himself” but needed a little help, just like the rest of us.

To read last years writings go HERE

Copyright 2015 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

March 15, 2015

The Centers and Correspondence

Larry Woods asks some questions about the centers in relation to planes and asks:

“Is this a valid use of the correspondence principle or does this get too assuming and blind?”

JJ

There is no wrong use of the Law of Correspondences just like there is no wrong way to start using clues to solve a mystery. Contemplating the Law of Correspondences sets us on the path to the discovery and verification of the truth, but is not the truth itself, just as clues to a mystery are not the actual mystery. But when the mystery is revealed the clues will all make sense.

I’ll just make a few comments on the chakras and then you can ask me questions that may fill in the gaps.

We are living in a universe governed by the number seven where divisions of seven keep repeating themselves. The seven divisions in one area (such as sound) will loosely correspond to seven divisions in other areas (such as light). There will be similarities in, say, division three of one area, with division three of another.

BUT… These correspondences only supply seed thoughts to discovery for if we are talking about two very different objects of attention with much different mixtures then division three in one will be quite different than division three in another. Moving from sound to light, for example, is different than just moving up an octave in sound.

The seven chakras are far more complicated than the mere playing of seven notes in the musical scale as each has an internal structure which is compared to a lotus composed of petals.

The base of the spine has 4 petals, the sacral centre 6 petals, solar plexus centre 10, heart centre 12, throat centre 16, centre between the eyebrows – 2 major petals of 48 smaller ones each for a total of 96. Finally the crown centre has 1000 petals and twelve of these reflect the heart center and is referred to as the “heart center in the head.”

Each one of these petals represents a different type of energy and frequency and they unfold as we evolve. When they unfold they release a type of energy needed for our next step in evolution. Sometimes the energy released will be quite disturbing physically and emotionally until we adjust to it.

The centers do not progress in linear fashion. For one thing each petal vibrates at a different frequency so different petals in the same center make various connections to the different planes of existence.

It may seem that the center at the base of the spine would merely be associated with the physical, but through it flows the life principle and this principle extends from the lowest to the highest in human conception.

The next up is the sacral which is most closely linked to the physical plane, but is also linked to the throat center which uses the higher creative mind which is capable of manifesting intuitive ideas.

The third center is the solar plexus and is most closely linked with the astral body, but also linked with the heart and when perfected is a tool to vitalize the heart energies for the whole.

The fourth center is the heart and it is most closely associated with higher mind, and when developed, not only manifests spiritual love but taps into vibrations from the intuitive plane to the astral. It has twelve petals and six are related to love and six to wisdom.

The fifth center is the throat, but it would be incorrect to see this as higher in order than the heart. It is higher in physical placement but not on as high of an order as the heart. It helps to understand that humanity represents the throat center of the earth and Christ and His Hierarchy represent the heart center.

The next is the ajna center between the eyebrows, sometimes called the third eye. This is most closely connected with the intuitive plane, but its various petals make connections with other planes higher and lower.

Finally we arrive at the 1000 petalled lotus at the top of the head. It has links to all seven planes and as it opens establishes a greater flow of life energy between it and the foundation center at the base of the spine. Each life successfully lived opens at least one of the thousand petals.

Our seven planes of existence compose just one greater plane called the cosmic physical. The cosmic physical then is just one plane dealing with consciousness on a much higher level. Above the cosmic physical is the cosmic astral, the cosmic mental etc. It is interesting to know that they are there but comprehending them is way above our consciousness. The planetary Logos, the Ancient of Days is just a beginner in dealing with these higher planes.

***

Utopian Society

Clay

In college my professor was an expert in Utopian Political/Religious Societies and I can tell you from what I have studied is that they are all pretty much doomed to failure. The US sucks, but it is the best we got right now.

JJ

I do not know of a utopian society that was either doomed or succeeded. Some would call the Jim Jones group of Kool Aide fame a utopian society that failed, but a cult led by a tyrant is certainly not something I would call utopian.

What we are after is not perfection but a much improved society and this has happened twice in recorded history through the aid of thinkers who sought the freedom of the human spirit. The first was the creation of the City State known as Athens and the second the creation of the United States. To many America was seen as a utopia as it was sold as a place where the streets were paved with gold,

The leap forward in social evolution known as the United States was created by the gathering of lights from the rest of the world to this central location. These people were not perfect but had a desire for freedom a step above their brothers they left behind.

Even so, will the next great step forward be created though a gathering of freedom lovers. Gathering through seasteading as well as the purchasing of land will produce some successes and failures. The successes will set the standard which will create the pattern for the political fabric of the new age.

***

Latuwr

When Yahushua gave up HIS spirit, in a spiritual sense the spirit of all men was released at that moment in time. All men actually died with HIM in a spiritual sense, but very few believe and understand the implications of that momentous occurrence.

JJ

That is a nice thought, but there is no reason to believe such a thing. Actually, Jesus said that those who took in his words were not going to die and he followed his own advice and did not die. He yielded up his spirit, but the silver chord was still connected to the body, so he never really died. He merely left his body for three days and then restored himself to health.

Latuwr:

The Scriptures teach that when a person physically dies that the spirit within them must return to the ELOHIM who gave them their spirit, their very source of life (see Ecclesiastes 12:7). What then must happen with the spirit of all men released at the same time through the Cross of My Messiah Yahushua? Where does all that spirit go? All that spirit goes into the dead body of Yahushua as also commanded by the Law, and Yahushua of necessity arose from the dead, having been given the life force of all men, past, present, and future.

JJ

That is fanciful thinking but not based in reality. At death your spirit does not go into the dead body of Jesus and Jesus was not given the life force of all men past present and future. At death your spirit goes to the spirit world and is reunited with your higher self which is linked to the Creator so in this sense the Spirit returns to God, as the scripture says.

Latuwr:

This is why Messiah could assert that all power in heaven and on earth had now been given to HIM through the spirit coming back to HIM in the grave. This spirit is the LIFE of all.

JJ

And you and I have access to the same spirit of God that Jesus did. It is that spirit that as all power and when anyone links to it then all things become possible.

Latuwr

My Messiah now owns my spirit and your spirit.

JJ

He doesn’t own your spirit any more than Mother Teresa. All of us, including Jesus, owes our lives to the One God.

Latuewr,

Do you really believe that Yahushua will now send the spirit of man back to the deceased through the process of reincarnation after Messiah has gone to the trouble to take that very spirit from all men through HIS Cross?

JJ

You are preaching something not even found in the Bible, but reincarnation is. On the other hand, the resurrection of KRISIS is the resurrection of reincarnation. You should read my treatise that proves it HERE.

Latuwr

Indeed, the spirit of Messiah is shared with men, but this sharing, this gift is not through reincarnation.

JJ

Because we are in the image of God and God has three aspects, one of which is the Christ, the Son or the energy of the soul, then when we access this we access the same spirit that flows through Jesus and every other master soul. Before we come to this realization of access we must pass through many lives.

Latuwr

Let me ask you this question: My Messiah said that it is the spirit which gives life to the flesh. What does it really mean should Messiah choose to give some of us additional spirit? Do you see the implications of such a gift?

JJ

Technically a Master such as the Christ can overshadow a disciple, as Jesus was overshadowed by the Spirit at his baptism. This brings additional power to the disciple which can be directed to fulfill the Purpose of God whatever that should be at the time. To receive additional assistance from a Master the disciple must develop himself through the experience of many lifetimes so he can make himself a useful vessel.

 

March 17, 2015

Ken:

Shalom JJ, do you honestly believe that what Moses wrote concerning Yeshua rising from the dead is in line with most “Christian” thought? Looking at what Moses wrote would be the last place in the world a Baptist or Mormon would look to see Living Water/Eternal Life/The Spirit being added to the dead body of Yeshua.

JJ

Who cares where they look? What you have come up with concerning the living water being the spirit which gives life is pretty much doctrine common to most Christian churches. I don’t see how it matters much if you find the doctrine in Moses or Paul – the end conclusion of your belief is what you live by.

If your doctrine is a lot different than the regular Christian fundamentalist then you have not made yourself clear at all as that is how you are coming across with a twist of seeing some detailed allegory in the Old Testament that supports Christian doctrine.

***

Clay:

I am still not sure exactly what IamaHebrew and his brother are trying to express. Could both of you please just write a brief synopsis, without the use of scripture please, to explain exactly what you believe. I admit I am just confused. I know it has to do with Yeshua dying and being resurrected, but that is all I am getting out of this. I am not trying to be disrespectful or intentionally obtuse, I am genuinely not understanding.

JJ

I share your sentiments. Here is what I see. The Brown Brothers have come up with some interpretations of scripture they see as profound. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were the only two on earth who see the interpretations they way they do. They think that miraculous things are going to happen so their doctrines are going to be accepted by the world with the creation of a new church – like maybe they see themselves as the two witnesses.

They strongly believe their message is important and seek to convert us to it. That is why they are here. They really have no interest that I can see in learning the new things presented here, but only in converting us.

Over the years we have had a number of people come here with this idea of converting us and the end result is always the same. Here is the sequence.

1. They begin making fairly civil posts, but few of them go along with the class directives. They start to argue for their belief system that has little to do with group interest.
2. At first most group members are friendly to them and so friendly arguments start to surface.
3. The new guy stats getting frustrated that no one seems to understand him and some Keys members start getting irritated that the guy has an agenda and is not really interested in the class program.
4. Some anger begins to surface between the new guy and some members. Unreconcilable differences surface. It becomes obvious to the Keys members that he did not come here to learn, but to convert us and it becomes obvious to the new member that he isn’t going to convert any of us.
5. The new guy then quits and moves on to another forum.

That said, I hope the Brown Brothers are the exception and that they do some adapting and try and post on subjects the class wants to discuss. We are not a group dedicated to the infallibility of the scriptures, but see then as one source of many from which to learn.

Now Clay sets a good example for one with a different belief system. He has shared some of his beliefs but doesn’t seem to have any agenda to convert us. Sharing is fine, but getting stuck on the same subject for extended periods of time with an agenda is a problem.

This was the problem the group had with Allan. He had an agenda. He basically posts here to convert us to the idea that we do not have contact with the higher self but he does. This does not go over well.

***

Latuwr writes:

You further asserted to me:

“He yielded up his spirit, but the silver chord was still connected to the body, so he never really died. He merely left his body for three days and then restored himself to health.”

There actually exist a number of New Testament Scriptures which state that My Messiah Yahushua was raised from the dead by the ELOHIM of us all. Check out these two :

Acts 2:24

24 Whom ELOHIM hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Act 2:32

32 This Yahushua hath ELOHIM raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Do you and Allan and Company possess any Scriptures which point blank state that Messiah Yahushua did not die in a physical sense as you both happily proclaim, and then did not arise from the dead in a physical sense according to your imagined and fabricated gospel?

JJ

Neither of those scriptures you quote says that Jesus died. He made it quite clear that anyone who took in his words would not die. He said:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” John 8:51

“And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” John 11:26

Therefore, if Jesus followed his own teaching this would mean that he would “never see death.”

He didn’t overcome death at the resurrection, but before this event. As it turned out they tried to kill a man who already was not subject to death but he let the drama unfold to present the conquest of death to the world in a way they could understand.

***

Clay:

I am still not sure exactly what IamaHebrew and his brother are trying to express. Could both of you please just write a brief synopsis, without the use of scripture please, to explain exactly what you believe. I admit I am just confused. I know it has to do with Yeshua dying and being resurrected, but that is all I am getting out of this. I am not trying to be disrespectful or intentionally obtuse, I am genuinely not understanding.

JJ

I share your sentiments. Here is what I see. The Brown Brothers have come up with some interpretations of scripture they see as profound. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were the only two on earth who see the interpretations they way they do. They think that miraculous things are going to happen so their doctrines are going to be accepted by the world with the creation of a new church – like maybe they see themselves as the two witnesses.

They strongly believe their message is important and seek to convert us to it. That is why they are here. They really have no interest that I can see in learning the new things presented here, but only in converting us.

Over the years we have had a number of people come here with this idea of converting us and the end result is always the same. Here is the sequence.

1. They begin making fairly civil posts, but few of them go along with the class directives. They start to argue for their belief system that has little to do with group interest.
2. At first most group members are friendly to them and so friendly arguments start to surface.
3. The new guy starts getting frustrated that no one seems to understand him and some Keys members start getting irritated that the guy has an agenda and is not really interested in the class program.
4. Some anger begins to surface between the new guy and some members. Irreconcilable differences surface. It becomes obvious to the Keys members that he did not come here to learn, but to convert us, and it becomes obvious to the new member that he isn’t going to convert any of us.
5. The new guy then quits and moves on to another forum.

That said, I hope the Brown Brothers are the exception and that they do some adapting and try and post on subjects the class wants to discuss. We are not a group dedicated to the infallibility of the scriptures, but see them as one source of many from which to learn.

Now Clay sets a good example for one with a different belief system. He has shared some of his beliefs but doesn’t seem to have any agenda to convert us. Sharing is fine, but getting stuck on the same subject for extended periods of time with an agenda is a problem.

This was the problem the group had with Allan. He had an agenda. He basically posts here to convert us to the idea that we do not have contact with the higher self but he does. This does not go over well.

 

March 19, 2015

Corporations

Corporations are not perfect but they are far less harmful than governments. Consider these points.

No corporation has done anything to make my life harder (of which I am aware) but they have done many things to make my life better and easier.

Let us compare the largest corporation in the world, Apple, and the federal government.

Apple’s products have given me much pleasure for many years and nothing to make me unhappy or to lower the quality of my life or that may hurt my children and posterity.

The Federal government has done a few things that assist us but I have many complaints. They over tax us and waste our money. I get my money’s worth from Apple so I do not care what they do with the prophets.

Just one example of waste. We lose over $65 billion a year with just Medicare through outright fraud and several times that amount through careless bungling and management.

My biggest complaint is they borrow money in my name and expect my kids and grandkids to pay it back. Apple doesn’t do anything close to being this egregious. They borrow nothing at my expense and are not after my kids future income to pay bills.

If we do not have corporations we would need some type of business organization of a similar nature to accomplish large projects such as developing iphones, ipads, iwatches iMacs etc. If we did away with corporations then what would replace them and why would this replacement be any more benevolent?

***

Clay:

You obviously were never a miner in the coal mines of Eastern KY, the corporations there run the towns completely and engaged in outright murder, beatings, and intimidation of every form in order to keep the towns and workers compliant with their aims. Things got better once the Federal government got involved, but about 100 years ago these companies acted no better than criminal gangs and corruption is still rampant.

JJ

I see you had to go back 100 years to find a good example whereas you can find examples of government abuse anytime anywhere.

In my youth I worked in construction for several corporations and I had several terrible bosses. Did I blame the legal corporation for my mistreatment? No. The problem was the cantankerous personalities of my bosses. These guys would have been just as big of a problem as bosses in a private non corporate business. They would have been a much bigger problem for me if they had been my parents. Should we ban parenthood to eliminate such difficulties?

Even though I had to put up with a lot I always had the option to leave my job and seek another. Why didn’t I? Because the benefits outweighed the problems.

On the other hand, with government you often do not have the option to leave and seek something better. Take North Korea for example. If they try and leave or even complain then they are likely to get shot. If we do not like the taxation, waste and debt in the USA do we have the power to just opt out?

Hardly.

In the example you cite of course the government should get involved if there is abuse that reaches to the point of murder. I think we all support laws to prevent such things.

And who committed the murders?

People. And the people who ordered the murders should have been prosecuted.

With or without corporations you are going to have people do naughty things. There is no way to prevent wrongdoing of individuals, families, associations, groups, religions, corporations, governments etc? Does that mean we should ban them all?

That is crazy talk. You might as well just ban people being people and that is pretty close to what has happened in North Korea and that hasn’t worked out well. By the way, I do believe private corporations are banned there and that has solved no problems whatsoever.

The point is that if we ban corporations then they must be replaced with something similar. You never answered my question. With what would we replace them? How would we get the next great advance in technology with no corporations such as Apple?

There are problems not only with corporations but with general business practices. I have proposed a solution called The Molecular Business which appeals to people on both sides of the political equation. You might want to take a look. Here are the links.

Link1 Link2 Link3 Link4 Link5

It is interesting that since I wrote this over thirty years ago that there has been social evolution in the direction of the treatise.

***

Clay:

Economic cooperatives, and joint partnerships. 100 years ago these companies just blatantly committed murder, they still engage in physical beatings and intimidation.

JJ

So have some individuals and churches. Should we ban the Catholic church because of a few bad apples? Should we ban individual initiative?

Clay:

I have friends that work in legal clinics for the poor in these regions and what these companies engage in is outright reprehensible.

JJ

And some Catholic Priests abuse little children. Should we categorize then all as bad and ban them all? Does not compute.

Clay:

Jim, I was a corporate lawyer and a former anarcho-capitalist and in college and grad school was enamored with Von Mises, Hayek, and the entire Austrian School of economics, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard.

JJ

I have never been enamored with the Austrian School and have many disagreements with them. I agree with Ayn Rand as far as she supports the Principle of freedom, but think she goes overboard in emphasizing selfishness. I think you have me in he wrong box.

Clay:

the threat of socialism was not nearly the threat of statist corporatism.

JJ

It is not socialism that is the threat. It is the threat to freedom. Any ideology no matter how benevolent it sounds is turned into a great evil when implemented by force rather working with the majority through education using the principle of freedom.

Clay

Corporations are just as much a threat as the state, in fact the two mutually support each other.

JJ

You are unjustly stereotyping all corporations here. A handful may work to gain unearned favors, but most do not. There are many good corporations, just as there are many good people as decisions in corporations are made by people.

There are also wealthy individuals who influence government in directions many people do not like. Should ban individual initiative?

Clay:

You want less state control, you are going to need less corporate control. The solution is better government, not less. I have read just about any source you are going to bring up and used to believe in them with all my heart,

JJ

My sources of defense are logic and reason.

You say the alternative is “Economic cooperatives, and joint partnerships.”

Aren’t most cooperatives also corporations? Couldn’t these two entities you mention also abuse people and seek to influence government for their own purposes? Could either one of these entities gather together the thousands of people necessary to create something as innovative as the iPhone?

Can you point to a non corporate entity that could do the works of Apple?

Again, I would suggest you read my solution to the current business problems linked in my previous post.

***

Clay:

Apple is viewed as a benevolent corporation because they have shifted all of their manufacturing to China were conditions and wages are horrendous just leaving the high profile intellectual jobs here in the US which protects their image. I seriously doubt you or anyone on this forum would want to be employed in an Apple factory over in China,

JJ

If my family was destitute and I had to feed them as is the case of many Apple workers in China, yeah, of course I would jump at the better opportunity to work for Apple. Apple is doing those destitute people a great favor.

If Apple pulled out tomorrow and all those people lost their jobs then they would all revert back to their previous situation which was much worse than being an Apple worker.

A destitute people cannot be pulled up in one giant leap but it must happen a step at a time. After the War many Japanese worked for starvation wages but the progressed and are now on par with us.

If the Chinese do not willingly work for a wage that is attractive to corporations then corporations will employ locals for more money and less hassle and the people will lose out on the chance to move forward.

I have been an Apple fan since I bought my first Mac Plus in 1986, long before they expanded to China.

March 22, 2015

First Jim, let me clarify about the Upper Triad Materials. It never dawned on me until today exactly what was being referred to. If it was mentioned here previously I must have merely thought it had something to do with Theosophy or Alice A. Bailey writings as they talk a lot about the Upper Triad.

I took a look at the materials on the Upper Triad site today and it looks like they have presented a lot of teachings that are a synthesis of numerous different schools of thought. I read a couple things and they sounded interesting so I downloaded them all and will read some more.

The goal of this group is to seek out truth wherever we can find it. In doing this we place an emphasis on principles and this is what makes us unique on the web. There are a lot of writings out there that give out interesting data, but do they elaborate on the principles behind the data? That is the important thing because the language of principles is the true language of the soul. A principle, which may be worth many books, can be communicated in a flash by the Inner Self.

This group is not told what to think or what to eat by me. They are free to eat whatever they want and participate here to their heart’s content. We have good members who are vegetarians and others meat eaters. The thing that most of us have in common is we seek to take needed measures to insure good health. I stated early on in this forum that any tips that promote a healthy lifestyle are always on topic.

