Jan 1, 2012
Gaps in Words
LWK Speaking from personal experience, the _only_ thing that will really convert the atheist mindset is pain; physical, emotional, and spiritual. They have to see for themselves that they need to somehow step outside the paradigms they have defined for themselves and take a leap of faith (“faith” as JJ defines it in The Gathering of Lights, Ch. 19 – Real Faith).
JJ You are right here Larry. In fact I have been arguing with atheists on another forum for the past couple days, kinda as a diversionary vacation, and I use their terminology and of course have changed no minds. I did find one guy who explained to me why he lost his faith who may have some hope.
Anyway, we are all like the alcoholic who has to hit rock bottom before we will make real change. I’m not clear what turned you around but I am sure it was something painful rather than a peaceful argument.
Jan 2, 2012
Re: Intelligent Aid
There are indeed two ways that we evolve. The first is through trial and error. Eventually the next learning point dawns on us as we stumble forward.
The second is with the assistance of a teacher or some type of guidance beyond the physical, perhaps from a higher life.
Now, even in the first category we are not alone for we slowly progress through interaction with other lives who are fellow travelers. These may not be able to explain to us the knowledge we need but they may stimulate or motivate us.
On this note DK gave an interesting thought. He said that higher lives looked upon primitive humans and their struggle to survive and basically felt sorry for them. They decided to help them and came to the earth and stimulated their minds greatly speeding up their evolution. He said that if they had not done this humanity would have still moved forward but much more slowly. The most advanced among us would be living like the Australian Bushmen in a primitive condition with little civilization. It would have been a long time in the future yet before we would have arrived where we are now.
As I’ve reflected on this it could give an explanation as to why we have not yet picked up an intelligent radio signal from another solar system. Perhaps we are one of the few planets that have received such stimulation and most of the life on other planets is still quite primitive. Maybe one of our purposes is to visit them in the future and stimulate them.
Jan 3, 2012
Odds on Candidates
Back in May I gave my odds on the various potential candidates getting the nomination. Since we are approaching the first primary in Iowa I thought I would revamp my odds.
At that time I gave Romney the highest odds for the nomination stating that he has karma on his side because of the way the press destroyed his Father when he ran for president in 1968.
I think he still has the best chance for the nomination, but it’s been a weird year. Every month or so a new favorite has arisen who has looked like he would eclipse Romney so far this hasn’t happened. Romney hasn’t seemed to move much up or down but of late he has been inching upward. In his favor is that he seems to be a known quantity with no hidden vices, actions or comments that can be exposed and he’s performed well at the debates without making a major error.
The greatest criticism at the debate came from him offering to bet Perry $10,000 that he was correct on a point. In my book I thought it was his finest moment but others were upset the average person could not bet $10,000.
My overall odds have changed as the landscape has changed. Here they are.
Romney: 60% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 70%
Ron Paul: 10% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 30%. It looks like he will do reasonably well in Iowa but his past newsletters is starting to hurt him with new converts as I earlier predicted. If Romney views him as a threat he will do to him what he did to Gingrich with an attack ad blitz
Rick Santorum: 10% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 45%
Gingrich: 10% chance for the nomination. Odds of beating Obama if nominated 60%
This leaves a 10% chance anyone else will get the nomination
There’s a 30% chance Donald Trump will run as a third party candidate. If he does all bets are off and a reevaluation will be made at that time. A third party run by Trump would definitely increase the odds of an Obama win. A third party in development called Americans Elect started by Obama supporter Peter Ackerman has about $22 million to advance its cause and could wind up with someone like Trump or Huntsman for its candidate and could help Obama get reelected. This may be its purpose. In my view this has a 20% chance of having a significant influence on the election. We’ll hear more about this group as we approach the election.
Another thing that could change the election equation is if Hillary is selected for vice president. Most Democrats want this to happen, but the two people most opposed to it are Obama and Clinton.
I think Obama doesn’t want her because she may overshadow him and he doesn’t trust her in that position. Clinton is reluctant to seek the vice presidency because she wouldn’t have much power there. If she were nominated for this position it would increase Obama’s election chances by about 10%.
Only time will reveal the truth for sure. It will be a interesting political year.
Jan 6, 2012
Re: JJ Quote from the Archives for Today
JJ Quote: “Each odd number representing a ray or plane (and even years) is polarized in the positive energy and the even numbers are polarized in the negative energy. Notice that concerning this great number of seven that we have four positive numbers and three negative which gives all creation a domination toward the positive, or the dominating good.”
Ruth: I am wondering that now we are entering an even number year which means the polarization more towards the negative energy, or rather female/intuitional/receiving/magnetic energy may come into play more in all aspects of living etc.?
JJ When we speak of the energies being positive and negative the meaning is not to be taken in black and white as good and evil. Both polarities are necessary for creation. Nothing would exist without the both of them. Both male and female aspects have their positive points and there would be no dominating good without them both working together.
The odd years will reveal more male energy and the even numbered years the female or emotional side will be stronger. It is no accident that U.S. elections are on even numbered years where emotion reaches a high point.
Jan 7, 2012
Re: Big Bang Theory
It’s one of my favorite shows.
I also like Revenge, Chuck, The Mentalist ,Hell on Wheels, Castle, The Middle, Two and a Half Men, and Fringe.
Jan 9, 2012
Re: A question for JJ on the Face of Jesus.
This gives me an idea for a group assignment. There are two portraits online where the artists claimed to paint Jesus from actually seeing him. The first is the one you mentioned by Akaine at: http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/princeofpeace13.jpg
The second is by Glenda Green at: http://www.lovewithoutend.com/
Take a look and these two and see if either registers as a true image.