Concerning animals you said this:

I happened to be in Kansas City, Kansas, when I was 15 years old. I was with my Uncle who took me on a tour of Swift’s Slaughter House and meat packing plant , and what I witnessed during the tour horrified me even then, but I never became a Vegetarian until I was 45 and was initiated in to Sant Mat. Tears still choke me up, remembering the horrors I witnessed during that tour, with cattle, swine, lambs, being slaughtered, cut up, while still alive, and crying out in pain. It requires workers with hard hearts to be able to work in those environments.

JJ

That sounds horrible and should not be tolerated. I am completely supportive of humane treatment of all living things.

I was a foreman in a meat packing plant back in the early Seventies and visited the kill floor now and then and what transpired was nothing like you describe. The animals were killed painlessly and instantly with a projectile into the brain. They went unconscious immediately without suffering. There is absolutely no reason to butcher the animals alive. If that happens anywhere you would think the animal rights groups would raise havoc about it.

There is also no reason to abuse any animal or living thing and those who do so will pay a just price.

I’m posting separately an article I wrote for the general public on using animals for food.

***

Jim:

Animals , NONE of them, ever create Karma! ONLY humans create Karma, because we are the only earth Specie to be self conscious,

JJ

The teaching that animals have karma came from the Master DK through Alice A. Bailey, and highly regarded by the Upper Triad Group.

To say animals cannot create karma is to say that they are not subject to cause and effect for that is all karma is. It is the playing out of cause and effect. If an animal makes a misstep and falls off a cliff he will be subject to gravity just like a human.

The main difference between animals and humans, as far as cause and effect go, is that they are not subject to the emotional hurts that humans are, neither are they self conscious and thus are divorced from some causes and effects experienced by humans. They are subject to many causes and effects individually and collectively and the karma Ruth referenced was a collective one. And collectively the animals are presided over by group souls that are self conscious and subject to karma on a higher level than individual animals.

***

I saw quite a few animals go through the kill floor when I worked at a meat packing plant and never saw one that wasn’t killed instantly or consciously suffered from pain. The plant you visited must have been really sloppy in their process.

When pets get older few people let them die natural deaths but either shoot them or have them injected which would also cause instant death. Are you against doing this, but instead would let the poor animal suffer for an extra year as he slowly and painfully dies?

In my view sudden death isn’t as destructive as you portray. It is a shock to the spiritual system, but the recovery happens quite quickly in humans and animals would be less effected because they do not have self consciousness. A slow and painful death takes a longer time from which to recuperate after death than a sudden one.

JJ

***

Blayne:

There is a movement called permaculture restoration agriculture that I am involved in and there are many farmers who raise animals very ethically You can see the difference in these animals and how happy they are.

JJ

What Clay and Jim overlook is the good karma that is incurred by intelligent farmers by raising animals for food and produce. The happy animals that are raised are given a chance at life that would not have happened if they were not needed by humans. They come down here and pleasantly live their lives which are then painlessly ended. Because of human need they then get a chance for a much quicker return and continue their learning as an animal speeding their evolution.

In this case the good karma (effects) for the farmer and thoughtful consumer outweights any bad karma (effects).

Killing an animal has a much lesser negative effect than killing a human. When a human is killed the path of the soul is interrupted – the soul lesson is frustrated and delayed. Not so with animals. They are reborn with no basic interruption to their progress.

As I said earlier we need to look at the principles behind things and get the full picture. If we interpret by only using black and white data then much will be missed.

***

Clay:

Sorry JJ but even self defense incurs negative karma

JJ

Every action or inaction results in karma, or cause to some, degree. You have to look at each incident to form a judgment.The Master DK tells us that the neutral nations during World War II incurred negative karma because they did not help the Allies when they could to defeat Hitler and because their neutrality was hurtful to the cause of right they will reap negative effects at some future time.

Do you not think you would reap some negative karma if you could take forceful action to save your child’s life and you just stood there and watched him get tortured and murdered instead? There is a time and place for all things as Solomon said.

Matt 21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

Matt 21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

***

Clay:

I do not have any children, so it would be dishonest of me to answer that question, but my feeling is that I would possibly kill someone in order to save my child from being tortured and killed. However, I still think it would incur negative karma if I did so, I would just be willing to take on that negative karma in order to save my child’s life because I would value my child’s life more than my own, and selfishly want to protect my child’s life because I want my child to be with me and not want him/her with God.

JJ

And do you not see the negative karma you would incur from inaction when the action would accomplish something good?

Jesus was right in that circumstance, but that was an unusual circumstance. Why do you think Jesus allowed Peter to carry a sword in the first place?

***

Clay:

I am curious JJ, do you support a woman’s decision to abort a baby if her life is in danger due to the pregnancy or from giving birth? Would this not be equivalent to self-defense, take a life in order to preserve a life? Some people would say that it is acceptable in these circumstances, I personally and vigorously disagree with them, so I am truly curious as to what you believe on this issue.

JJ

She would need to check with her soul to determine the best course. There is no cut and dry answer as to what is right in such a circumstance. Maybe the entity who will be born doesn’t want to come down and be raised without a Mom. I support her right to choose even if she chooses incorrectly.

***

Clay:

We were not made to eat meat, this is made clear in Genesis, I want to return to wholeness, to the state we were in prior to the fall and the flood,

JJ

“And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of

sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:” Genesis 4:2-4

So we see here that the good guy, Abel, raised sheep and made and offering of these animals to God and was accepted. The bad guy Cain was a dirt farmer and made an offering of his crops and was not.

So why did Abel raise sheep? Was it because they were cute animals? Being the first generation after Adam it is unlikely he even knew what to do with any wool or how to shear it. And how did he make the offering?

And the shepherds at the birth of Jesus definitely raised their sheep for meat yet they were considered righteous enough to be visited by angels announcing the birth of Christ.

Correspond to modern times.

Hitler was a vegetarian and did not drink or smoke.

 

The good guys, Churchill and FDR ate meat and drank and smoked. Which side made an acceptable offering to God and man?

There is much more to good and evil than what goes in the belly.

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” Matt 15:11

 

Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies… Matt 15:17-20

 

There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: Mark 7:15

***

Suppose you had a chance to save 100 innocent people by killing a bad guy with a bomb? Would you rather have the blood of one bad guy on your karma or that of 100 innocent people pointing fingers a you from the spirit world declaring they would still be alive if you had just taken action and then shaking their heads in dismay at what was a dumb decision?

What is missing here is The Lost Key of the Buddha, the subject of my second volume in the immortal series.

 

March 23, 2015

Diet Comments

Ruth:

So if you want to be taken seriously, drop the holier than thou attitude because you don’t eat meat and harm precious animals, and are a practicing pacifist…

JJ

Don’t be so harsh with the judgments Ruth. There is no reason to see the beliefs of Clay or Jim as anything other sincerely held just as we sincerely hold ours. To express a different belief does not give an indication of being holier than thou. Clay has said nothing to give the indication that he sees himself as more holy than anyone else here.

Let us resort to dealing with the actual words of others with whom we disagree and if a character flaw is suspected then it will come out naturally for all to see.

That said, I’ll make a few comments on the subject of vegetarianism. I have already written quite a bit about it and I think my views are clear to old timers.

I have no problem with those who believe that the best of all diets is the vegetarian one. Then too I have no problem with someone like Rick who sees the Paleo diet with lots of meat as the optimum. It is fine for anyone who wishes to make their case for their beliefs. Where the line gets crossed and the poster gets irritating is when they begin insisting we must convert and see as they do.

Clay says his Higher Self is directing him toward a vegetarian diet and I believe him. There is a time and place on the path where each disciple must go on various diets for various purposes. When new petals are unfolding from the centers and new energies are released the lighter the food the better to aid in handling the new energies. If I am successful in creating a human molecule in my lifetime I may have to go back to a raw foods vegetarian diet to handle the intense spiritual flow or my soul could tell me tomorrow to make a change.

In fact I have made a couple changes in my diet in recent times,

First I fast from food about 17 hours every day (except special occasions) and secondly I eat about 600 calories a day for two days a week. I’ve been doing the first part for a couple years and it has a lot of health benefits. This has proven itself. For the second I am still assessing the sacrifice/benefit ratio.

***

JJ: “Where the line gets crossed and the poster gets irritating is when they begin insisting we must convert and see as they do.”

Ruth:

Maybe telling the Truth is harsh in some situations,

JJ

To negatively judge the content of the heart of another may or may not be the truth. No one gets in trouble here for merely telling the truth. But one thing that really creates disturbance here is when one negatively judges the heart or intent of another. Often such judgments are not correct and justifiably irritates the person being judged.

Now Jim makes this same mistake when he judges members here as not having minds if their own who just swallow everything I say just because I say it. This is entirely wrong headed and members find this wrong and insulting. Most of the close associates and friends I have here have strongly disagreed with me in the past. Blayne, as one example, first came on this forum with both guns blazing and some just wished he would go away. Now he is one of the most appreciated members of the Keys.

I encourage all members here to follow my example. Give others the benefit of the doubt in making judgments. If you disagree with another or the way another expresses himself do not judge the intent of his heart,

Other things we discourage are name calling and just plain lack of civility. We also discourage the creation of threads that run contrary to the interest of the group and the classroom situation. Overt attempts to convert us to an ideology is discouraged, but the sharing of a different belief we can take or leave is fine.

If a member disagrees with another member then he should civilly comment on his actual words without making judgments on his character.

Ruth:

Are we not here to learn from your teachings?

JJ

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that others cannot share their beliefs with the group or disagree with me.

Ruth:

You have every right to mollycoddle your newer members, if you think you can steer them towards more Light.

JJ

It s called treating others with respect. Some may think I mollycoddle you also.

Ruth:

I am not that good at the mollycoddle approach. Never was. I am direct and blunt.

JJ

I am quite direct myself, but one can be direct and rude or direct and pleasant. Sometimes there is no way to avoiding offending sensitive people as I easily do with Allan’s group, even though I try to be nice to them. Even so, we should make the effort to be civil.

Ruth

Just a minor suggestion you might like to make, for future reference, to those newer members who come here.

Perhaps you could expound on the Keyster’s group statement, so that it reads more like this?

Members of this list seek to learn, understand, follow, and disseminate the teachings that are passed down to us through JJ Dewey. We also encourage and appreciate other philosophies and truths being brought into our discussions, so that we can further grow and learn together. This group is not exclusively about JJ’s teachings, but also incorporates any other teachings from all over the World, brought to us by other pupils who wish to discuss and share their beliefs and/or Truths with our Truths, because Truth is Truth, regardless of where it is found.

Disclaimer: However, there is no your Truth and my Truth, for all Truth is simply Truth, it is the perception of Truth that can be distorted through false beliefs and emotional feelings.

JJ

You are being sarcastic here Ruth. You know that is a million mikes from an intro I would write. This was not created as a free-for-all forum, but neither was it created to only allow my views to be expressed.

The intro of the group was not written by me and I may have worded it a little differently, but it is close enough for the intended purpose.

March 24, 2015

Was Jesus a Vegetarian?

To claim that Jesus was a vegetarian one would have to also discount many of the scriptures. They would either have to be viewed as fraudulent or drastically altered because evidence that he ate meat and did not prohibit meat eating is very prevalent.

On the other hand, the evidence is pretty strong that John the Baptist was a close to vegetarian for of him it was written:

And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Matt 3:4

Now the insect which is a locust, is in a much different category than beef, but a true vegetarian wouldn’t even eat a living insect. Some maintain that instead of the insect the scripture was referring to the locust or carob tree and he really ate carob cakes rather than insects.

Here is a quote from the Gospel Of Jesus by John Davidson, referred to me by Jim:

One group of early Christians in Palestine, the Ebionites, who were undoubtedly vegetarian, claimed that the correct Greek word was not locust (akris) at all, but enkris (cake) and it would certainly have been easy enough for such a mistake to have occurred during the transmission of early manuscripts.

But then vegetarians have to deal with the fact that both Matthew and Mark tell us he had “a leathern girdle about his loins.” Vegetarians normally do not wear leather.

We know that John indeed had a sparce diet as he lived in the wilderness. It is interesting that Jesus contrasted his own eating and drinking habits to John:

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. Matt 11:18-19

Obviously John ate and drank, but what they both ate and drank is the question. What John did not drink was wine for it is written:

For he (John) shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; Luke 1:15

On the other hand, Jesus obviously drank enough wine with the publicans and sinners to be accused of being a “winebibber.” The fact that he turned water to wine and showed he knew the details of winemaking in his teachings indicate he had no aversion to indulging.

And he obviously ate more than mere vegetarian food to warrant the accusation of being a “glutton.” Have you ever heard of someone merely eating bread, fruit and vegetables being called a glutton? That would be an odd accusation indeed.

Jesus was often invited to dinner with wine drinking and meat eating publicans and sinners and what do you suppose was his philosophy about eating and drinking what was set before him?

He was pretty clear on the subject. He told his disciples:

And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: Luke 10:7

Also in the Gospel of Thomas he is quoted as saying:

…when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.”

It sounds like his philosophy was to not be picky but to eat whatever was placed before him which was also eaten by his host.

Paul evidently followed this example set by Jesus:

If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. …

Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. I Cor 10:27-31

Also:

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.

Romans 14:1-3 NIV

Then he gave this warning:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared

with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of

them which believe and know the truth.

For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. I Tim 4:1-5

Unless all the gospels are drastically altered it would certainly appear that Jesus approved of fishing and eating fish.

First, we know of a surety that he chose fishermen for disciples and Peter a fisherman became his head apostle.

One of his first miracles was to show Peter where he could cast his net to catch 153 fish. Another time they owed some taxes so Jesus instructed Peter to go catch a fish and in its belly would be the money for the tax. Undoubtedly, someone ate that fish.

Then, after the resurrection it is written:

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. Luke 24:39-43

The final point we will look at is whether Jesus ate Lamb at the Passover. To find the truth here we must realize that the word “Passover” as found in the New Testament is translated from the Greek PASCHA. This word can be translated as either referencing the actual lamb to be sacrificed and eaten or the Passover Supper itself where the lamb was eaten. The context reveals the intent of the word. Now take note of this scripture:

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover (PASCHA), his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover (PASCHA)? Mark 14:12

Newer translations render the first PASCHA as “Passover lamb” since you don’t kill a supper. The second PASCHA could be translated either way. Mark may have intended it to read:

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the Passover lamb, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the Passover lamb? Mark 14:12

Now even if we translated the second PASCHA as the Passover dinner then it is still obvious that the slain lamb would have a place there. There is no Passover dinner without the Passover lamb.

The presence of the Passover lamb at the Last Supper is even more obvious in the Gospel of Luke.

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the PASCHA (lamb) had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the PASCHA for us, that we may eat it.” They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” Luke 22:7-8

It is pretty clear here that a lambless supper s not the intention

Jesus even uses the word for Passover lamb as something he desires to eat:

And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the Passover (PASCHA) with my disciples?

And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the Passover (PASCHA). And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this Passover (PASCHA Lamb) with you before I suffer: Luke 22:11, 13-15

It would indeed be pretty difficult to make the argument that there was no lamb at the Last Supper.

In summary it can be said that it is likely that the scriptures are corrupted to a degree and that the originals may have been worded somewhat differently, but if Jesus was a strict vegetarian then that would mean that all the standard scriptures plus many of the lesser known accounts were wholesale alterations of the truth. This does not seem likely.

It appears that Jesus was much more concerned with his mission than the purity of his diet.

***

Someone asked me about the meaning of John Paul II’s given name.

I’m not sure what sources I dug up last time on John Paul II names as they are hard to find. Here is the best I could find on short notice at this time:

Karol is a variant of Carol which means Manly, strong. A variant of Charles; from Carolus, the Latinized form of the name.

LINK

Polish (Wojdyła): variant of the personal name Wojtyła, a derivative of Wojciech, a personal name composed with the element woj ‘warrior’ (see Voytek).

LINK

Voytek: This is a surname taken from the personal name Vojtek, a pet form of Slavic Vojtěch (Polish Wojciech), meaning ‘consoling the host’ (from voj ‘host’, ‘army’, ‘force’ + těch ‘comfort’, ‘consolation’)

LINK

To read last years writings go HERE

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

March 25, 2015

Pacifism and Judgment

We’ve discussed diet and pacifism from a scriptural point of view. This can be helpful, but rarely solves any argument. Even though many believe the scriptures should be the last word on any subject they rarely are because most merely interpret them according to their own mindset and bias.

Let me therefore speak for a moment from the soul tempered with common sense and reason.

First let us look at pacifism. More important than asking what God thinks of it (as everyone has a different idea of what God thinks) is to ask what are the guiding principles that should determine our actions when a strong or violent reaction seems required.

The answer isn’t whether the action will result in karma, as all actions create some degree of karma. The truth is that sometimes in life we are faced with the choice between three decisions, which are:

(1) Taking the road to the left

(2) Taking the road to the right

(3) Standing still – doing nothing.

For instance, before World War II when faced with the rise if Hitler there were those in Churchill’s camp who wanted to take strong measures to deal with him. Then there was a second more numerous group who felt moderate measures were sufficient. Finally, there were others who wanted to do nothing, except maybe send Hitler good vibes.

The position of those in the third group is usually temporary in nature as changing circumstances will eventually force a choice that leads toward action of some kind.

For instance, before the war and the rounding up of the Jews in Germany many of that race were pacifists and felt the best course was to do nothing to oppose Hitler or prepare to deal with him.

After the war things changed. There probably was not a pacifist Jew left in Germany. I have never heard from a survivor that was not thankful for every German killed by the Allies in order to defeat Hitler.

So… what principle should guide us when considering a decision that may require violence?

Actually, it should be the same principle that guides all of our decisions which is this:

Will the end result of the Decision A result in better, more positive end results than Decision B?

Using this as a guide has proven to produce much better results than that produced by following the advice of some outward authority, even if it is the Bible, some expert or one who claims to speak for God.

Let us look at a possible situation.

You walk into your bank to make a deposit. As you are waiting in line a crazy guy comes in waving a gun. The security guard who is standing close to you draws to fire upon him, but the crazy guy shoots first and kills the guard.

He then puts the gun in his back pocket, takes off his jacket to reveal explosives strapped to his chest. He pulls out a cell phone and tells the group that when he punches in a code of three numbers that the device will explode and will kill everyone in the room. He says that before he does this that everyone is going to hear his grievances about the bank that refused to give him a loan and ruined his life.

He starts relating his story and seems to be nearing the end. You guess that you have less than a minute of life left in which to act or not act. Beside you is the security guard with his gun still in his hand. The crazy guy is shouting and screaming and as he prances back and forth he turns his back on the customers for a few seconds. This gives you time to grab the security officer’s gun and take him out.

Several thoughts run through your mind. You recall that the Bible says you should not kill. Should you obey this in black and white terms and just let yourself and about fifty others (including the crazy guy) die?

Or should you look at the end result of the two options and choose the one that makes the best sense?

You make a decision, which is a no brainer. The crazy guy is going to die anyway in a minute or so and taking him out will save you and fifty people.

You grab the gun and shoot the crazy guy in the head. Everyone in the bank cheers and many give you hugs shedding tears of gratitude. You are hailed ass a hero, but that is not the best part. The best part is that you return home safe to your loving wife and kids who depend on you.

I have presented this scenario to a number of pacifists I have met and haven’t met one yet who says he would take the gun and kill the crazy guy. Instead they would hope for a long shot that the police would come in and save them or maybe they would talk the guy into changing his mind.

When I tell them that no, the police are not going to save them and the guy is going to blow the place up – they still would refuse to take the guy out.

Taking the guy out is definitely the right decision because the end result is much better than the death and destruction caused by the bomb.

You would also be following the scripture that there is a time and season for all things, even “a time to kill.”

So why did Jesus seem to be a pacifist then? The key is revealed in the Revelation of John. Speaking of Christ it is written: “in righteousness he doth judge and make war.” Rev 19:10

Whether or not Christ will make war, that always involves violence, killing and death, is determined by good or righteous judgment.

Those who embrace light and love will only go to war and participate in violence when it is the last resort and have a fair chance at a good result. If a good result is not probable then the path of peace would be chosen.

‘In the days of Jesus the Roman empire reigned supreme and all who attempted to make war with it were destroyed. If Jesus and his little group had taken up the sword against any who opposed them they would have been wiped off the face of the earth and never heard of again. Jesus chose the wisest course of action which was to show no opposition and not pose any physical threat. The Christians following this example still suffered much grief, but they survived and the message of the Christ still lives in the hearts of men.

In other lifetimes when good judgment required it Christ did make war in righteousness and defeated his enemies. Each situation is different. One time may require turning the other cheek and going the extra mile and another may require the opposite.

The Second Key of Knowledge, the Key of Judgment, is the guiding principle. This insight is the lost key of the Buddha.

Clay:

The logic of Christ was not the logic of this world.

JJ

Logic is the same in all worlds. Only the circumstances are different. Truth is truth. No one can supply one example that proves this incorrect. They can only point to nebulous ideas that cannot be put into words concerning God’s higher thought. They do not realize that illusion cannot be out into words that make sense. All truth can be put into words because the Word is God.

So, if you had been the guy in the bank would you have refused to take out the crazy guy and thus accumulate the karma of allowing 50 people to die?

***

Clay:

I definitely believe that many of the founders of this country incurred very negative karma for their actions during the revolutionary war.

JJ

I would take the karma of those who fought for the cause of the freedom any day above those who stood on the fence and tried to remain neutral because of either pacifism or so they could be friends with whoever won,. That was about a third of the people.

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Rev 3:15-16

***

Clay:

I will also state that the logic being employed by JJ and others is exactly the same logic employed by the Catholic Church during the Inquisition. No, I am not calling them inquisitors, but the logic is the same.

JJ

You are using Allan type of logic here and are 100% incorrect. A logical person does not fear a different point of view and it is totally against the stand of a logical person to punish one for merely espousing a view or opinion.

There is no hard evidence that a heretic is creating any harm, but in the example you know the crazy guy is about to kill 50 people and that action must be taken to save lives.

The real reasoning of those who punished heretics was that God’s way of thinking (which they see as their own) far transcends that of the more logical heretics. This is similar to thinking of religious pacifists.

***

Clay:

I will also say that the violence that occurred in India was also exactly what St. Francis warned about and why he embraced a practice of voluntary poverty.

JJ

So, by your logic here a poor country like Afghanistan should be a safe place to live.

A much better plan is to not seek poverty for all, but abundance for all. The greatest stability will occur if all have equal opportunity for for abundance in life on all levels from the spiritual to the physical.

***

Clay:

Sorry JJ, that is the logic of the world and Caiphas was being perfectly logical.

JJ

He wasn’t being logical at all – not any more than the medieval persecutors of the heretics for having a different opinion. Logical people do not fear a different teaching or opinion just as I and others do not fear anyone who comes here to challenge me or just debate.

You are avoiding my question about the crazy guy. What would you do and what is the logic in not taking him out? Why would you risk the karma of killing 50 people instead of just one?

***

Clay:

Murdering another was not as great of a sin because you were only killing the persons body, not their soul. Heresy they truly believed, could lead to ETERNAL DAMNATION.

JJ

The eternal damnation idea was not logical nor connected with any proven reality. The reasonable and logical person does not attack those with a different opinion on a thing that cannot be demonstrated to be true. Now it is a different matter if a heretic wants to bomb a restaurant full of innocent people. Dealing with something like this goes beyond opposing a belief, but opposing real harm.

By your logic one should not prick a boil and release the poison because, by gosh, that would hurt and maybe destroy a few good cells. Have fun applying the pacifist logic to that situation.

JJ

 

March 26, 2015

Diet and Health

Let us put aside all supernatural authority on diet for a moment and just talk about it from the angle of common sense, reason and intuition.

There are two reasons cited to be a vegetarian. The first is for better health ad the second is an aversion to killing animals.

Let us look at the first. Are vegetarians healthier than meat eaters?

This is generally assumed to be the case but recent studies tells us otherwise. Here’s a couple quotes:

A new study from the Medical University of Graz in Austria finds that vegetarians are more physically active, drink less alcohol and smoke less tobacco than those who consume meat in their diets. Vegetarians also have a higher socioeconomic status and a lower body mass index. But the vegetarian diet — characterized by a low consumption of saturated fats and cholesterol that includes increased intake of fruits, vegetables and whole-grain products — carries elevated risks of cancer, allergies and mental health disorders.

Vegetarians were twice as likely to have allergies, a 50 percent increase in heart attacks and a 50 percent increase in incidences of cancer.

Vegetarians reported higher levels of impairment from disorders, chronic diseases, and “suffer significantly more often from anxiety/depression.”

LINK

Researchers at Oxford University recently followed 35,000 individuals aged 20 to 89 for a period of five years and discovered that vegans are 30% more likely to break a bone than their vegetarian and flesh-eating peers. A subsequent study conducted by Sydney’s Garvan Institute for Medical Research found that vegetarians had bones 5% less dense than meat-eaters. This can be attributed to the fact that many vegetarians and vegans consume very little calcium due to the limitations of their diet.

LINK

You would think vegetarians would be healthier than meat eaters, especially since this study shows they have a lower BMI and drink less alcohol but such is not true according to various studies.

Why do you suppose this would be the case? I would guess that part of the reason is that because the vegetarian doesn’t eat meat he has a strong craving for protein and many of them fill that need with foods that are harder on the system than meat. Many of them eat a lot of processed cheese, cow’s milk, starchy foods and tofu in an effort to get that satisfied full feeling you get from meat. It would be interesting to study the health of vegetarians who eat a large percentage of live foods. Now Steve Jobs did seem to live on a very restricted raw food diet, but unfortunately died early of cancer, so he fit the mold of these studies.

One study in favor of a vegetarian diet was done with Seventh Day Adventists. The church encourages members to be vegetarians, eat healthy and not drink or smoke. 30% of them are vegetarians. On the average they are quite a bit healthier than average. I think the reason for this is the church promotes an overall good diet and many members study nutrition and are careful about eating nutritious food.

Mormons also live longer and are healthier than average. They eat quite bit of meat but do not drink or smoke or drink coffee or tea..

Some researches think part of the reason these two groups are healthier than average is the positive influence of their religions as much as diet.

I have taken a particular interest in those who live to an very advanced age. Anyone over a hundred interests me, but I pay particular attention to anyone who approaches 105 or older. I’ve read quite a few stories relating to people 105 and older and do not recall one that said he or she was a vegetarian though I would suspect some are. I remember one guy who was over 110 saying he ate bacon and eggs every morning and another lady saying she ate ham hocks daily. Then there’s another lady who was 116 who raises and eats goats.

Over the years I looked for a common thread in the diet of those who lived in good health to an advanced age and I have found two things. Many of them raise a garden or farm animals and eat what they grow themselves. The most common trait of all though seems to be moderation. None of them seem to go to excess in eating or drinking. From my observations it seems that moderation is more important than what you eat, though what you eat is certainly a factor.

My philosophy in eating for health is this. Eat as many raw fruits and vegetables as possible. Green leafy vegetables are particularly good and I eat sprouts every day in a big salad. I fast from food 16-17 hours a day and if I feel sluggish I go on a fast from food for a week. That is very rejuvenating. I do not drink milk, but do use a little cream in my coffee.

I try and buy local eggs from pasture raised hens and meat from stock that is humanely raised with no antibiotics, fed with organic foods if possible.

The only drugs I take are from coffee and wine. I avoid prescription drugs as well as over the counter ones like the plague except for a couple aspirin a year. I eat very little sugar and avoid artificial sweeteners as I believe ingesting much of them is very detrimental to health. With rare exceptions the only sweeteners I use are raw honey, maple syrup (usually grade B) and blackstrap molasses.

As health insurance I take a number of food supplements daily.

***

Allan:

From the perspective of a seeker of Truth and the vegetarian diet, you forgot the primary reason and the most important, which is the grounding of the person’s consciousness and the inability to comprehend man’s higher soul and spiritual reality.

JJ

I didn’t forget at all as that wasn’t the subject of the article. I’ll cover that somewhat next.

Vegetarian diet has little to do with comprehending a higher spiritual reality. I’ve been on both raw foods only vegetarian diet and regular meat diet and haven’t seen any difference in my ability which is moving along just fine. As proof read my thousands of articles and my books containing knowledge brought down from higher planes.

Also, Jesus was a meat eater (note previous article) and he did pretty good. You also quote meat eater Edgar Cayce regularly as a spiritual authority.

***

Leaselann asks:

I am curious how often do you drink wine and how much? Also do you ever drink any other type of alcohol? What is your take on other types? I know people’s bodies are different and what’s right for one person is not for another.

JJ

I currently drink a couple glasses of red wine just before and during my evening meal. I enjoy red wine the most but also like dry white and dark beers. Spaten Optimator from Germany is my favorite beer. I enjoy most all beverages though probably 95% of what I drink is red wine. I drink 5 days a week and lay off for two.

You are right that everyone’s bodies are different. There are those who crave alcohol that shouldn’t drink at all, then there are those that have no desire or taste for it and there are those like me that enjoy it but do not overindulge.

I think that both red wine and quality dark beer are healthy to drink in moderation. Smaller amounts of stronger beverages may also be beneficial, but are more subject to abuse.

Until Prohibition Nicola Tesla drank a small amount of whiskey every day. He felt that a small amount daily would stimulate his system and prolong his life.

He ate meat during the most productive years of his life. After he turned to vegetarianism he started working on weapons.

***

Leaselann asks:

Sorry one more question what are your favorite wines anyone? I thought you may know some that don’t have added sulfates and grapes are grown without harmful chemicals. My favorite is dmz their current one is a Cabernet rose and my husband is not such a fan.

JJ

We talked quite a lot about wine back in 2002. Back then I wrote:

I think that the wines of Australia and Chile appeal to me because the grapes there are grown in earth that has not been stripped of trace minerals. In the United States over 90% of our trace minerals are depleted from our soil, but in Australia the figure is around 50%, one of the lowest in the world. I do not know what the figure is in Chile, but I can tell from the taste of the wine that the trace mineral amount is much better than the United States.

I figure that if I drink red wine from mineral rich countries that the wine will have an additional health benefit beyond the antioxidant and heart benefits from moderate drinking.

I still like the Australian wines a lot and have never tasted a bad one. They seem to have a nice richness to them. There are several that are good and reasonable in price such as Black Opal, Rosemount, Lindeman’s, Yellowtail and Yalumba. However, my tastes have changed since 2002 and I have a taste for a wide variety of them. I used to not like French or Californian wines, but have found some I like. Anything grown in Sonoma County California is pretty good,

I have grown particularly fond of wines grown in my neck of the woods, particularly from Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Some I like are 14 Hands, Columbia Crest Grand Estates, and Red Diamond.

There is a chain here called Grocery Outlet with a store here that buys closeout and overstocked wines and sells them at a big discount. You can sometimes get a $20 wine for $6-$7. The trouble is that when I find one I like they often never stock it again, but it does provide me with an opportunity to sample a wide variety of quality wines without spending a lot.

Twice a year they have a sale where all wines are discounted an extra 20%. One is coming up next week.’

Another way I save on popular name brands is to use rebates. Some wines offer rebates of $3 a bottle for up to six bottles. On top of that one of the stores I buy from offers an additional 10% if you buy six and an additional 10% still on senior day. I’ve bought $10 wines for less than $5 a bottle and $6 wines for around $2.

I usually buy organic with no additive in food, but I haven’t found any really good organic wines and some are quite pricey for what you get. I don’t think the sulfates do much harm. I go mainly by how my body responds to any drink or food.

***

Jim:

I have counseled THOUSANDS of Alcoholics, who drank less than two glasses of wine a day.

JJ

Why would someone need counseling for drinking two glasses of wine a day? Did they have some kind of negative reaction to it? I It has no negative effect on me, but has the healthful effect of relaxing me. I’ve done some of my best writing and thinking after a couple glasses, but that is me. If it affects one negatively then he shouldn’t drink and neither should one eat peanut butter if he has a bad reaction to it.

I have never had a problem related to alcohol, never had a DUI and never lost control.

The benefit for me as outweighed any detriment. If it didn’t I would stop tomorrow.

***

JJ

“…the vegetarian diet … carries elevated risks of … mental health disorders.”

lwk

The real problem with using statistics is an assumption of cause and effect that may, or may not be true. One example that you see all the time is the use of statistics to prove racism, for example, comparing how many blacks and whites are stopped for traffic violations in Ferguson, Mo. It is entirely possible that the problem that statistics is measuring there is not racism, but a much higher propensity for some blacks to be more violent and law breaking (FBI statistics show blacks are almost 8 times more likely to commit murder).

JJ

I agree with your points Larry. You have to look at the details of any study to make a judgment because many of them were made with an agenda.

For instance, there was a study a while back that showed that taking vitamin supplements had no benefit. But what they didn’t tell you is that the vitamin they used in the study was the worst one made containing many synthetic vitamins – Centrum. They didn’t use a decent natural supplement because that wouldn’t have given them the results they wanted.

The same thing occurred when a study revealed that the benefit of vitamin E was negligible. They used a synthetic vitamin E and anyone into natural foods avoids that because we realize it probably does more harm than good.

Then they did a study on organic vegetables which showed that they had no more vitamins than the non organic. Their conclusion was that organic was a waste of money.

This was an attempt at deception because we do not buy organic for the vitamins but buy it to avoid pesticides, enjoy the better flavor and trace minerals and other esoteric benefits.

Like they say, the devil is in the details.

March 28, 2015

One Size Not for All

Jim:

The Sant Mat Masters teach that when awake, the seat of the soul is headquartered at the Third Eye, where it functions from. They say that intoxicants pull the soul down in to the lower Chakras, to the Throat Chakra, as when asleep, and below.

JJ

All dense food has a magnetic earthy pull which the person can either follow or neutralize. Those who cannot neutralize and want to seek the spiritual path should check with their souls about drink or eating meat.

For short periods I like to go with the flow and just enjoy the moment wherever I am, earthy or not, but can snap back to the spiritual flow when needed.

Jim:

You say drinking wine helps you write better.

JJ

No, I didn’t say that. I said that I have done some of my best writing after drinking wine. I do not drink enough at one time to cause a hindrance.

I drink like Socrates who often sipped on wine while having philosophical discussions. He said that it was important to no drink so much that you couldn’t appreciate a quality wine.

Jim:

So, if you soul is drawn below your Third Eye level, do you think you are writing at your highest spiritual potential?

JJ

I would think that Socrates functioned at the third Eye as good as anyone you are rubbing shoulders with. Jesus who even turned water into wine for guests to enjoy was another.

Jim

Why don’t you try abstaining from all alcohol for a month trial, and substitute drinking wine at dinner for an hour’s Meditation, sitting in contemplation, while concentrating at the Third eye , visualizing a Rose at the center of The Cross.

JJ

I didn’t drink for the first 33 years of my life and notice no difference in my spiritual abilities. My greatest quest is to bring down truth and principles from the higher realms and have done that uninterrupted throughout my life. I also seek to introduce principles that will cause positive change on the planet. Take a look at my millions of words of writings as evidence. There are many things there found in no book on earth.

The bottom line is one size does not fit all. I follow the advice of my soul. If it tells me to make a change then I will listen. Many people do get advice from their souls about diet, drink, relationships, behavior etc and think it applies to everyone, but often it just is for them.

 

March 29, 2015

Diet and Spirituality

So, how important is diet in connection to spirituality? After all Jesus said:

It is “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” Matt 15:11

Then in the Gospel of Thomas, verse 14 Jesus is quoted as saying:

“…when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among them. After all, what goes into your mouth will not defile you; rather, it’s what comes out of your mouth that will defile you.

Obviously a basic idea is this. Eating and drinking has little effect on spirituality when compared to what is going on inside the person’s mind and heart and to what comes out of his mouth. A person’s good words and works will generate much greater spiritual advancement than select food and drink.

Does his mean that what we eat and drink have no effect?

Of course not. Everything has an effect of some kind. The thoughts close to our heart have the greatest spiritual effect on us, but that doesn’t mean that what we take into our mouths has no effect.

There are a number of claims about spirituality and diet. Some claim that one must eliminate all animal meat to enter the spiritual path. Others claim we must eliminate all fish also. Others claim we must not eat anything with a face so clams and oysters would be okay.

Still others say we must not eat any living and moving creature and not eat any of their products, such as milk, cheese and eggs.

Others go further saying on top of this we must not eat anything that is not exposed to sunlight. This would eliminate root foods such as beets and potatoes. Then there are others who say we should only eat green leafy vegetables and fruit.

There’s another group that quotes this verse:

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. Genesis 1:29

This bunch claim that to be really close to God we most only eat fruit from fruit trees.

So you think that is as extreme as one can get? Think again. There is another group called Breatharians who claim we must lean to live on air and prana alone before we can ascend. Willey Books is the head of the Breatharian Institute of America and humbly tells us he lived past as Adam, Zeus, Enoch, Jeshua (Jesus The Christ), Joshua, Elijah, John The Baptist, St. Francis Of Assisi, Kuthumi, Balthazar (King Of Syria), Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan (Builder Of The Taj Mahal In Agra, India), Joseph Smith And William Mulholland.

There are quite a few in the East that also teach some version of the Breatharian philosophy.

It is interesting that few of these gurus who are big on diet offer much in the way of new teachings. Usually diet is the centerpiece of their teaching with some copy and paste added in from teachers of the past.

If diet is really the spiritual boost that they claim then they ought to be able to access the higher realms wherein lies divine ideas and bring some new ones down and offer them to us.

Just preaching diet is not new as every version has been already written about somewhere.

Four of the greatest spiritual innovators in recent times have been Joseph Smith, Madam Blavatsky, Edgar Cayce and Alice A. Bailey. Smith ate a fairly basic diet that included meat and drank wine and beer. It was decades after his death that the Church prohibited alcohol, tobacco, tea and coffee.

Blavatsky preached against eating meat but didn’t live up to her own teachings and ate meat and animal products. She was against drinking alcohol, didn’t drink it herself, but did smoke about 200 cigarettes a day. This chain smoking was probably largely responsible for her bad health in her later years.

I think she would have been much better off to trade the smoking for a couple glasses of wine a day.

Edgar Cayce was a meat eater and recommended nutritious foods of all kinds. He also drank wine and said it was “a good blood builder and vitality enhancer.”

Alice A. Bailey, who presented numerous new teachings transmitted from a Master named Djwhal Khul, was one of the few innovators who was a true vegetarian and teetotaler.

If we look at these four initiates of spirituality what do we see that they have in common as far as diet is concerned?

Not much except that they ate and drank as seemed good to themselves.

So, does diet have any effect on spirituality then and if so what is it?

What we need to look at here is the governing principle rather than listening to some book or guru who claims to tell us what God wants us to eat and drink.

Here it is. All food, and physical matter itself, has a magnetic pull on the souls of men that draws us in the direction of materialism. Some say we are trapped here because of this pull whereas others just see this as either a playground or school where we come to learn lessons. Both have their points.

The fact is that we have to neutralize this pull in order to free ourselves from the wheel of rebirth. As the pilgrim realizes the need for this freedom he contemplates and enters the path to liberation. This is a journey that lasts many lifetimes. As he journeys on the path he realizes that the heavier his diet the stronger is the pull of the material forces. The heavier foods are animals and animal products, Vegetables are lighter and fruit and leafy vegetables are the lightest of all.

As he begins his journey he feels the extra pull generated by heavy foods and senses that he needs to eat lighter foods to continue onward. As he continues onward he gains in inner strength and finds that for many purposes it does not matter what he eats or drinks. He can now decide on the diet best for him depending on what he needs to accomplish in a certain time or life.

The currents of materialism are like mild currents in river. An experienced swimmer can override the current and swim upstream. A beginner cannot swim upstream and must move forward where the current is not strong.

Even so, different people on the path handle the current of material forces with different amounts of strength, will and power of decision.

Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry gave good advice: “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

Each seeker must asses his limitations and adjust his eat, drink and actions accordingly.

And how does the seeker gain strength as he journeys along? There are too many to discuss in his article but there are several big ones. The first is to cultivate in word and deed the spirit of true spiritual love as taught by the Christ. He must lose himself in service to others because of a love of mankind.

Second he must be pure in heart, true to himself and honest and reliable to others.

The third biggie is self discipline. And this is one of the greatest benefits of a restricted diet for various parts of the path. Several lifetimes of a difficult diet gives a huge boost in self discipline and control that will aid him for lifetimes to come.

So, diet does lessen the pull of material forces, but more important than that is the added strength through the above three strength building spiritual exercises. When the disciple gathers enough strength then for most purposes he can swim upstream with relative ease.