Next go to Google image search at: http://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en
Type in “Jesus portrait” and scroll through the images. If you see any that strike a chord give us a link with your impressions.
Jan 10, 2012
Re: A question for JJ on Jesus.
Thanks for your comments and participation on the face of Jesus. There is something one can say for sure about him if he were to come across a true picture which is this. The eyes would be interesting and exude intelligence and a strong life force. Take this picture for instance: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/forensics/1282186
It is a composite put together using research and guesswork and though some ingredients may be more accurate than the traditional pictures the eyes are surely way off. The guy just doesn’t look very bright and if a person is truly intelligent it is revealed through the eyes as well as the whole look of the individual.
Other pictures make Jesus look weak, wimpy, and effeminate in a syrupy way. These type of pictures can be ruled out as being good representations
I do not see any pictures on the internet that strike me as being 100% accurate but some capture part of his essence. I would have to say that I like Akaine’s picture best at: http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/princeofpeace13.jpg
I did see one many years ago in a tabloid that impressed me as accurate. I cut it out and saved it for a long time and was finally lost in one of my moves. It hasn’t surfaced anywhere on the internet. I wish I had it to show it to you. I’m sure the group would be impressed.
It was painted by a lady who claimed to have had a vision of Christ when he was in his twenties. His hair wasn’t that long and he didn’t have a beard at the time, but it was the most interesting looking human being I had ever seen.
Ruth brings up an interesting item of discussion. If one has soul contact does this mean he would recognize a true picture of Jesus?
Not necessarily. If one had known Jesus in a past life this would be possible but if he had not then it would require true psychic powers rather than soul contact to bring forth the right image.
Remember soul contact deals with principles more than data. Sometimes when it is important the soul will send an impression on a piece of data but more often than not we are on our own to reason it out. On the other hand, the person with reliable soul contact is very capable in seeing true principles and how they play out in this reality.
Jan 10, 2012
Re: recognizing Jesus.
Dan: How about if the overshadowed Jesus were actually standing before us? It seems almost incomprehensible that MOST folks wouldn’t feel the impact – I suppose to some it would just evoke irritation rather than peace but SOMETHING would register in almost everyone wouldn’t it?
JJ The actual presence of a person is much different than a photo or painting. In this case soul contact is a great help for you can sense the aura of the person as well as his inner being. As I said before one with soul contact can recognize another with it in their physical presence and often in communication away from their presence.
Jan 12, 2012
Ron Paul & World War II
Ron Paul was drafted for service He had to go. FDR did not get the approval of Congress to help Churchill during the war before 1941 but had to bend the rules. His good judgment made a world of difference – something Ron Paul would have never done. I doubt if Paul would have declared war on Germany until they were at our shores.
Keith: Ron Paul may or may not have gone to to war in 1941 if he was President. There is no way for anybody to know for sure. I honestly do not know. My gut instinct tells me Ron Paul is being unfairly painted as an isolationist who would never go to war. I do not believe this is true.
JJ No one is saying he would never go to war. He has made it clear the conditions in which he would go to war though.
(1) The United States must be attacked by the enemy. (2) Congress must first officially declare war.
His statements indicate that he would have not responded to Hitler until he had attempted to invade our shores and that wouldn’t have happened until he had first conquered all of Europe and Russia. At the end of the war he was close to developing nuclear weapons and if he had some more time he would have had them available when the time came to attack us. Even so, with Iran Paul wants to do nothing to make them mad but will wait until they send a nuclear bomb somewhere.
As far as controlling spending and reducing the size of government I am with him 100%.
I would guess that Paul would have declared war on Japan but waited on Germany even though they were allies. Their alliance was not that tight before the U.S. got into the war. I’m not even sure he would have declared war on Japan since Hawaii was not yet a state. After all he was opposed to even going after the terrorists in Afghanistan (after 911) until a revolt by his staff changed his vote at the last minute: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/26/fmr-staffer-ron-paul-planned-no-vote-for-afgha\ nistan-invasion-staff-threatened-mutiny/
I’m not saying he wouldn’t have done anything after Pear Harbor, but not sure he would have retaliated with an all out war. If he was set on not retaliating for 9/11 then it is probable he would have been reluctant to do much because of Pearl Harbor, specially since Hawaii was not a state.
Here is additional powerful evidence I am correct with his own words:
Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GOP’s leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a moral imperative.
“I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn’t”
“I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that,” Shapiro wrote.
(Like someone on their own was going to make war with Hitler)
Jan 12, 2012
Inside Ron Paul’s Mind
Here’s another quote, this time from a former member of Ron Paul’s staff, Eric Dondero: Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that saving the Jews, was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just blowback, for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.
I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.
There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. http://ace.mu.nu/archives/325052.php
Jan 13, 2012
Re: Ron Paul Predictions
Keith: The only part I slightly disagree with is your assessment that we are not in a dollar crisis. I think we have been in a dollar crisis for a few years now.
JJ I think you misread me there. Here was the dialog.
Ron Paul: An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.
My response: Didn’t happen. Interest rates have been very low over the past 10 years.
What didn’t happen was a dramatic rise in the interest rates due to any dollar crisis. I made no statement saying there was or was not a dollar crisis. It’s up to interpretation whether one would call the current instability of the dollar a crisis, but there is certainly a danger with it considering the world situation. The danger from the European situation is much greater right now than the fact that we have printed so much money.
Copyright 2012 by J J Dewey
(You do not have to log in to add comments)