In some lives he may need to blend in and mix where the material forces are strong and others he will not. Whatever the choice, the keynote of the true disciple will be service to his fellow brothers and sisters.

 

March 30, 2015

Animals and Compassion

A lot of people are vegetarians not for health, or even spiritual advancement but simply for the reason that they believe it is wrong to kill an animal for food.

The question sometimes put to them is where do we draw the line?

Some, like Paul McCartney, say it is wrong to eat any living thing with a face. If it doesn’t have a face, like a clam or oyster, then it is okay. Others would include all shelled creature.

So what about insects? They are eaten in some parts of the world and the Bible says that John the Baptist ate locusts. Many insects have faces.

Some would say this is okay and others not.

So, what if your house is overrun with roaches, termites or spiders? Is it okay to hire an exterminator to kill them?

Some would go so far as to say no.

Once we consider life this low on the scale we have to ask if it is okay to kill trees for our use or vegetables that we eat. They are also living things.

Even the most sensitive animal rights people have no problem taking the lives of vegetables and fruit, but some do have a problem with trees and some other plant life.

Indeed there are many thoughts on this matter and again we need to ask this. What is the governing principle that we need to use?

Is it the Bible?

Not really as there are many interpretations and it doesn’t give any principle on the subject.

Is it the idea that we just should not kill?

Not really as even most vegetarians will put a suffering animal to death.

So, what is the principle?

Quite simply it is the principle that should guide us in all decisions which is this:

Will the proposed action contribute to the creation of more harm than good or more good than harm?

Many animal rights people are very black and white and see only evil in killing an animal for meat and close their eyes to the good that comes because they are of use to humans as food.

Let us look at the positive and negative of raising animals for food.

The negative:

(1) The animal may suffer a few seconds when slaughtered.

(2) Some are raised in poor conditions and treated badly.

That doesn’t really sound so bad, does it? After all, most humans suffer months and sometimes years as they approach death.

There are also a lot of humans raised in poor conditions. Being in prison or starving in some third world is particularly troublesome.

Now let us list the positive.

(1) Many animals raised for food have it a lot better than wild animals.

(2) Animal abuse is being exposed and we are headed in the direction of more humane treatment.

(3) Because animals are important to humans we make sure they multiply in large numbers and the species are preserved and thrive.

(4) Some farm animals such as cattle and sheep would have difficulty surviving in the wild, which they would have to do if humans did not take care of them.

(5) If humans quit eating meat tomorrow farm animals would suffer immensely as they could have no caretaker. Some species would be in danger of extinction.

(6) Because humans make sure animals raised for food breed in large numbers this insures that the animals get a lot of opportunity for life and advancement that they would miss if we did not need them.

(7) Unlike humans, farm animals do not have their progression interrupted when the experience an early death. Because they are raised in large numbers they can rapidly come back and resume their lives.

(8) Contact with humans who raise them stimulates their evolution.

Overall it looks like the benefit to the farm animals outweighs the harm making it more good than bad that we raise them for food and the products they yield.

There is another point to note which is this. There are certain animals that even the biggest supporters if meat eating will not kill for food. These are our pets. Who in the world would ever kill and eat the family dog? What is the difference between killing him or a cow?

This is interesting to contemplate and here is what I believe to be the answer.

Animals which are close enough to human consciousness to be given names should not be killed for eating. Why? Because once an animal is named he is taken under the wing of a human and becomes in training to acquire human consciousness at some future time.

Once he is named and responds to that name then killing him prematurely will interfere with is progression. Once you name an animal under your jurisdiction and adopt him as a pet you should let him live out his natural life as much as possible.

If humanity made a huge move toward vegetarianism this would be a disaster to farm animals. We are, however, slowly moving in this direction and such a slow steady transition is beneficial for both animals and humans.

For more of my thoughts on raising animals for food go HERE

 

March 31, 2015

Do Animals Become Humans?

Leaselann asks if animals will evolve into humans.

To understand how leaps in evolution occur we must look at the big picture as well as use the Law of Correspondences.

All lives in the universe are a part of the One Great Life which is God. God is the Many and the One something akin to the idea that space is one yet contains all there is, which is many.

Just as the life which is God contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of star systems, and each containing billions of various life forms, even so we as humans contain a universe of lives within us. Within us are the seven major centers, each representing a separate life cooperating to create a greater life which is you. In addition to this there are numerous minor centers. Many of these have been identified as an acupuncture points. These are centers of lesser lives.

Each organ in our body is a lesser life. As we go smaller we find that the average body contains over 30 trillion cells, each living a life of its own, but cooperating with other cells to house the God of their universe which is you. Then there are cells of bacteria co-existing with human cells. There are ten times as many cells of bacteria than human cells.

If we look at the human cells we discover a complexity beyond the imagination with a communications system, a defense system, a government, a distribution system, all kinds of machinery and much more. Around 100 trillion lesser lives called atoms compose just one human cell.

Then if we were to examine the atom we would discover that even this tiny life contains a universe of life dwelling within it.

Some esoterists have taught that the atom, or the tiniest of particles, eventually becomes a cell then a plant, then an animal, then human and eventually a god.

This isn’t quite how it works. The lesser lives do not, as a separate entity, become a greater life, but unite in consciousness with other lesser lives to provide a vehicle for a greater life. A greater life then incarnates into that vehicle, or body of manifestation. The lesser lives then share the consciousness of the greater life and move into higher vistas of being and experience.

The mineral kingdom is the lowest on the planet followed by the plant and then the animal. Humans represent the fourth kingdom on the earth and Christ and associates represent the fifth.

This fifth kingdom is often called the Kingdom of God and one does not enter it alone. It is only entered by the union of one conscious human with others to provide a vehicle for a greater life. Those in the Kingdom of God, who we all the Masters, then share the consciousness of that greater life and move into a new realm of becoming.

In my book The Molecular Relationship I teach how this process which can be incorporated by humans that are not yet masters to link the two kingdoms.

We see this molecular relationship process duplicated in all creation. Atoms gather together to create a greater life, which is a cell. The atom does not become the cells, but shares in the consciousness of the cell so when the identification is complete it is as if it is the cell.

The cell does not become the plant but cooperates with many other cells to create the plant. A blade of grass does not become an animal, but the many tiny plant lives unite to create animal life and then share in the animal consciousness, beginning with the insect kingdom. A fly does not become a cow or a dog, but the fragmented insect lives unite to create the vehicles which make possible the appearance of a higher animal. The lesser lives then identify with the higher life and live through its consciousness.

Individual animals technically do not become humans, but numerous animal lives unite to create the vehicle for the human soul. When that soul then incarnates as a human they share in its consciousness and evolution.

There will be one advanced animal that will be the governing life within you and it will occupy your heart center. Many ancients realized this and spoke of having a heart like a lion, for instance. They also often named people after animals and called forth animal lives within the human for assistance in healing work.

You as a human consciousness are not an animal, but your manifestation is made possible by many lesser lives working together to create your bodies of manifestation. Many lives there are which share your consciousness. You as the decision maker owe it to them to give them a great experience.

***

Clay:

We are not going to be judged on if we held the right beliefs or not, we are going to be judged on how we treated each other and how we treated this creation. If anyone thinks some magical set of beliefs earns them any merit, they are in for a rude “awakening”.

JJ

This is an important realization and is in harmony with the teachings of Jesus. He said that if a child asks for a fish will you give him a stone? If we know how to give good gifts to our children then how much better will be the gifts from God?

So if we have some errors in belief but are doing our best in treating our brethren well would God be more evil than earthly parents and punish us for eternity?

No. He will be much better than earthly parents and steer us to correct beliefs while opening paths to greater joyousness.

 

April 1, 2015

Merging and Identification

I figured I would have to write a follow up to that last post. I’ll cover some extra ground and then if there are questions unanswered please ask.

Some seem concerned that we will be limited in our future progression because of this gathering and merging principle of moving forward, but such is certainly not the case. You will have the opportunity to progress to the state of the planetary Logos, the Ancient of Days, the Solar Logos and beyond.

But as you enter into greater states of being in kingdoms above the human you do not go there alone, but must take others with you. Do you think that Sanat Kumara sits alone on a throne just being the Logos of planet earth?

No. There are many with him and he represents trillions of lives and identifies with the wholeness of them. One of those lives is you. You are a part of the consciousness of which he is a part and yet he shares the whole. This is an achievement that will be ours in the far future, but through the Oneness Principle we can get a taste of what is to come.

Visualize the One Great Life which is God as divine space that contains all there is. Even though space is only one thing that which is within it is many. Within this space are points of eternal intelligence without number. They correspond to the innumerable stars and galaxies we observe in the heavens.

Some points are in manifestation and others are not. The points that manifest, and decide to be, blend and merge to create everything there is. First there is conception and creation on higher planes and finally that which was spiritual manifests on lower planes including the physical.

Soul essence was organized and manifest in the spirit before life appeared in the physical. The complete self-conscious soul was designated to manifest the human consciousness. This soul consists of many parts that had to be united first in the spirit and then in the material world. These many parts are called fragments. The fragments of a soul, which are many, first enter the mineral kingdom. After ages of time many fragments unite and enter the plant kingdom. After more ages many other fragments unite and enter the animal kingdom. The advanced animals are large fragments compared to insects and the lower kingdoms, but still not complete enough to manifest a human soul.

Finally, higher monadic intelligence gathers the scattered fragments and creates the soul body to house human intelligence. This soul body, or the Higher Self, then reflects itself into the material world and is born as a human being – a self-conscious entity that is a reflection of the whole yet contains many fragments from all the lower kingdoms. Within you are billions of lesser lives, or fragments, united together to manifest something much greater than themselves.

A fragment that was once a mineral, a plant or an animal that is now part of the whole no longer says I am a crystal, a flower or a dog, but will identify with the whole and say I am John Smith, a human.

Consider this. You are fragmented when you are in the dream state – only a part of you is there and you are not even aware of the existence of the real you in waking consciousness. When you awake fragments come together to make a greater whole and you no longer identify with the guy in the dream who was shopping naked in the grocery store. You now say you are John Smith (or whatever your name is). The fragment that was in the dream has merged and now identifies with the whole rather than the part.

Does the fragment that as in the dream feel a loss when it wakes and identifies with the greater whole? No. It feels a gain for it has entered into a higher state of awareness.

Even so, humans are fragments of a greater whole still and we will eventually gather together and create bodies of manifestation for greater lives. There is a grand oversoul for the whole of he human family that all will eventually identify with and greatly enhance their consciousness and sense of being.

The souls, or Higher Selves of advanced humans have already done a good deal of merging in the higher realms. This is one reason it is important to achieve soul contact so we can gain the knowledge to manifest the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.

I’m sure I will be writing more on this later.

***

The Prince of this World

Ken:

I was wondering if you think the Scriptures speak of Sanat Kumara? Do you think Yeshua was referencing Sanat Kumara here:

Lk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Jn 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

So if Sanat Kumara is the Prince or King of the World, then is not Sanat Kumara actually an evil deceiving spirit known as Satan or the Devil? And doesn’t Satan masquerade or disguise himself as an Angel of Light (2 Cor 11:14), so could the Sanat Kumara really be Satan? Just some well founded questions.

JJ

Many believers make the mistake of categorizing every belief with which they do not believe as being something promoted by Satan disguising himself as an angel of light. This is a very illusionary way to attempt to discover the truth and they never ask themselves if they could be the ones promoting the doctrines of the adversary.

To discern whether a teaching comes from a good or evil source one must examine the teaching and simply ask yourself if it leads toward greater love and light or away from them.

If you take the English translation of the New Testament scriptures of Satan being the God of this planet and not the real God then you will indeed have a problem with the Old Testament God. Take a look:

Joshua3:11 Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan.

Zech 6:4 Then I answered and said unto the angel that talked with me, What are these, my lord?

Zech 6:5 And the angel answered and said unto me, These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth.

Psalms97:5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.

Isa 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Micah 4:13 Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto the LORD, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.

Jer 32:27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

You cite the scripture from John 12:31 which reads:

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

The word “world” comes from the Greek KOSMOS which is often translated as world, but more closely corresponds to what we currently call “the system.” It literally means the “current arrangement of things.”

Satan is generally seen as the Prince of Darkness or materialism which does rule the current order if things.

Notice that the God of the prophets is called “the Lord of the whole earth.”

This is the same title given to Sanat Kumara who is the Ancient of Days spoken of by Daniel and called the Planetary Logos, or the God of this earth. He is not called the God or the Prince of this KOSMOS or this system of things, for this system has a long way to go before it is in harmony with either the Christ or the Ancient of Days.

To read last years writings go HERE

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

April 2, 2015

Entering the Body

There are a lot of questions and comments in which to respond and I am short of time so I’ll just pick one subject and try and catch up later.

The group has been discussing when the soul or life enters the body so I’ll give you my views.

A soul will sometimes know who will be his mother long before the baby is even conceived and he may have a spiritual link with her. Other times he may not know who his next mother will be until a conception occurs. Sometimes at conception a link will be established but he will not enter the body. More often than not the mother is chosen by the soul some time after conception occurs, usually around six months into the pregnancy. Sometimes a choice is made and the entity finds a better opportunity and switches with someone else. This has to happen before entering the body.

Once the pregnant mother is chosen by the soul he or she can enter the body any time, but most are not interested in dong so until about six months into the pregnancy. If they go early it is to assist with the development of the body.

When the soul does enter it only partially does so. Then at birth when it takes its first breath it is anchored more firmly, but still only partially present.

There are two reasons for this.

(1) It is kind of boring to be in the womb as well being a baby and a full presence is not needed.

(2) It takes time for the soul to adjust to the body and the personality life forces which will influence him or her.

After birth the soul anchors itself more firmly and takes complete possession around the age of seven or eight.

Even here part of your soul essence (your Higher Self) remains back in the spirit world, but the full allotment of soul essence designated for a particular life is endowed around this time.

From the time of full anchoring to around the age of twenty-one the entity awakes to the level of basic consciousness and intelligence that he had in his past life.

 

April 3, 2015

The Gathered Monads

Many believe that the universe was created by God dividing Itself. Actually, the opposite is true. God expanding and multiplying, not dividing created the universe.

This truth was revealed in the symbolism of recent discoveries in astronomy. Scientists not only found that the universe was expanding, but the rate of expansion is increasing. This increase of the crate of expansion has really baffled scientists and they have no good explanation as to why it is happening. They have come up with theories of dark mater and dark energy to explain it.

When the mind of God decides to create it does so with a ever increasing rate of expansion.

Look at us humans who are made in the image of God and examine our history as creators. We are expanding this power of creation at an ever increasing rate. We’ve made more gains in the power to create in the past 200 years than in all of recorded civilization.

After the last universe ended it collapsed down to a singularity that we could call the one monad of God, or all there is. Within this monad all rested in subjective consciousness for it contained the monads of all lives that ever were from the past creation. The monads of you and I were there resting in the bosom of the Father and after a great pralaya we decided it was time to create again and to manifest new vehicles for the next great adventure.

The first thing we did was create space, not space as we know it for all that we were existed in a much higher plane than the physical. We will call this divine space for it was a vehicle to contain the creative thought of all there is. This thought was the result of all the monads in existence working as one, expanding the mind of God like a Big Bang of cosmic fire.

Within this divine space were reflected the monads of all living things that slept which now were awakening as points of light or intelligence. The points which were beyond the ability of present human consciousness to number began to merge and blend and create greater monads and the greater joined and created greater ones still until monads of potential humans and even greater potential lives began to manifest.

The One Great Life, which was a composite of all lives, then reflected on all possibilities that could manifest in all new creations. This created the plane of divine ideas which projected still downward until all planes came into manifestation, the last of which was the physical in which we now live.

Divine space reflected itself down to space on the physical plane first created by geometric points and then the manifestation of monads.

The first monadic expressions created the foundation of the atom followed by monads that created atoms. These atomic monads gathered and created greater monads until all types of ideas began to take form.

Finally, after the creation of stars and planets monads gathered and created plant life. The plant monads gathered and created animals and the animal monads gathered and created humans.

Human monads are created from many lesser monads. In turn, human monads will gather and create greater lives still until all lives join to create a manifestation in the physical realm of the One Great Monad or Life in its fullness. When this occurs the adventure of this cycle of existence will be complete.

Each of us, which are many, are a part of the One Great Life but as single individuals we not this great life. Nevertheless by sharing the consciousness of lives greater than ourselves we can experience the greater life as if we were the totality of this life.

Even so, lesser monads have joined to create the human monads which then created the projected human lives. Humans, who are in the image of God, are created from monads which are composites of many lesser monads Just as the One Great Monad is a composite of all that is within.

The creation of the universe is like the creation of many types of great music. There are many songs. Each song is like a great monad. The chorus and verses are lesser monads. Lesser still are the measures, the chords and the single notes.

A song has a beginning and end to its manifestation in physical existence but the song existed in subtle realms for an eternity before and will for an eternity after it was heard by the ears of the sons and daughters of men.

You are one of the songs of God, the creation of many parts. Play yourself harmoniously to your brothers.

 

April 4, 2015

Future Happiness

One of the big problems had by many when contemplating our future after this life and far beyond is that any description of life that is much different than we are now experiencing or want to experience may seem distasteful.

This is one of the problems people have in accepting reincarnation. Many people have had a tough life and the prospect of coming back again does not appeal to them at all. The idea of living forever in the presence of God, experiencing peace and love with no worries from then on seems appealing.

This was the case with my mother. I tried a number of times to explain reincarnation so she would understand and look forward to a future life, but no matter how I presented it she would reply something like this.

“One life is enough for me. It has been a very difficult life and I do not want to go through these things all over again.”

I explained to her that even though she may have a very peaceful existence in the spirit world that sooner or later she would want a new challenge and desire to come back. I told her that not all lives are difficult and some are very rewarding.

It didn’t matter. She rejected reincarnation mainly because she had a difficult life and felt that one life had all the lessons she needed.

We as humans dream of our future state and often formulate what we think we will be doing and experiencing in relation to what we desire at the present time rather than just being open to what it will be no matter what the truth is.

For instance, many Moslems dream of a paradise where they will have luxurious circumstances with plenty of fine food and drink and seventy virgins to serve them and fulfill their every wish. The believer doesn’t want to consider a future much different than this.

Let us examine what we do know of for sure from our limited earth experience. Think back to when you were a child or a teenager and how you dreamed your life would be . In many cases we wind up doing things we never considered when young. And some of these things tend to be quite enjoyable contrary to what we may have once thought.

Now consider how much more difficult it would be to get a correct picture of what you may enthusiastically pursue 100, 1000, one million or a billion years from now. If your far future self were to come explain to you what he is enjoying doing or experiencing it is quite possible you might be somewhat disappointed or even horrified.

The thing to keep in mind is this. This life is a part of your eternal lives and if you want to get an idea of what you will be pursuing for fulfillment in the far future then look at what you are doing now.

And what are you doing now?

Whatever you choose to do based on choices available.

And what brings you happiness?

Nothing beats the accomplishing of something that you think to be worthwhile.

And this we will continue to do in many various circumstances, forms and incarnations. We will seek to create something interesting and enjoyable. The difference will be that our capacity to achieve and enjoy that which is achieved will continually expand.

***

Jenny:

Has JJ talked about this (the virgin birth) before?

JJ

I answered this earlier but it seemed to have disappeared into the ethers.

Here is what I have taught in the past. Mary did indeed conceive of the Holy Spirit in that Joseph was overshadowed by a Divine Presence during lovemaking when Jesus was conceived. She was not a virgin as taught by the establishment.

***

The Soul and Truth

Clay:

I am just curious to why such credence is given to Blavatsky and Alice Bailey.

JJ

It is not that we give credence to any individual so much as we give credibility to teachings that are verified by the soul. Verification through the soul is the closest that regular mortals will ever get to infallibility.

Personally I get more verification through the soul from one page of DK writings through Alice A. Bailey than a thousand pages from many teachers out there that have followers jumping up and down with excitement. And you’ll find that most people who have actually read the Bailey writings and contemplated them feel the same way. Many have come on board here never having heard of Bailey and after checking out the writings have concluded that my assessment was correct.

I have read quite a few of the Upper Triad teachings mentioned a few days ago and see that they are largely based on the Bailey writings.

Now you seem reluctant to consider the Bailey writings, but do you know what you are not considering? Have you read even one entire book of the teachings?

I would recommend you start with Treatise on White Magic.

The reason her writings have so much light is they were dictated by a Master who is around 300 years old and knows whereof he speaks. I do not think the writings are infallible and still we need to run them by our souls, but they are the highest exoteric light I have personally discovered.

Blavatsky had some help but she put together her books using her own intelligence and writing style. There is a lot of truth in her writings but it has a fairly dry presentation. And she does not go into principles the way the Bailey writings do.

Clay:

I am pretty well convinced that while Blavatsky was a highly intelligent woman and an excellent synthesizer of Eastern and Western Knowledge, I think it has been quite reasonably demonstrated that she engaged in a number of fraudulent activities and her “channeled” masters were actually identifiable human beings.

JJ

She was definitely a flawed character, but when examining the teachings of any writer I go by what my soul says, not what someone says about the character of the writer. Truth is truth even if spoken by the devil himself.

On the other hand, Bailey’s character was beyond reproach. Does that mean that we should mindlessly accept her writings?

Of course not. Neither should we mindlessly reject Blavatsky.

Clay:

Similarly with the Bailey readings. We are fortunate to have a actual Tibetan Buddhist monastery where I live, which opens up to the public for certain events, and I have engaged in several discussions with some high level lamas and they assert that what Bailey and Blavatsky profess is in no way true Tibetan Buddhism and is a figment of their highly developed imaginations.

JJ

Of course they would say that. Many Tibetans are very primitive in their knowledge of the truth. Just like an orthodox Mormon will think my teachings are nothing like real Mormonism many Tibetans will think the teachings of a Master such as DK are out to lunch.

You can’t evaluate the truth of a teaching by what others think. You have to run them by your soul and see what it thinks. If nothing else run them by your own mind to see what the highest part of your personality self thinks.

Instead of categorically rejecting a teaching the best thing to do it pick a teaching and examine it. I even do this will Allan. If I just dismissed all he says because of supposed flaws then I would be dismissing the occasional time that he gets something correct.

Clay:

I just thought I would share this because while I find Blavatsky good for introducing some Eastern ideas to the west, I think she packaged them in a way that Westerners could embrace, but were really distortions of the East’s spiritual dharma.

JJ

Neither Blavatsky or Alice A. Bailey were trying to present the “East’s spiritual dharma.” They were just trying to present the additional truth regardless of what the source may be. Blavatsky said that her religion was truth. With this statement we are in agreement.

Clay:

it seems that many people want to adhere to these new teachings just as dogmatically as the religions they left behind.

JJ

Are you saying that the people here are dogmatic about their beliefs but you are not about yours? I do not see such a superior detachment from dogmatism for you to make such a judgment.

The best way to free oneself from dogmatism is to follow the guidance of the soul wherever it leads. That is what most of the group is attempting to do.

Clay:

I think all teachings need to focus more on personal development and practical methods of development than discussing improvable, and ultimately irrelevant complicated metaphysical systems.

JJ

We are not into personal development that involves me or anyone else set up step by step instructions telling the group what to do next. That has the potential for a beastly type authority. I have given out a lot of information on the principles behind soul contact which is by far the most important step to take. We are into the discovery of principles and how they work and lead us to truth. When new principles are discovered through the soul then personal development will come naturally for the seeker will know what to do.

There are plenty of personal development programs out there for those who are interested. There is no sense in reinventing the wheel. We are moving on to new types of wheels not presented before in wholeness.

Clay:

Forever does not exist, forever is everlasting time, time does not exist, it is a construct of the human mind, there truly only is an Infinite Now.

JJ

So, are you saying that for the billions of years that there was no human on this planet that there was no time? If there was no time then there was no earth. If there was no earth then where did the pre-human rocks come from that are billions of years old?

Now if you would have said that the registration of time by humans is a construct of the human mind you would be correct.

Clay:

Time as passing only exist upon reflection, which is an abstraction from experience. Time is a thought, it does not “exist”. When have you ever experienced “the past”, when have you ever experienced “the future”.

JJ

You are playing word games here that do not represent reality. For one thing, we in human consciousness never see the true present. We are always a portion of a second behind the present in registration so we see only the past. No one has ever seen anything on earth in true present time.

Look around you. We not only see the past but all things we see are were created in the past showing that the past was a true reality that occurred.

You said you didn’t want to talk about things we could not prove yet you cannot probe that time does not exist.

Clay:

Time is a thought, reality is current experience which is infinite, beyond time, without time.

JJ

On the contrary, my friend. There is no experience without time. Time creates experience.

There are three worlds of form and where there is form there is movement and where there is movement there is time. Time is the registration of movement. If every particle in the universe stood still and did not move the universe would disappear and there would be no registration of time and no universe. Time is not only the registration of the movement of form but also the movement of consciousness. If your consciousness has moved from one state to another or one thought to another then time has been registered.

In some of the higher and subtle states of being the passage of time is not registered and some who touch upon this state feel that time doesn’t really exist. This is not quite correct. When divorced from time, time still exists in the worlds of form. Just because you cannot see the squirrel at your door does not mean the squirrel does not exist, and the fact that your consciousness may be divorced from the registration of time does not mean that time does not exist.

We incarnate in and out of time just as we incarnate in and out of various bodies. But while out of the body or time, bodies and time still exist.

 

April 5, 2015

Question

Jenny:

Thank you for your answers. I have the same question as below, “why was there needed an overshadowing? Couldn’t the father have done so any time with Jesus individually?

JJ

I remember the exact moment my firstborn son was conceived. It indeed felt like I was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. He’s a great kid, but he is no master or Jesus. I can only imagine what it would have felt like at the moment of the conception of Jesus.

It is quite possible that the Holy Spirit that overshadowed both Joseph and Mary was Jesus or the Christ to make sure the conception got off to a good start to insure that Jesus would have a physical body with the balance necessary to permit the spiritual flow for his mission.

***

Good common sense comments Clay. Here is a scripture giving more evidence to the fact that Jesus was not a black and white Ebonite:

For neither did his brethren believe in him. John 7:5

Now James was famous for being a strict Ebonite and it is quite possible that James and brothers did not believe in Jesus when he was with them because he did not go along with the belief system.

April 6, 2015

The Logos of a System

Cornall:

I believe I heard you refer to the heart, as the place the animal resides in the human monad. Does this have a relation to the heart chakra? If so what form of entities reside in the other six to form the composite?

JJ

All the seven chakras are lives unto themselves but of a different type of consciousness than the human. In addition each of the twelve petals of the heart center is composed of a deva life or lives of differing qualities combining as a whole to make a greater life.

The heart, the throat, the solar plexus, the sacral and the base centers are all vehicles in which the animal, the plant and mineral parts of ourselves incarnate along with us and share our consciousness. Each different body we receive has a different assortment of lower lives. Keep in mind we simultaneously exist in three worlds of form (physical, emotional and mental) and each of them are composites of numerous lower lives.

The Ajna center between the eyebrows and the crown centers are linked to high deva (angelic) lives and other lives higher than human. When these two centers open the individual becomes more than human and opens the door to the kingdom of God,

The heart center has a reflection of itself in the crown center and thus becomes the bridge between our animal nature and our Divine Nature.

Cornall:

Recently I was reviewing the book Eternal Words. Looking at a section I found to be my favorite in the series. The part I refer to is the communion with the ancient of days. There is a point in the journey where it appears to relay information saying to the effect, that there is no gathering of intelligence ready to take on the incarnation of a galaxy. that an intelligence at the helm of a series of 7 solar systems (or constellations i have forgotten and don’t have the book handy) is the highest we have yet. Then only a few pages after this, he is able to have a conversation with the universe. This seemed somewhat contradictory to me. I assume I either misread something, or have a lack of understanding on what is meant.

JJ

Good question. The confusion comes because there are two different lives who are referred to as the Logos of a system. For instance, Sanat Kumara, the Ancient of Days, is often referred to as the Planetary Logos, but technically he is not. Instead, he is the representative of the Planetary Logos. He is an advanced human whose consciousness has gone way beyond human. He with total awareness shares in the consciousness of the whole planet which includes all life understood by us, and much more.

The actual Planetary Logos is the life of the earth itself and as a life which has incarnated into an entire planet it has not progressed nearly as far on its level as the Ancient of Days has on his. When the Logos of the earth reaches the end of its evolution then it will be a much higher life than the advanced humans here.

The same goes for the Solar Logos. Its representative is much further along the path than is the Ancient of Days, but the life experiencing physical incarnation as a solar system is not so far along.

In this universe as advanced humans move forward seeking to encompass greater systems with their consciousness fewer and fewer are able to take the job as a representative. The highest logos representative known is called THE ONE ABOUT WHOM NAUGHT CAN BE SAID and is the representative of the Logos of seven groups of solar systems.

The Higher up we go the younger is the indwelling Logos and the Universe is just a child in its evolution and without a conscious representative to speak for it – for as yet there is no one to speak to.

Now these great Logi also have Higher Selves and on higher planes are much more advanced than is the part of their self that is in physical incarnation. If you were to communicating with the higher self of the universe you would be speaking with one of incredible light compared to the part of itself that is in physical incarnation.

***

Keith writes:

Now, we find that galaxies have neither an indwelling intelligence or an intelligent representative mentoring from above.

JJ

If you think this you misunderstood what I wrote which was:

In each major body, whether it is a planet, a star system or a group of systems, there are two life forces at work. The first is the indwelling entity, which is awakening in consciousness, and the second is one who has already attained a high state of consciousness. This is one who has passed through the human kingdom.” (technically this applies up to the seven constellations for representative Logos )

Any combinations higher than seven constellations have incomplete governments that are in the process of formation. There is no single Logos over the galaxy, but there are various groups of great beings who seek to guide the galaxy as a whole toward an intelligent design.” (From Eternal Words)

The reference to “no single logos” was referring to a governing representative such as the Ancient of Days not the entity incarnated into the system.

All matter and groups of matter has indwelling intelligence and I have never taught anything to the contrary.

I’ll tell you… these people who come on this forum for a short time and accuse members of mindlessly accepting what I say don’t have a clue to the real truth. If something doesn’t make sense, even to my strongest supporters, then I will definitely be challenged.

 

April 7, 2015

Right Use of Money

Clay writes:

I do admit to asceticism as that is the path that has been advocated by every great spiritual teacher for the last 2000 years. Not a single one has ever said make sure you have a diversified stock portfolio for retirement. My favorite anecdote is when Alexander the Great went to Diogenes:

Thereupon many statesmen and philosophers came to Alexander with their congratulations, and he expected that Diogenes of Sinope also, who was tarrying in Corinth, would do likewise. But since that philosopher took not the slightest notice of Alexander, and continued to enjoy his leisure in the suburb Craneion, Alexander went in person to see him; and he found him lying in the sun. Diogenes raised himself up a little when he saw so many people coming towards him, and fixed his eyes upon Alexander. And when that monarch addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, “Yes,” said Diogenes, “stand a little out of my sun.” It is said that Alexander was so struck by this, and admired so much the haughtiness and grandeur of the man who had nothing but scorn for him, that he said to his followers, who were laughing and jesting about the philosopher as they went away, “But truly, if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes.”

JJ

It appears that if we judge by your standards of good and evil that Diogenes was a pretty evil Dude. After all, it seems that sunlight was pretty important to the desires of his lower nature and he wasn’t willing to share it. If we substituted money for sunlight as something to which he was attached you would definitely condemn him.

Alexander saw that he was “haughty” as he undoubtedly reminded him of himself who many thought to be haughty. Now there are those who see that characteristic as being evil. Should we reject then all the words of Diogenes as being mixed in with the black arts if our personalities do not like haughtiness?

That said let us look at your logic here. You say:

Blayne I never said Money was evil, we just should never use our spiritual faculties to “manifest money” in our lives for any purpose. Ever.

JJ

Why in Gods green earth would you think such a thing? There is nothing in the scriptures to support this idea or in any teaching with any light in it.

Now you make money as an attorney. And how do you do this? You use your spiritual faculties to do your job and thereby manifest money so you can take care of your needs. Which spiritual faculties you ask? Several.

(1) Your life force itself. Life is a very spiritual gift.

(2) Logic, reason and the quest for truth by the mind. Again, the mind put to such use is a spiritual faculty.

(3) Your heart is dedicated to assisting people through law which in the end provides money for income. The good heart is indeed a spiritual faculty.

Now you’re probably thinking something like: “I’m talking about higher spiritual power.”

Well we’re talking about using meditation and what is that, but thought and visualization? Every businessman who seeks to make money with his business puts a lot of contemplative thought and visualization into his work to make it successful in making money to feed his family. The businessman using thought and visualization is using the same powers as the guy using them in meditation. Are they both evil if they seek for money for unselfish purposes? Is unselfishness evil in your mind? If that is evil then what is selfishness? That must be the good then.

When Jesus and Peter were in arrears with taxes Jesus used his supernatural powers to guide Peter to catch a fish with enough money in its mouth to pay the tax. Was Jesus practicing black magic here? This was for a more selfish purpose than anything DK advises. He has never told people to meditate to get money to pay their taxes.

Then Jesus used his powers to create enough fish and bread to feed 5000 people. That must have been worth over $20,000. That was as good as making money fall out of thin air.

What is the difference between procuring food with money or a spiritual gift? The end result is the same and people get fed.

If you are starving and someone gives you money to buy food do you not appreciate it just as you would if he materialized food for you out of thin air?

Clay:

You can absolutely ask God to help you use your talents to the best of your ability and money will come or it won’t, but one should never, ever, attempt to use our spirit to manifest money, even for the “best of causes”.

JJ

This may be the way you feel but there is no reasoning behind the feelings.

And why do you feel this way? Is it because your mind has been programmed to think that money is evil? If so, detach yourself from the program and look at the idea objectively in the light of truth.

Money, like any source of power, is not good or evil. Any power can be directed toward good or evil depending on the intention of the one wielding it.

Clay

These teachings are very difficult for the typical American capitalist to accept, and again, I am not saying throw away money, or ignore money, just don’t focus on it, especially as part of ones spiritual practice.

JJ

You say we should not ignore money. If we do not ignore it then some focus is required at times. No one is saying that making money for personal use should be the center of any teaching. There is a huge difference between focusing on making money for which to do good and making it for accumulating material things.

Clay:

If you can find a spiritual master from over 100 years ago who advocated doing this I am all ears,

JJ

Is Jesus a good enough reference for you? DK, who you are criticizing, was advocating that we use our resources to transfer the power of money from those who are trapped in the forces of materialism to the workers in light and love for he betterment of mankind.

Jesus was advocating the same thing. He told those who were attached to money and materialism to do good unselfish things with their money. He tried to get money directed away from the material to he spiritual.

Clay:

but this is a practice is only prevalent in certain New Age teachings which I truly believe are perversions and distortions of the great spiritual dharma of the past.

JJ

You are mixing up what DK has taught with the prosperity consciousness of some Christians and New Agers. This is apples and oranges.

If you are going you argue with us you need to represent the truth rather than a distorted straw man.

Clay

You can not serve God and Mammon, end of story.

JJ

Neither DK or myself have come close to advocating the service of mammon. If you have read anything at all of the Alice A. Bailey writings or my own you have to know this. Are you paying attention?

Clay:

You will not find manifesting money in Buddhism…

JJ

When Buddha was hungry he went door to door with his bowl begging for rice. Those who gave him rice had to buy it with money. So begging for rice was the equivalent of begging for money and if you are begging for money or what money can buy you are putting attention on manifesting mammon.

Clay:

I truly believe that these teachings have been developed by the darker forces in order to lead advanced souls astray and back into the materialism that binds us. The teachings come across as benign, I will use the money for a good purpose, money is energy to be used for good or evil, etc, these are very recent teachings that are very comfortable for us and play into our inherent materialism and egotism so naturally we readily accept them and even embrace them as an essential part of spiritual practice. Yay I get to be spritual and live like a King, money is just energy!!!

JJ

You are a million miles from representing the teachings of DK correctly. Obviously you have read nothing but a few selected quotes for you know not wereof you speak.

He never speaks of obtaining money to live like a king or for the sake of the ego. He does correctly say that money is used currently to further the cause of materialism and the use of this power in this direction needs to be shifted toward spiritual purposes.

Do you really disagree with this? What person on the spiritual path would?

Let us look at DK’s words that you think is so sinister.

(1) He says that the spiritual work requires money just as does the material side. If you do not think that is true then I have a bridge to sell you cheap.

(2) He emphasized using money for giving saying, “to those who give shall be given.”

(3) Here is the core message of the prayer he advises:

O Thou in Whom we live and move and have our being, the Power that can make all things new, turn to spiritual purposes the money in the world; touch the hearts of men everywhere so that they may give to the work of the Hierarchy (the work of Christ) that which has hitherto been given to material satisfaction.

I would think one would be fulfilling the words of Isaiah about calling good evil to find fault with that.

In all the Bailey writings DK never says anything that encourages focus on materialism or accumulation of money for any more than personal needs.

Here are a couple things he does say:

Release the hidden beauty which lies in real self-forgetfulness, and let your devotion (tried and proved) and your sincerity stabilise your group. Be not preoccupied with the non-essentials of personal living. Be generous of yourself and time, and give to your group brothers with a clear impersonality which asks nothing for the separated self.

May the Holy Ones Whose pupils we aspire to become so strengthen us that we may give ourselves without reserve, seeking nothing, asking nothing, hoping nothing for the separated self; may we be content to be in the light or in the dark, to be active or passive, to work or to wait, to speak or to be silent, to take praise or reproach, to feel sorrow or joy our only wish to be what They need as instruments for Their mighty work, and to fill whatever post is vacant in Their household.

I am one with my group brothers, and all that I have is theirs.

May the love which is in my soul pour forth to them.

May the strength which is in me lift and aid them.

May the thoughts which my soul creates reach and encourage them.”

If you are going to convinced us that DK is on the dark side then supply us with one evil that he promotes. Give us even one quote from his actual words and explain why is supports the forces of darkness rather than light.

If you think I am equally astray I would make the same challenge with my writings.

***

More On Money

Clay:

Money is not energy, if you believe it is your are deluding yourself because it is a comfortable delusion to have.

JJ

We’re getting into nuances of meaning that have nothing to do with the argument. Money may not be the direct equivalent of energy, but it represents energy. Similarly, a light switch is not electricity, but it moves the electrical energy to the desired location.

Are either the switch or the electricity evil because electricity has the potential to kill?

Of course not. It is the intention behind the person that throws the switch and determines whether the energy will be used for good or evil. Similarly with money. It can be used for good or evil and if it is used for good then a spiritual event has occurred.

Clay:

Now it is not good or bad, but focusing on material items with our spiritual faculties is bad, sorry it just is.

JJ

No one here is advocating the focusing on material items. The focus is always on the spiritual work. Why would you judge otherwise???

You really seem to be confusing us with the prosperity consciousness bunch. I tried to correct this misunderstanding you have, but you do not seem to want to accept the clarification.

Clay:

This is a Luciferian New Age teaching that I will absolutely oppose every chance I get, it is a great deception of the New Age community that traps advanced souls in materialism.

JJ

Well then, you do not have to oppose DK or myself because neither one of us focus on materialism. Just the opposite is true. You are seeing things upside down here.

Clay:

Some issues are black and white, like rape is always wrong. Using your spiritual faculties to focus on money is the wrong use of your abilities, end of story.

JJ

If you are going to teach a doctrine here then you need to tell us why such a teaching is true or makes some sense.

You say that money “is not good or bad.” Now if money is not good or evil, as you say, then putting some attention on it is neither good or evil, just as it is neither good or evil to think of a light switch.

The only thing that makes something neutral like this good or evil is how the energy is going to be directed. If you are going to turn on light to those who are in darkness then focusing on turning the switch is a spiritual endeavor. Even so, focusing on money to assist hose in need cannot in any logical way be called evil or Luciferian.

Where is your reasoning here? If you were talking about this in court you would have to present a case that makes some sense to the jury.

Just saying that directing money to a good cause is evil merely because you say so is just not enough.

Clay:

Sorry if that offends you, sometimes truth is offensive and tells us things we don’t like to hear. I don’t remember Jesus saying “If you would follow me invest your money wisely, get a good job, and then follow me.”

JJ

Neither DK or myself has talked about investing money as a spiritual enterprise – certainly not in the traditional sense. But even here Jesus recognized that if you do have money then it is better to invest it wisely rather than hoard it. Keep in mind as you read the parable that a talent was worth about a half million dollars in today’s money.

Matt 25:14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

Matt 25:15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

Matt 25:16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

Matt 25:17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

Matt 25:18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

Matt 25:19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

Matt 25:20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

Matt 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Matt 25:22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

Matt 25:23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Matt 25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

Matt 25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

Matt 25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

Matt 25:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. 25:28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

Matt 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

Matt 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Obviously Jesus was in favor of those who were attached to possessions to use them for good, but even on practical matters he recognized that it is better to invest money wisely than to just hoard it. Here he actually praises the guy who uses money as a wise investment. He never insinuated he was a black magician.

The group here looks for principles behind things to determine whether they are good or evil. We don’t call something evil just because someone declares it so, but because we can see the harm. If an action produces good then why would we want to call it evil.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20

***

Jim comments regarding proper use of Money:

Charan Singh , the Guru who initiated me, built this Charitable Hospital in memory of his Grand Father, and Master, Sawan Singh, mostly using his own money and resources. Also, Patients came there from all over the world to be treated, always, ….FREE of CHARGE! Most of the Medical Equipment was donated by Initiates from all over the world.

All of the Doctors, Nurses, and Staff donated their Services, free of charge, as they signed up to do the Service, “Seva” to God. Some only did a month, others 6-12 months at a time, and some did more.

http://rssb.org/files/pdf/13%20EvesWeek_13_8_1988_To%20serve%20with%20Love.pdf

I think money used in ways like this example is in line with God’s Work.

JJ

This is a good example of the right use of money and if one visualizes the hospital having more power to serve or more people donating money to them so they have have more power to serve then the end result is the same. The intention and purity of heart is the same in both instances and both visualizations call for no personal benefit for the one meditating.

***

Clay:

Also, did not Jesus directly command the rich man to go and sell all he had and give it all to the poor if he were to be follow him and then he would have treasure in heaven. Matthew 19:21.

JJ

You are reading something into this scripture that is not there. This was the instruction of Jesus to this specific individual. Nowhere does he give this as a commandment to all. If Joseph of Arimathea had done this he wouldn’t have had a tomb to donate to Jesus and Peter couldn’t have had a ship to go back to fishing after the crucifixion.

Clay:

Modern people want this “middle class” American Jesus, that does not challenge them or threaten their lifestyle, well I am sorry, the Jesus I read about in the bible was absolutely radical in his beliefs, completely unconventional, and challenging to the status quo.

JJ

You are right that the Jesus of the Bible definitely wasn’t the typical middle class guy, but neither was he into extreme poverty as was John the Baptist for he was called a “glutton and a winebibber” by his enemies.

The fact that the lifestyle of John and Jesus was quite different illustrates that one size does not fit all for either master teachers or disciples. And advice to one is not always advice to all.

One disciple may have a mission, as Joseph, the son of Jacob, and become the richest man in the world in order to save many and another may be like John the Baptist and live on locusts and honey.

 

April 9, 2015

Guidelines

Yeah, concerning the posting rules, we tend to go easy on new people or posters at times when there is an interesting topic of discussion It is probably time to remind the group of the guidelines.

Unlike most discussion groups this one was organized as a classroom. Readers of my books wanted to know more of what I had to teach so I became the official instructor setting the class agenda. The topic I posted on whatever that turned out to be is considered on topic. The group did want to post on some off topics of interest now and then so to differentiate, an off topic post is supposed to begin with the capital letters OT. Now if I jump in and comment on the OT and it becomes one of sustained interest then it is no longer off topic but on topic.

Another guideline is to limit postings to three a day. The group desired this because some were making many posts off topic or descending into emotional arguments that few wanted to read and numerous such posts became a big distraction. We give a little slack on the three posts a day if they are on a topic of high group interest or for new people adjusting to the group.

The three posts a day shouldn’t be much of a limitation for many posts can be combined. You have almost an unlimited number of words available in each post.

The other main guideline is to just be civil – avoid name calling, insults and personality arguments.

If posters become too big of a distraction or generate too many complaints we put them on moderation where their posts are read and approved before letting them appear.

Overall we are about as laid back and flexible as possible while still trying to keep to the classroom agenda.

Since we’ve encountered Allan’s group we have had a lot more free-for-all than before and I have gotten some complaints so I plan on guiding the group back to focusing on one topic at a time.

Right now the main topic of discussion has centered around good and evil so this is the official topic of the present.

My next post will be on this subject.

 

April 10, 2015

Necessary Evil

Ken:

Shalom JJ, have you ever wondered why the Apostle Paul was maligned or accused of teaching, “let us do evil so that good may result? What are your thoughts on that?

JJ

Actually, that hasn’t been something on my mind, but now that you brought it up I’ll make a few comments.

Paul sometimes taught about the contrasts of good and evil and the fact that good may come out of a bad (or evil) situation. The background of the verse you mention is that Paul noted that even when people do evil deeds it sets up a contrast so that the goodness of God becomes more obvious. Because of this teaching some evidently made fun of Paul’s words saying something to the effect, “If that is true then we might as well do all the evil we want so good will come and God will be glorified.”

The truth is that in this world of duality and contrasts there can be no good without evil, no light without dark, no up without down, no positive without negative etc.

Here is a good quote from the Book of Mormon on this principle:

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so… righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

II Nephi 2:11-13

So…since evil is a necessary part of existence then does this mean it is fine that we join in with the evil doers?

Not really. Here is what Jesus had to say about it:

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Matt 18:7

So Jesus acknowledges that offences or evil actions must come because they are just a part of life, but then he warns the perpetrators with these swords:

“woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”

In other words, he was saying, “Sure there are people out there who will kill, steal, cheat and so on, but just because evil happenings are inevitable does not mean that the offender is justified. He will get his just reward in the end.”

I haven’t given out an assignment for a while and thus brings us to an interesting subject to consider.

We often hear the statement that a certain act was a “necessary evil” in order to produce a good result.

Is an evil action sometimes necessary to produce a good result? And if the end result was good, was the action then really evil?

 

April 11, 2015

Does the End Justify the Means?

Okay, let me add another question or two.

Does the end always justify the means, or just sometimes? If not give an example of where the end does not justify the means.

In my earlier example would it by all right to kill the one crazy dude to save 50 lives?

Would it be okay to steal some food or to lie to save the life of an innocent child?

Why or why not?

***

Why Did God Create Us?

Ken:

Shalom JJ, it’s a pretty simple principle when you see it. Elohim created mankind to be AGAINST Him on purpose by creating us FLESH, and this was to allow mankind to fully come to know BOTH Good and Evil. Experience is the BEST teacher, and learning how that sin and evil produces death, and obedience produces righteousness and life, teaches a valuable lesson.

JJ

The reason I asked for the principle you were getting at is that principles are the language of the soul and when a true principle is enunciated those who are sensitive will see and feel the truth. The understanding of a principle helps a seeker understand why a teaching is true or false whereas just the giving out of data from some outward authority is generally only believed if you trust the authority and if the authority is in error then you are in error also.

You say that God created mankind to be against him. This has nothing to do with any principle but you are telling is what is in the mind of God. Now that may be possible if you received some type of revelation from God on this subject but it seems doubtful because it makes no sense. We are in the image of God so we go about our creative process as reflections of God.

Like God in the past we are now on the verge of creating intelligent machines that may develop into living things. Is there any developer who wants to create artificial intelligence that will be against him?

Not unless he is insane.

Is God insane?

No.

Then obviously he did not intentionally create us to be against him.

Since this is the foundation of your belief system it is important that you get it right for if the foundation belief is nor right all that follows will be tainted with illusion.

This is another good question for the group?

Why did God create us, or did he?

 

April 12, 2015

Ken:

Shalom JJ, who or what caused your “subjection” to error? And did you “willingly” allow it to happen? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

JJ

Before the age of 12 I smoked whenever I got the chance and when I learned it wasn’t good for you I quit and was saved from that error.

What caused the error you asked?

It was a lack of knowledge and understanding.

***

Shalom JJ, very good response, thank you. I’m in total agreement that your subjection to error was from a lack of knowledge and understanding. This is exactly what caused the two “carnal” personages of Adam and Eve to be “subjected” to their error, because they like you, lacked knowledge and understanding concerning “Good and Evil.”

So this begs another question, why would the Creator of all things create carnal beings who lacked knowledge and understanding concerning “Good and Evil,” which in turn, caused them to be subjected to error?

JJ

Not even God can create beings that are instantly full of mastery, but every life has to learn to master all things in creation step by step. We humans are progressing step by step, as do all lives in this creation.

You and I were with God in the creation of this universe and were a part of the universal mind that planned it. We planned creation so we could learn new things and the situations provided in creation were the perfect vehicles for this.

Incarnations everywhere in the universe are for the purpose of learning and the earth is just one of the schools available. No one wants to go to a school where there is nothing to learn. Who of us would want to go back to the first grade?

We came here with many limitations in this dense physical so we could master all things pertaining to this type of existence and then move on to other types of learning. Without the opportunity to grow and learn, living becomes meaningless, even for those in a state of bliss.

We thus incarnate over and over learning new lessons in each life until we master call things as did the Christ. Then we move on to even moiré challenging situations.

Ken

P.S. You didn’t address my other question from the previous post. Was your subjection to error (having a lack of knowledge and understanding) entered into on your part “willingly,” or was this subjection by reason of Him who hath subjected your error? You may want to consider Rom 8:20 in your answer.

JJ

And Paul in Romans may or may not be right. He was a human being as am I. You have to check with your soul in all things.

The whole plan of learning was entered into willingly, but as we move from class to class we get into many situations where we are not so willing. It’s like when you play Monopoly. You choose to play the game, but you are not happy when you land on someone’s motel. You willingly play football, but the other guy’s touchdown was made against your will. If everything goes in your favor you don’t have much fun and neither do you progress in learning.

To read last years writings go HERE

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

April 13, 2015

Does the End Justify the Means?

The Question;

We often hear the statement that a certain act was a “necessary evil” in order to produce a good result.

Is an evil action sometimes necessary to produce a good result? And if the end result was good, was the action then really evil?

Good comments on this. I’m short on time tonight and can’t do them justice so I’ll just say a few words on this subject.

A belief held by many is that the end does not justify the means, but when you think about it, this is just not true. To say the end does not justify the means is to say that cause and effect does not work. After all, the means is a cause and the end is the effect. The end is always brought about by a cause that works the same for everyone, making it just.

If this is the case then why do many say that the end does not justify the means?

They say this because they are looking at the middle, not the end, a piece and not the whole.

Let us take an example.

Mary cheats on tests and manages to graduate from college with honors. She gets a good job afterwards and all seems well. This good end did not seem to justify cheating.

The problem here is this is not the end of the effects her cause set in motion. Cheating and deception is now built into her character and will create numerous ends that will plague her in this life and possibly lifetimes to come. Because of her good grades her boss may think she is more capable than she truly is and give her assignments in which she is doomed to failure. She may lie and cover up digging a deeper hole for herself leading to depression and even ill health.

Here is another example:

Ron seals some money from funds he holds in trust to bet on a sure thing in the horse races. He wins and then puts the money back in the trust. No harm done, right? An evil action seems to have produced a good end.

Again, the problem is that this is not the end. It never is for a gambling thief. Just ask Bernie Madoff. He stole billions from investors thinking he could pay the funds back with profits and for years it looked like he would never get caught. Now he is ending his life in jail, his son committed suicide, he is separated from loved ones and hated by most everyone. Again we have to look at the real end of the causes put in motion and it is indeed just.

The next question is whether there is such a thing as a necessary evil, This is another phrase thrown about quite often.

This problem occurs when there is a fork in the road and both decisions seem bad. The example previously given of the crazy guy with the bomb is a good one. Is it a necessary evil to kill one bad guy to save fifty?

Actually people look at this the wrong way. If you can save fifty by killing one and you know this to be the case then you are doing a good deed, not an evil one. You’ll find that all fifty people whose lives are saved will agree with this.

Let us take a nefarious act less drastic than taking a life, like stealing. Is this ever justified?

Here is a great story from the Aquarian Gospel, chapter 132:

A MULTITUDE of people thronged the streets. The officers were on the way to court with one, a man accused of stealing bread.

2 And in a little while the man was brought before the judge to answer to the charge.

3 And Jesus and the twelve were there. The man showed in his face and hands the hard drawn lines of toil and want.

4 A woman richly clad, the accuser of the man, stood forth and said, I caught this man myself: I know him well, for yesterday he came to beg for bread.

5 And when I drove him from my door, he should have known that I would harbour not a man like him; and then to-day he came and took the bread.

6 He is a thief and I demand that he be sent to jail.

7 The servants also testified against the man; he was adjudged a thief, and officers were leading him away.

8 But Jesus standing forth exclaimed, You officers and judge, be not in haste to lead this man away.

9 Is this a land of justice and of right? can you accuse and sentence men to punishment for any crime until they testify themselves?

10 The Roman law will not permit such travesty on right, and I demand that you permit this man to speak.

11 And then the judge recalled the man and said, If you have any tale to tell, say on.

12 In tears the man stood forth and said, I have a wife and little ones and they are perishing for bread, and I have told my story oft, and begged for bread; but none would hear.

13 This morning when I left our cheerless hut in search of work my children cried for bread, and I resolved to feed them or to die.

14 I took the bread, and I appeal to God, Was it a crime?

15 This woman snatched the loaf away and threw it to the dogs, and called the officers and I am here.

16 Good people, do with me whate’er you will, but save my wife and little ones from death.

17 Then Jesus said, Who is the culprit in this case?

18 I charge this woman as a felon in the sight of God.

19 I charge this judge as criminal before the bar of human rights.

20 I charge these servants and these officers as parties to the crime.

21 I charge the people of Capernaum with cruelty and theft, because they heeded not the cries of poverty and want, and have withheld from helpless ones that which is theirs by every law of right;

22 And I appeal unto these people here, and ask, Are not my charges based on righteousness and truth?

23 And every man said, Yes.

24 The accused woman blushed for shame; the judge shrank back in fear; the officers threw off the shackles from the man and ran away.

25 Then Jesus said, Give this man what he needs and let him go and feed his wife and little ones.

26 The people gave abundantly; the man went on his way.

27 And Jesus said, There is no standard law to judge of crime. The facts must all be stated e’er a judgment can be rendered in a case.

28 You men with hearts; go forth and stand where stood this man and answer me, What would you do?

29 The thief thinks every other man a thief and judges him accordingly.

30 The man who judges harshly is the man whose heart is full of crime.

31 The courtesan who keeps her wickedness concealed by what she calls respectability, has not a word of pity for the honest courtesan who claims to be just what she is.

32 I tell you, men, if you would censure not till you are free from sin, the world would soon forget the meaning of the word, accused.

The bottom line is that good judgment must be used. You would only lie, steal or kill with justification if good judgment was involved and the end would be an overwhelming good to which almost all fair minded people would agree. You wouldn’t be justified in stealing to get the latest iPad, but you could be justified in doing so to save your family from starvation as related in the story.

Solomon spoke a great truth when he said that there is a time and season for all things. Seeing that time and season takes good judgment.

***

Jim

No need to wait until 2010 to get on a floating city. I have been on this one and its Sister, and there are more being built as we speak! I was on He Oasis 12 straight days sailing from Ft. Lauderdale to Barcelona, Spain. These Cities are State of The Art, Self Contained.

LINK

JJ

A ship and a floating city are two entirely different things though some ship are large enough to carry the inhabitants of a small town.

The floating cities will be different in these aspects.

(1) The residents will be permanent.

(2) Dwellers will own their own property.

(3) They will have their own government

(4) They will expand indefinitely.

(5) They will work at their trade while there rather than considering it vacation.

***

Latuwr:

Joseph John Dewey, do you believe that you yourself are an immortal soul? If so, what is the source of your believe? In other words, whose Rhema have you heard and believed?

JJ

The soul is not Immortal, but that which occupies the soul or Higher Self is.

In our comments I only see an explanation of your views on the scriptures similar to what a Baptist would put forward and nothing that appears to be any revelation from God.

***

Latuwr

I fully agree that the spirit within our souls is immortal, but I deny Allan’s teaching and your apparent teaching that each of us have a higher soul which is immortal.

JJ

I do not know about Allan, but I have never said the Higher Self was immortal.

Latuwr

I actually do not know what Baptists believe, but in seeking to understand concerning them, I discovered that Mormons believe that a human soul is the combination of spirit and body (D&C 88:15). With this, I agree.

JJ

The word soul is used a number of different ways by different belief systems. Some use it synonymously with our eternal spirit essence which is different than the way I use it as well as most Theosophists and Bailey readers.

There is soul energy and the soul which is the higher self. Soul energy is created by the interplay of spirit and matter. We thus become a living soul (or manifesting soul essence) at birth when spirit and matter are united and interplay creating physical life.

The Higher Self is focused in a world that lies between the physical and the spirit and thus is often called the soul, because its energy body is created by the interplay of the higher and the lower. This itself is still a vehicle for a higher and eternal part of ourselves that comes from God and is one with the One Great Life.

Latuwr

I am moved to respond right now to your words to my Brother, ImAHebrew. I am actually surprised that you would so quickly threaten to act so as to prove Allan to be a prophet concerning us and our relationship with you on this forum.

JJ

I’ve already placed both of you on moderation in the past because your posts were way off the direction of the class. If he predicted moderation then that has already been done. You both seemed to be more cooperative so I took you off and now you are going more and more off topic again.

Imagine if you took a class in Spanish and some student kept trying to teach the class math. Even if what he taught was accurate it would still not be appreciated and be a distraction and irritation. The class would tell them to save their ideas for a math class.

Even so it would seem that you would be a lot happier in a forum that sees the scriptures as God breathed and tries to interpret them. This is not that forum.

We see the scriptures as just another book containing truth that is to be used as the soul approves or is appropriate. Most of us see the Bailey writings as much more enlightened overall.

Also, I think all members but you two accept reincarnation. The acceptance of reincarnation is pretty important to get anything out of this class because so many teachings revolve around it. Many of us have received actual proof of the principle and we do not want to spend time arguing about this, but accept it as a foundation belief for moving on to higher things.

Now you do not have to believe as I do to be a good member of this class but you do need to not be a distraction and do the equivalent of force feeding us math when we are trying to learn Spanish.

 

April 14, 2015

The One Life

After stretching is head around thoughts of God and the universe Adam asks:

JJ, did the character Joseph in Book IV see anything beyond what is explained there? He saw a grouping of 7 Universes in the larger Multiverse, but Joseph made no revelation about how big or expanded that larger Multiverse might be. I encourage a spoiler of a future book.

JJ

Actually I did. You need to read more carefully.

First the seven refers to the foundation number of this universe not to any number of universes. Beyond this universe are enough universes to supply particles to create greater universes. The number boggles the mind – and they are all a part of just this group of physical universes we inhabit.

In other dimensions there are more universes still and the multi dimension universes are unusually called the multiverse. Many believe there to be an infinite number, but I tend to believe they are twelve or less.

Now getting back to our universe in our dimension there are at least 49 planes of being. Let us just say that there is enough going on in creation to keep us occupied for some time to come.

Joseph Smith worded it well when he said we would have eternal lives on eternal worlds.

Adam:

Is it possible that spontaneous eruption of intelligence (eternal though it be) may have happened (in non-time, of course) with other points in space/non-space – unrelated to the One God of which we are parts?

Could we eventually bump into another wholly independent Multiverse in the course of time as we reflect and expand Ad Infinitum?

JJ

To answer your question again it is important to look at the principle involved.

All lives have their separate and distinct nature and qualities yet also form a part of a greater whole.

An atom in your body has its own individual existence yet is a part of a greater life we call a cell. A cell again has its own distinct life yet is a part of the greater life which is you. You have your own distinct life but you are a part of the greater life, which is all of humanity on planet earth where all share the same oversoul.

Humanity again is a group life and is a part of a greater life which is the life of earth itself. The earth has its own distinct life (living in a different time reference than us) and is a part of the greater solar life. This process continues until all the lives in the universe join to manifest one great universal life. When this life which is our universe discovers other universes it will join with them. This process goes on until creation ends.

Wherever there is more than one life and the two discover each other evolution will eventually bring them into unity to share in one greater life. When the evolution of all there is, is complete it will be discovered that there is only one life of which all the lesser lives are a part.

And the greater life will not be lonely because it can identify with any of the trillions of lives within its body. Fortunately for us we serve the purpose of bringing fulfillment to lives greater than ourselves.

***

Jim:

Some how, this appears to be a Paradox that almost sounds ridiculous, when I imagine being connected with some of the 600 lb. fat asses that have made fast food their God, and don’t ( can’t) work to support them selves, so whine about their food stamps able to cover their daily Cheeseburger and fries. That’s only one extreme example. But who really wants to be any one else then our selves?

JJ

The scripture says:

Luke 12:6 Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?

Luke 12:7 But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

JJ

The Logos is aware of all that goes on in this planet but those in error cannot disturb his peace. An imperfect example would be the internet for us. One can be aware of all kinds of disgusting things going on in it but do not focus on it unless there is some purpose in it. The Spiritual internet of the Logos can access the number of hairs on our head if need be but he doesn’t lose sleep dwelling on it.

***

Blayne:

So do these atoms and cells think they are the center of the universe like most of us Humans do? Or is it only lives who are self aware that tend to think this?

JJ

The principle to look at is this. The evolution of the Life of God on the physical plane proceeds from the small (the microcosm) to the large (the macrocosm). Also much more time takes place in the microcosm than the macrocosm – for instance the heart of the earth only beats once about every 25,000 of our years.

Thus the evolution of the cells and atoms have advanced on their plane to a much higher level than we have on our plane and understand that their lives are enhanced and stabilized by seeking the good of the whole rather than just the unit. We humans have a ways to go to reach this understanding and most seek to serve self above the whole.

 

April 16, 2015

Clarification Time Again

Jim, when you came on board here you were friendly and seemed happy to share some of your knowledge and experience with us. I realized that there were some differences in philosophy, but that is okay. Members can disagree with me and still be civil and contribute some good material for consideration.

You are a good writer, good entertainer and have a pretty wide knowledge so I saw a potential for you being a valuable contributor. I know many teachers out there would be threatened by you as you may come across more knowledgeable than they. Not me. If you know something I do not then fire away, just as long as you do not distract us with quotes and teachings removed from the interest of the members here. Like I say. If one is attending a class on Spanish then the student doesn’t want someone there trying to teach math.

Overall you came across as one who would be a friend and when someone comes across that way I accept them as presented until something surfaces to the contrary.

Now it appears that you are changing your mode from friendly to unfriendly and seeking to knock me off of some imaginary pedestal that you falsely believe that I have perched myself on.

This is very disappointing as I had hopes that you would return my hand of friendship and share with us in a positive way.

As it is you have distorted me as a person and what I teach and then attacked a false strawman. Now one more time I have to set the record straight on a number of items.

First, tithing.

You say mockingly:

How many years would a sincere Tither to JJ’s Molecule Zion Organization need to Tithe in order to advance past all of his/her Ring-Pass-Nots between Boise, Idaho to reach the Biggest of the Big Kahunas of Multiverses of all Multiverses?

There is no Molecule Zion Organization and no one here is asked to or required to pay tithing to me or anyone else to qualify them to participate with us here. I am not offering any type of salvation for money.

As far as right use of money goes for the spiritual aspirant here are my views. I agree with Jesus that your heart is where your treasure is and instead of working to store up treasure on earth that only benefits self that it is advantageous to labor in the service of humanity and their progression. It is good therefore to dedicate your time, talents and excess money you may have to something you deem to be beneficial that goes beyond the desires of the lower self. Each server needs to determine who or what is to be the recipient of that energy. It could be a charity, a benevolent or spiritual organization or he could just pick out individuals to assist. Or one may work, as is Dan or Blayne, on developing projects that one thinks will help his fellow men and women. Each server must use his best judgment in making sure his donations of time, talent or money is sent on a positive and helpful direction.

The willingness to freely give of himself is one of the signs of a true servant and when a molecule is created that is one of the qualities that will help us achieve soul contact as a group, a rare thing indeed.

Secondly you say this:

I have never hid behind any “Cloths” other than my Dhoti , on occasion.

Well the trouble with your post (#74554) is that you seem to be hiding your true thoughts behind a screen of words – one moment exalting me to the perfect guru and the next warning of false gurus (like me) that are leading their group astray because they themselves are in the dark.

Now correct me if I am wrong but when we remove the curtain here is what it sounds like you are saying.

I, JJ, am a mislead guru seeking for followers and money. I am the blind leading the blind and these poor mislead Keys members are following me down to hell. They need to abandon me and seek a true guru (possibly yours?) who knows what he is doing and that can truly save them.

So, does this represent your thinking? If so then just come out and say it and quit beating around the bush. If you think I am in error then tell me where the error is in a civil manner and we can discuss it as men working in the light of day.

That said let me add this.

I have never claimed to be a guru.

I have never claimed to be infallible or that any of my teachings should be trusted any more than that of any one else – unless they are verified by a person’s soul or his own reasoning and common sense.

We do not have positions here. We are all in a classroom and a class is a place of learning and that is all.

I do not take responsibility for anyone’s salvation. That is not up to anyone outside of the person himself. If they find my teachings, or that of anyone else here useful, then fine, and if not that is fine also.

If nothing else we are having a good time exploring truth and seeking true principles.

No one here speaks for me, but me. Neither I, or the members here are perfect. We are all struggling to do our best. If you treat others here with respect you will generally be respected in return.

You seem to believe you have found a perfect guru that can save us. Okay, fine, you have told us about him and if anyone wants to follow him that is fine. The Brown brothers also offer their brand of salvation and if anyone wants to follow them then more power to them.

BUT – this is a classroom where people come to learn what I have to teach as well as share with each other. We are staying with the class agenda and will only divert temporarily to other subjects that are not of general class interest.

We look at other teachers and teachings from time to time and discuss their pros and cons. Sometimes a member will move on to another group and we wish him well. Each has to follow the path of their own soul and we support this.

In the meantime the agenda here is the discovery of true principles. If you or anyone else has one they want to explore then put forward your suggestions for class discussion. Otherwise, after distractions have passed, I will lead the class to the next one to learn.

***

Clay:

No that is the Randian Objetivist ideal society. Oh wait we already have that. Never mind.

JJ

We were not close to Ayn Rand’s vision of the ideal society when she was alive and much further away now for we have taken a number of steps away from her view toward the Marx’s view.

My ideal is somewhat different than hers but hers is much better than what we have today. It is too bad it has never been tried (as has Marxism) so we could have an accurate contrast.

***

Jim:

Thanks for your explanations. I never unfriended you. Hope likewise? Friends never tell friends what only what they like to hear. They tell each other the truth,…..as they see it. If they see each other sinking in Quick Sand, they will quickly offer a hand to pull each other out even at the possibility of being pulled in them selves.

JJ

If you were trying to tell me some truth about myself then you were far from clear as I had to read your long post several times to figure out what you were trying to say. If you disagree with me or think I am astray then just come out and plainly say it, but when you do explain the reasons why rather than just making veiled accusations.

I am glad you still consider me a friend as my friendship is always extended if reciprocated.

***

Clay:

JJ I always believe that any ideological belief system is not fit for all problems. Capitalism does some things incredibly well, others things not so much. Socialism does some things well, in others areas not so much. You can not fix every problem with a hammer, nor can you fix every problem with a screwdriver. It is about find ing the right tool for the objective at hand. Rand prescribes one tool for all problems, Socialist another. They are both right for some areas and completely wrong in others. As a friend a mine likes to say, the Bird requires both wings in order to fly, if it becomes unbalanced, it falls to the ground. Wisest statement I have ever heard.

JJ

I basically agree with you and my solutions are a combination of both systems (but without the use of force). One problem we have in seeing the whole is we have good examples of socialism and Marxism, but none where Rand’s philosophy or pure capitalism prevailed. All most of the public have in their minds are demonized strawmen.

***

Larry:

Consensual Sex vs Rape is the primary example: obviously beautiful with consent but one of the most heinous crimes when consent is missing.

JJ

Great point Larry. Even so, some social ideals of sharing are very virtuous and beneficial when supported by the free will of the people so one can freely enter into or withdraw, but becomes a great evil when enforced against majority will by force. It then becomes social rape – something very repulsive to its victims.

This is why capitalism, even though it appeals to self interest, is a lesser negative in today’s world. It doesn’t have the direct power of government force to implement its desires and force us to buy its brand of hamburger or cars.

I do not think we disagreed on the principle behind natural rights. I recall that the only controversy was the way I defined the term. A disagreement of a definition is much different than a disagreement in how a principle is carried out. It is often no disagreement at all.

 

April 18, 2015

Mind Boggling Questions

Adam:

I’ve consolidated and edited my previous questions, as well as a couple of additional thoughts/questions, if you feel inclined. Thanks.

JJ

You are doing the right thing here. If I seem to overlook a question, then just ask again. Actually I didn’t forget and was about to get back to you.

Adam:

1. Is our present Universe once, twice, ten, or a gazillion times removed from the ultimate Multiverse-Alpha/Omega? Or is this unknowable/unknown at this time?

JJ

Our universe is merely a sub atomic particle in as yet an unorganized Universe of Eight. Some science fiction writers and philosophers have guessed that we may be a particle in greater organized universe and may be part of a pimple on some guy’s nose, for example. This is not the case as the greater universe is as yet unorganized. This universe built on the foundation of seven rays is where the organizing power of God is focused on the physical plane.

So in answer to your question the greater universes to come are a gazillion times greater. I wouldn’t use the word “removed” however.

JJ stated:

In other dimensions there are more universes still and the multi dimension universes are unusually called the multiverse. Many believe there to be an infinite number, but I tend to believe they are twelve or less.

2. This loses me slightly. Can you maybe clarify? I hate to be using my idea of dimension and Multiverse, if you mean something quite different.

JJ

This universe and dimension consists of 49 planes known to the masters and seven of which are in the Cosmic Physical which concerns us. There may be more but there is enough to discover in these 49 planes to keep even the Christ occupied for an eternity.

In addition to this dimension containing these 49 planes there are other dimensions. How many we know not but there are a handful of out of body travelers as well as specialists in the spirit world who have learned to travel to different dimensions.

There is a widely accepted new age belief that there is a different dimension for every possible decision to play out. For instance, in another dimension you would have married someone else and Romney would be president instead of Obama.

The reason some believe this is that thoughts do create things and when powerful decision points are reached thoughtforms are created around them. In the spirit world one can tune into these thoughtforms and see what would have been the result if a different path were taken. This is a much different thing than a different universe, yet because some psychics pick up on these thoughtforms they conclude that there is an infinite number of universes where you wound up marrying every girl you liked and following every decision you can imagine. In reality we just live in this one universe, but where all possibilities can be explored.

Adam:

3. Joseph communed with the Alpha point (Eleven), which is the same “entity” as the indwelling “entity” of our Universe. We understand this “entity” to be the One God. If Joseph could have communed with the indwelling entity of the Multiverse, I assume IT would be the same “entity” as the other Alpha points below?

JJ

The greater universes to come are as ye unorganized and thus a vehicle for the incarnation of any life is as yet not available. The Greater Life is just getting started in handling incarnation in this physical universe.

 

April 19, 2015

Essence of the One God

Adam:

What I had hoped to clarify is that the ESSENCE of the One God of our Universe is, in fact, the ESSENCE of the One God of All that Is and will ever Be?

JJ

As usual it is best to go to the core principle for understanding, but because we are talking about the second greatest mystery it takes a little stretching of the consciousness to grasp.

Each atom, human or even universe contains the whole of the life of God and yet is a part. The tiniest particle contains the intelligence and life of God as it has evolved in this system of creation. This life which has achieved relative perfection in the microcosm is seeking for even greater perfection in the macrocosm. As it expresses itself through an atom, you or a universe it finds that it can manifest greater and greater parts of itself while still incorporating the whole as potential.

You are a more complete manifestation than the atom and the universe, when mature, will be a much greater one than you. Even so, the life of the universe is far from representing the completeness of God. The life from the universe of Eleven will not completely manifest in this Universe of Seven, as this universe is limited compared to what is to come. Much greater and more complete manifestations are yet to come in the universe of universes, but that is so distant it is not productive to speculate on it for all the lives of God pertaining to us are now centered on this universe and this is where the highest manifestation of God can be looked for on a physical level.

The most complete life of God from universes past has not yet caught up (on the physical plane) to its highest point from the past in this universe, but is gaining new intelligence as it ascends. The life of God in the macrocosm is the same life as in the microcosm, but just in the process of moving toward its projected aim.

***

Dan:

Okay, I’ll bite 🙂 If that’s the SECOND greatest mystery, what’s the FIRST ?

JJ

Yeah, I might as well of put out this question with big neon letters: “What is the greatest mystery?” Well, I have written about it a number of times so let us throw out the question again to see who was paying attention. What is it?

***

Adam:

The greatest mystery is why and how anything exists at all.

JJ

Yes, when you think about it that is indeed the greatest mystery of all. Why is there anything in existence, you, me, God, a planet etc? As I have said before, even if there was just one rock that was in existence it would be a marvelous thing. The fact that we are all here, illusion or not, is wondrous indeed. We are just fortunate that all there is, Divine Space, decided to be.

***

LWK:

The problem is that Socialism is all about using force. If it doesn’t use force, then it is not Socialism. Then it is about morality (helping others voluntarily) vs being forced to do what others consider to be moral.

That is where JJ misses the boat, in principle.

JJ

Whether or not I missed the boat depends on how one defines socialism. If you define it as collective efforts that use force then it would seem that I am missing something. But if you include collective efforts that are voluntary then I have not missed the point for I do include voluntary collective efforts in my use of the word unless otherwise noted.

This illustrates why it is always important to understand which definition a person is using with various words. Usually, the context will reveal it, but not always.

The word socialism is a tricky one as it is used with several dozen different applications.

In my view any use of socialism should be voluntary. That way we can see what works and what doesn’t and discard that which is hurtful.

***

There can be social collectives where you can all pool your resources, yet maintain the option to voluntarily withdraw yourself and your assets if you should become dissatisfied. There have been 40 different recognized definitions of socialism. Here is a quote from one of my articles on it.

Why is it that ideologues are all over the map in their discussions of socialism? The problem was pointed out in the introduction of the Historical Dictionary of Socialism by Peter Lamb & J. C. Docherty – 2006

Hide message history

“Despite its importance in history since the early nineteenth century, socialism eludes simple definition… As G. D. H. Cole suggested in the first volume of his monumental History of Socialist Thought (1953), the early socialists opposed the individualism that had come to dominate modern thinking and stressed that human relations had an essential social element that needed to be emphasized. Then, as now, there was no single agreed-upon definition of what socialism actually was. Variety has always been an outstanding feature of socialism. In his Dictionary of Socialism (1924), Angelo S. Rappoport listed forty definitions of socialism.”

Read more HERE

 

 

April 19, 2015

The Abortion Question

Olivia:

As one who has chosen to abort myself, I can say that it is something that stays with you for the rest of your life.

If we did not understand the full implications then, we certainly have more of an understanding of that now.

In my opinion unless you have been faced with that decision as a pregnant women in extremely difficult circumstances everything else is a judgment call with out informed experience to reach your conclusion.

JJ

Every action has consequences and for many females like you and Ruth, I’m sure the decision was a terrible one to make, one that men often do not have to face. Abortion, especially in the first trimester is nothing on par with murdering a fully developed human being. The soul does not even enter the body and often hasn’t even committed to it until after about five months. With the over population we have on the earth at present there will be plenty of opportunity for all who are willing to seek birth opportunities.

But let us suppose one did abort a baby who was designated by a soul. What would be the repercussions?

To understand just imagine how you would feel if you had picked a mother and she aborted you for reasons that seemed justified to her. Then compare that to how you would feel if you were an adult, having invested 30 years into your life, having family responsibilities with things looking great and some guy kills you because he hates your guts.

The second person with a much greater investment in his life  has much more to lose and the one taking such a life would suffer much more karma. The aborted baby can often find another mother quickly and not suffer much of a loss.

In fact souls generally know which mothers will abort their babies and usually they are not even designated to such fetuses. Why would a soul attach itself to a fetus that he knows is going to be aborted?

Again the key to understanding is the use of judgment. Each situation is different. Abortion is not the same as murdering an innocent breathing person and murdering an innocent living person is much different than killing a thug in self defense. We will all be weighed and judged according to the circumstances we are under and the main judge will be ourselves through the eyes of our own souls.

April 20, 2014

Cause of Existence

Adam:

The only problem with this question is that it demands a REAL answer, at some point, else life is so precarious as to be absolutely meaningless and purposeless. And without meaning and purpose, I can see no reason or possibility for existence. Existence demands meaning and purpose. Existence itself would seem to guarantee an explanation for its own reality. Accepting big questions as unanswerable is practical in a given moment in time, but from a larger point of view, it is also supremely lazy, defeatist, and counterintuitive to the principle of life itself, IMO. All should be knowable in due course.

JJ

I touch on the answer in my next book. Here is the link to the chapter.

In addition to this the reason all things exist is quite simple. That which is eternal is the interplay of Yin and Yang. There is always duality of some kind whether we are talking about form or in subtle levels of formlessness. Their eternal interplay creates intelligence and universal intelligence is God. The intelligence of God then manifests purpose and the intelligently projected purpose creates all things.

 

April21, 2015

Cause and Effect

JJ:

I touch on the answer in my next book. Here is the link to the chapter.

“All things created from form have a beginning and end whether it be a galaxy, a sun, a planet, the human body, a cell or an atom. Intelligence, which is the essence of God and man has no form but merely uses form. That which is formless does not exist in time and is therefore eternal with no beginning and end. Thus the formless intelligence of God has no beginning because it does not exist in time.”

Adam:

I realize that the bolded sentence has been taught a lot here and elsewhere, and I certainly want to buy into it. But, I’m not sure that I can square it, given the account of Joseph’s journey into the microcosm.

JJ

The Grand Tour in my book only concerns the physical universe which is indeed complex and majestic enough for most. Time and space rule here in both the macrocosm and the microcosm. The higher planes and the formless worlds were not even touched upon in the book. It is here where we incarnate into space and time as we understand it.

Adam

Is it fair to say that while perhaps we can’t know for certain, right now, either the 3 is the first Singularity point of creation, not created from prior Universes and singularities, OR at least the 3 contains the eventual true Alpha particle not dependent upon a prior Singularity/Universe?

JJ

No one knows for sure the true beginnings of physical creation which was long before this universe began. But remember we are talking about physical reality, not the formless worlds from whence all things came.

Adam

In either case, that is the only point that I can see where we might arrive at true formlessness.

JJ

We do not arrive at formlessness by exploring this physical reality, but ascending to planes beyond it. We start this process by seeking soul contact and pulling down principles that are from the higher planes.

Keep in mind that which is called formless is not “no thing” for intelligence always exists in all spheres and intelligence can imagine forms which will later become physical.

JJ:

In addition to this the reason all things exist is quite simple.

Adam:

Good gravy! You’re kidding, right? 🙂

JJ:

That which is eternal is the interplay of Yin and Yang. There is always duality of some kind whether we are talking about form or in subtle levels of formlessness. Their eternal interplay creates intelligence and universal intelligence is God. The intelligence of God then manifests purpose and the intelligently projected purpose creates all things.

Adam:

I’ll have to ponder this long and hard. Are you saying that these answers actually are THE answers to the mystery of “why and how does anything exist?” I can see that you are describing the creative process of variations of existence. But I can’t see how it explains the fact the intelligence or Yin and Yang or Duality even exist in the first place.

JJ

Intelligence and life could not exist first. Therefore there was no purpose behind existence itself. Existence just IS. There is no purpose to it.

BUT

Beyond time existed the polarities, cause and effect, inbreathing and outbreathing, yin and yang, etc. There was no first cause. There has always been cause and effect and this just exists with or without purpose. They have been without beginning and their interplay created intelligence and life and intelligent life created all things and infused them with purpose. Because of the three we have purpose and meaning, but cause and effect just existed. Intelligence directing it creates purpose.

Cause and effect, Intelligence, and Life have always been and will always be, but purpose and meaning comes from the three working together.

 

April 22, 2015

The God of the Old Testament

Clay wanted me to comment on his views that Jehovah seems to be a cruel God that doesn’t deserve to be worshipped. He says:

“If any other God acted in such a way we would justifiably condemn it, just as we do for Allah in the Koran. But because we have all been so brainwashed as children we do not just make the very obvious conclusion, the “Abba” of Yeshua is not the YHVH of the Israelites and the Jews of Yeshua’s day absolutely knew it.”

Actually your thoughts on this agree with Madame Blavatsky. She gave an interesting interpretation of this scripture:

John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

John 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The orthodox interpretation of this is that Jesus accused the Jews of having the devil as their father because they had evil thoughts and rejected him, but Blavatsky gives a different twist.

She says that the acknowledged father of the Jewish leaders was Jehovah of the Old Testament and this was who Jesus identified as being the devil, or adversary.

Here is my view of the situation. Moses did penetrate the veil and received divine revelation, but the vision he saw was way beyond the consciousness of the people who wanted to revert back to worshipping the golden calf. He therefore developed two sets of teachings. The higher he taught to a select few who he thought may be able to appreciate them and the lower he gave to the people. Some he gave out directly to them but mostly they were given out by those he personally taught.

Moses did not give out laws and commandments that represented a cruel God, but he did have to step down his teachings as the people he worked with were primitive in thinking when compared to the people of today.

Jesus had this same problem in his day. For instance, he made no effort to free the slaves in his day because the consciousness of the people just was not prepared to do anything about it.

Even so, Moses had to plow with the horses he had and taught the people the highest they could receive. I believe he felt kind of discouraged near the end of his life in how little he was able to raise the people up.

Within a generation or two after Moses departed his teachings became corrupted and carnal men assumed leadership. Most of the prophets and priests after Moses controlled the people who thought they were receiving revelation from God as did Moses but were really receiving revelation from the lower group soul essence of the people. This produced a group consciousness that spoke to the priests and gave them teachings that seemed right to them, but were not of a high spiritual nature. This God of human creation was the adversary spoken of by Jesus. It is the outward God that always takes the place of the inner God that speaks from the higher realms.

This carnal god gave them the commandments of animal sacrifice and told them not only to go to war, but to kill men women and children of their enemies.

They also rewrote some of the history to suite their altered teachings.

This corruption was to be expected, but even though the revelations seems cruel and primitive the Jews were still a cut above most of their neighbors in righteousness. At least they did not sacrifice their children to their god as did many other people of that era to their gods. And when they conquered a people they either enslaved them or killed them quickly, whereas many people of that era delighted in torturing their enemies to a slow painfully prolonged death.

From Moses to Christ a number of true prophets did surface such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Amos, and a few others. These attained true spiritual contact and usually they were rejected by the leadership and the people.

Jesus indeed spoke truly when he said:

Matt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Matt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Matt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Up to now it has always been the case that only a very few are willing to listen to true words of light and love, but this is beginning to change. Today more people than ever before in recorded history are in touch with the voice of the soul and truly hunger after truth and seek for true brotherhood.

Hopefully each of us can do or part to speed the process.

 

April 23, 2015

Freedom and Selfishness.

Clay wrote me a couple emails and my response to them may be of interest to readers here. I’m posting this with his permission.

Clay:

I think that anything that encourages our sense of selfishness, and encourages our separation from each other and feeds our desires to accumulate more and more stuff, and then protect all our stuff is definitely not a benevolent or useful ideology in the spiritual quest. I honestly could care less about my “private property” or my tax rate as I don’t really view any of this as mine anyway. It is all on loan from god and I am prepared to give it all up the moment he desires. Rand encourages us to cling tightly to our attachments and our possessions and establishes materialism as our soul basis as identity and I think she promotes an incredibly dangerous ideology. At least she was honest about her despising Christian values and all mystical and religious institutions, so I am truly disturbed that so called “christian groups” and spiritual seekers have latched onto Rand. Spiritual Satanist and those of Anton Levay’s Church of Satan have been long time advocates of Objectivism and it disturbs the heck out of me that Objectivism has infilitrated mainstream christianity. Satanist love this stuff, I suggest you look it up.

Sarah plans on giving them a read when she gets some free time. She actually keeps asking me about your books which is rare for her as I read books constantly and she rarely asks me what I think of them.

JJ

I view the support of taking away freedom of others as much much worse than selfishness for about 99.9% of the people have some degree of selfishness – much higher than those who support the tyranny of taking away freedom so they can support their own little wills.

Rand put too much emphasis on selfishness, but to her credit puts emphasis more in the aspect of self interest than greed, two entirely different things. We are told that even Jesus was acting in self interest when he went to the cross. The important thing is she did support individual freedom of choice which is the main point of demarcation between light and dark. To act to take away freedom is the ultimate act of selfishness. To enslave another to get what one wants in extremely selfish – even if it is for an apparently unselfish ideology. This she was unselfishly against unlike those who follow the dark path as the Satanists you mention. It takes a love for your brother and a degree of unselfishness to advocate as much freedom for your neighbor as you do for yourself, for the truly selfish person is happy to take away the freedom of another if it benefits him or his mindset.

Clay

JJ have you ever read the political and social theoritst John Rawls? I truly believe that Rawls proposes the only fair and equitable organization of society and it has nothing to do with taking away freedoms of others.

JJ

I haven’t heard of him until now, but did read some of his material today and so far the only thing I get out of it is that he advocates fairness and justice in society, but doesn’t even clarify what they are or how they are to be implemented.

Does he desire his ideas be implemented by force for the whole nation or does he want to start with voluntary groups to see if his ideas work first?

I have no problem with social experiments if they are established through free will. Then if they are not satisfactory the participants can withdraw any time they choose.

He wrote most of his ideas over 40 years ago. Have any of them been tested?

Clay:

What you and others are failing to realize that our entire society was founded upon taking away the freedom of others and that freedom is far from equally distributed in this country.

JJ

Are you joking? When this country was established it was the freest nation on the face of the earth and outside of slavery, much freer than it is now.

Freedom is not a commodity that is distributed. Goods and services are distributed. Freedom comes through non interference in the will of the individual and the people.

Clay:

Please be patient with me and at least read my following example, also I did not come up with this example, a friend of mine who is working on his masters in economics told me about it. The professor had 5 student play a game of monopoly and normally each player starts out with $1500 to begin the game. What the professor did though was have each player start out with a different amount of money. The first player received $6000 dollars, the second received $4500, the third player received $3000, the fourth $1500 and the fifth player received only $500. There were 4 separate groups of 5 students who played. In each and every game the winners were those who started out with $6000 or $4500 dollars, without exception. The student with only $1500 and $500 were always the first out and honestly never stood a chance of competing with those who had more. This fairly simple analogy clearly demonstrates what any child can instantly recognize. If you were to start 5 children off playing like this they would all protest loudly that this was incredibly unfair and that the ones with the least amount had almost no chance of winning. Why is it that as children we all instantly recognize how unfair such a “game” would be, but somehow as adults we try to justify the exact same system as “fair”. Just something to think about.

JJ

I do not mean to insult your friend, but that is really an illogical example. There is little correspondence between Monopoly moves and the realities of life.

Why?

Your moves in Monopoly are made by a random throw of the dice and the player has absolutely no control over what will come up and where he will land next.

In life our moves are not made by random luck, but by intelligent choice. If this Monopoly idea represented reality then no disadvantaged people would ever succeed, but many who started out poor and with big disadvantages have been wildly successful.

John D. Rockerfeller went from being a poor kid raising turkeys and selling potatoes to becoming the richest man on earth. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs came from middle class households. These and others shatter your friend’s Monopoly teaching.

Clay

John Rawls theory of social justice is based on an idea of a “pre-incarnational” constitutional system. Essentially Rawls proposes that the only “fair and equitable” system is one that would be developed before human souls incarnate in bodies. We all meet together prior to birth and in this state none of know how we will incarante. We have no idea what sex we will born as, what race, what ethnic group, whether our family will be filthy rich or dirt poor. We have no idea if we will be a genius, average, or low intelligence. We do not know if we will be born healthy or struggle with sickness our whole life, we have no idea whether we will be ambitious or lazy, sane or suffer mental illness, and so on and so forth. Only a system that all souls could agree on prior to incarnation would be a fair system that worked for the best benefit of all members, since no member would willingly chose a society when they have no idea if they might be born as the lowest member of the society. This society would be geared to granting the most equality while protecting liberty.

JJ

Actually we do choose our situation, sex and we know what our intelligence is before we were born, but do not see what this has to do with his theory.

How do you grant equality without taking away liberty? North Korea is working with this idea and anyone who disagrees gets shot.

Clay:

Our current system and the “ideal” system as Rand proposes totally lacks heart and is the worst ideas of “social darwinisn” held out as ideal all over again. I truly find Rand a monster and it has nothing to do with taking away freedoms.

JJ

Our current system does not reflect Ayn Rand’s thinking, but has moved dramatically toward your idea of fairness through redistribution.

Whereas there has never been a nation using Rand as a model there have been several using the fairness ideas as taught by Marx such as the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba and China under Mao. China has been smart enough to incorporate some free enterprise into its system and has managed to escape some of the pitfalls that plagued other Communists nations.

Clay

Rand would have no problem with children dying and starving on the street, as they were prior to social service agencies being set up.

JJ

Have you read her books? I have and see nothing that tells me you are correct here. If people are allowed maximum freedom then the poor will come out much better than becoming wards of the state.

Clsay

The poor houses, the houses for orphans and the so called “religious charities” that took care of the poor in this country prior to social services were abysmal,

JJ

You overlook the fact that the situation of most of the people in ages past was abysmal and their resources were much less than now. It would have been impossible to create a welfare program then as we have now.

Unfortunately, there is not a place on earth we can point to that has the economic and individual freedom that this country had 150 years ago. If it existed and had use of today’s technology you would see a nation of prosperous happy citizens that would be the envy of the world. Switzerland isn’t perfect, but the people there are relatively free and life there is quite good with the poor being well taken care of through free will assistance.

Clay

and Rand’s society only provides opportunities for those most able to “compete” at a high level.

JJ

You have no evidence of that whatsoever.

Clay

That is social darwinisn justified as “freedom”.

JJ

Rand was an anti-socialist and anti social engineering.

Clay:

To me that is no freedom at all, it is ego inspired greed taken as ones highest value.

JJ

If the ability to make your own decisions is not freedom then what is??? It sounds like you think freedom is being restricted from making your own choices and having some dictator who knows better make them for you. You should clarify your position here.

The greatest tyrants have always been those who thought they knew what was best for the people forcing their ideals upon them.

Clay

I will be vehemently opposed to Rand’s vision of a “just society” till my last breath

JJ

But you are ambiguous as to what it is about Rand that you do not like. Her central teaching is freedom. Are you against that? You do not like her teachings on self interest, but you also have self interest. You have an ideal that you are extremely interested in seeing materialize. Rand just thinks you should have the opportunity to make it happen as long as you do not take away the freedom of others.

Clay

and hold out Rawls vision as the only truly “equitable” system that has ever been proposed.

JJ

But how would it be implemented – by force or free will? And if it is so good why is no one trying it out on a small scale to demonstrate its veracity?

Clay:

I really hope you take a look at Rawls and his vision of the “just society”. I guarantee you, that is not a single soul in Rawls system that would agree to Rand’s system.

JJ

It sounds like Rawl would be against individual freedom then. As I said, I read quite a few of his writings today and can’t see how he could implement his ideas nationwide without the use of force and loss of freedom. I couldn’t find any suggestion from him where he advocates free choice gathering of experimental groups to prove his ideas.

Clay

We only agree to a Randian society when we are privileged from birth, whether through rich parents, a high IQ, overwhelming ambition, or good health.

JJ

I grew up about as disadvantaged as you could get and I certainly support the principle of freedom advocated by Rand. I do have social ideas that she would not agree with, but she would not prohibit me from trying them out.

Clay:

The game is rigged from the start JJ and we are sliding into Oligarchy.

JJ

What we are sliding into is totalitarianism and freedoms are being restricted by government, not business or the wealthy.

We need to reverse this trend and seek for maximum freedom over the maximum selfishness of those seeking to obtain the wealth of others by force.

There are always obstacles in life, but the deck is never stacked. There is always a way to improve your situation. Energy follows thought.

***

Force and Free Will

Clay:

Ruth plain and simple, in JJ’s world you get ZERO, count them ZERO benefits, and would be entirely reliant upon charity.

JJ

This is totally untrue. You are using the Allan approach of stating fictional accounts of what I teach rather than going to the source and accurately portraying them. As Ruth said, if I truly taught such a thing then she wouldn’t be here. And why is she here? Because she actually does her best to respond to my actual teachings.

You need to argue with what I say and teach not with what I not say and teach.

Here is your problem with understanding me. You are looking at various teachers in terms of black and white. Instead of looking at Rand as maybe having some things right and some wrong you just write her off as totally evil that must be opposed by your life’s blood.

Because I find something I like with Rand you categorize me and others as acolytes that accept her every word as gospel. Such is not the case. Most old timers here are not black and white, but synthetic, and if you are going to argue with them you need look at their actual words instead of categorizing them as totally in some evil ideological camp.

I referred you previously to my teachings that would take care of people like Ruth. Here us the reference again:

LINK

Ruth has read this and has voiced no objection to the plan. Keep in mind that this is not my vision of Zion, but a step in making this country work as it should.

The main thing I like about Rand’s teachings is her support of the principle of freedom but we do not use her writings as any handbook for building a future society.

I also do not look at those opposing Rand, such as Rawl as totally wrong without good points. More fairness and justice would be a good thing. But how to achieve it could be attempted by good or evil means. The devil is in the details.

Clay:

it absolutely no different than the Communist utopia envisioned by Karl Marx.

JJ

My ideas are much different in that Marx supported the use of force in establishing his ideals and I do not and neither did Rand. That is a huge difference.

Clay:

I would take today’s society over life 200 years ago without a second thought and if people were truly aware of social conditions back at that time, they would to.

JJ

You overlook the fact that most of the improvements in society are due to technology, not government. If we keep the improvements of civil rights and go back to the economic freedoms of the past then the country would be much better off than today.

When I compare today vs yesterday almost all of what I enjoy comes from technology, not socialist government.

Clay:

If you get a single social welfare benefit Ruth you are truly a hypocrite for subscribing to this belief structure.

JJ

To be a hypocrite you have to go against what you believe. Ruth is following her beliefs; therefore, she is not a hypocrite.

I think the Medicare system is totally wasteful and much inferior to what could be but am not a hypocrite for using it because I was forced to pay for it and believe in getting my money’s worth from my investment. I also do not think all insurance companies are totally efficient, but if I have an accident I am not a hypocrite for collecting from them. We are forced into the current system and thus have to make the best of it with as much integrity as possible.

Clay:

In order to have freedom from we also need freedom to.

JJ

As Dan says, you have it backwards. Except for our god given “freedoms to” positive freedoms are a result of having freedom from forced constraints.

Clay:

Did you know that 1% of the population controls 50% of the worlds Wealth? That leaves 99% of the world fighting for the remaining 50%!!!! How in the world are lower taxes on the wealthy supposed to help anyone? This is just monstrous to me.

JJ

You are talking about a strawman not even focused on here that would take a book to examine. But the fact is that it doesn’t hurt me if Bill Gates has billions. My concern isn’t how much someone else has, but how much freedom I have to achieve my own dreams. We are making progress as a whole. More poor people are becoming prosperous and assisted than any other time in history. Time to see the glass as half full.

Clay:

JJ this nation most definitely was not founded upon “freedom” it was founded upon freedom for a very limited group of people, upper class property owning white males.

JJ

You’re not making any sense. All people benefitted from the foundations of this country. The freedoms enunciated there even led to the freedom of the slaves and better treatment of native Americans. Your idea that only wealthy white men benefitted is crazy talk with no foundation whatsoever. Most of the problems faced by this country were in place before 1776.

Clay:

While negative liberty is usually attributed to individual agents, positive liberty is sometimes attributed to collectivities, or to individuals considered primarily as members of given collectivities.

JJ

Your illusion is you lump together all positive liberties as a good thing. Using your criteria then the South was right in fighting to keep their positive liberties. They claimed that their positive liberties (the liberty to do) brought about by the establishment of slavery which was essential for such liberties for the free man. They felt they could not be maintained without slavery.

We have the same problem today. Many believe we need to place lots of forced redistribution on, not just the wealthy, but all the producers and force them into slave labor so a few extra people can have some positive liberties.

The term positive liberties here certainly gives an erroneous projection of thought.

For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money. For thus saith the Lord GOD, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause. Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed. Isa 52:3-5

The majority certainly howl because of being forced to support all kinds of things against their will. We can attempt to establish greater fairness by force as did the old Soviet union or by free will as did the Founding Fathers. That which had the greater success is obvious.

Clay, do you really believe it is desirable to force the majority into slave labor to support the minority? Why do you really think force works better than free will?

***

Clay:

I see socialism and capitalism as both being very necessary for the efficient functioning of society. Again, I am not the one advocating a single tool for the job, capitalism.

JJ

Again, you need to read my actual writings for they do advocate the use of both of them. My main emphasis is on the principle of maximum freedom for only in a spirit of freedom can either side be tested appropriately.

It sounds like you oppose me because I am against tyranny. Perhaps this reveals a flaw in your thinking and I am sure tyranny is not your intention. But of course those who supported Castro and the revolution had no idea that they were working for the implementation of a totalitarian regime, worse than that which they toppled.

 

April 24, 2015

Slavery or Not

Clay:

I never said it was entirely just, I just find it offensive to every real person trapped in human slavery to have taxes compared to slavery. Taxation is more of a pain in the rear, but not slavery.

JJ

You are really being black and white with your view of slavery. It appears that the only definition you will accept is something that exactly describes a slave in the Old South on a plantation. This is simply not the case.

Here are three common dictionary definitions of “slavery”

(1) the practice of owning slaves

(2) work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay

(3) the state of being under the control of another person

If you have to work extra hours against your will to pay what you consider taxes to which you think are excessive then you are under the control of another entity. This fits the definition of slavery.

You can’t use the same black and white definition to fit into all circumstances.

The slaves in ancient Rome were in a different situation than those in the Old South. That certainly doesn’t mean they were not slaves.

It was common in Rome for the slave to manage his own business and pay the slave owner a tax of one third of his income and keep the rest and spend it how he wanted.

Because this was rarely the case in the South does not mean that the Roman Slaves were not slaves.

There were also slavery systems in ancient times where the slave was free to leave. Instead of leaving they stayed as servants because conditions there were better than they could secure outside of the slavery conditions. Because he could leave did not mean he was not a slave.

The current taxpayer pays over 50% of his income in taxes, when all of them are considered, so the Roman slave was able to spend more of his earnings than the current taxpayer.

No one is saying that all conditions of slavery are exactly alike as you seem to think should be the case.

But any time one is required to work or pay for something decreed by others that runs contrary to his will then we have the condition of slavery to some degree.

That doesn’t mean that all taxes are slavery. If the actual taxpayers, as a whole, feel the tax system is fair and support it with their free will then such taxes would not be slavery. Excessive taxation contrary to free will would definitely qualify. Most people would support a tax system that is not excessive and where they receive close to their money’s worth in benefits. For instance, most people are happy to pay a gasoline tax if the money is actually spent on roads.

FDR proposed a tax that exceeded 100% of income for the wealthy. Surely that would qualify as slavery conditions.

Then you say:

Sorry guys, America is your family and you just don’t like how it is being run so you want to take your toys and leave, but not really leave, because you still want all the benefits that society has produced due to effective civil government. *** If your liberty is so important, just leave.

JJ

This is a strange statement considering that you seem a lot more disgruntled with the United States than the average Keys member. You are definitely much more dissatisfied than me as you appear to hate this country which you say has an evil foundation and existence, has negative liberties and capitalism you do not like and is not socialist enough for you.

If there was a better place to go and we had the power many here would do just that. Most other countries either have high taxes or ruled by a tyrant. Somalia, as you suggest, is certainly not desirable. There is nowhere to go for those who just want to be left alone as a group, but eventually such a place will be made.

The only place I can think of that may be more desirable than the United States is Switzerland but the draw is not so great as to cause me to go to the inconvenience of pulling up stakes and moving away from my loved ones.

Instead, I am creating proposals for positive change for this country while it is still possible and have written a book on the subject called Fixing America.

If we had reform according to my proposals about the only ones who would complain would be those who want more legal theft available for their own selfish interests.

To read last years writings go HERE

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE