Sept 11, 2015
Raising the Bar
We have been discussing whether or not Islam was initiated by the forces of dark or light. When you look at the warlike nature of some Moslem groups and their justification of aggression from scripture then I cannot blame anyone for thinking that the religion was created to be an agent of the dark forces.
What is not realized by many is that all religions and almost all groups and people are under the control of the Beast and the antichrist forces. It is written:
“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Rev 13:8
There are only a handful who see what the beast is and how to deal with its power. The rest are under its control whether they be Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or Hindu.
It has been a tough job for the forces of light working with humanity since the rise of our civilization. They have known that whatever movement they have a hand in creating will be corrupted and made use of from time to time by dark forces. It matters not how pure and harmless the original teachings are. We all know how past Christian leaders have twisted the words of Jesus and the prophets and used them to torture heretics and burn them at the stake.
Unfortunately, the heretics were the ones closest to escaping the power of the beast, who does not want to be challenged or ignored.
All the major religions which have endured have been started or in some way inspired by the Brotherhood of Light. One of the main differences between the two brotherhoods is that those on the side of light can create works that will endure manifestation for all to see whereas the dark brothers generally are not able to accomplish this.
Because when a work from the dark side is openly revealed the people will reject it, but when a work of light is examined the people will embrace it.
The work of darkness only benefits the few at the top of the food chain and when this is seen, the people as a whole will not accept it. Therefore, the plan of attack for the dark brothers is to take an existing work, with attractive ideas for the many, take it over and secretly steer it toward the goal of benefiting the few at the expense of the many.
While it is true that Islam is much more materialistic than Christianity or the Eastern religions, it is not that far off from the materialism of the Old Testament times. It was adjusted to the consciousness of the people at the time and place it was created and if there had not been a Mohammed then another would have come along with something similar.
Because the consciousness of many people demanded a religion like this. Rather than let a truly corrupt person take advantage of them the Brotherhood worked with the disciple Mohammed in an attempt to create the lesser of the evils which would manifest. Despite his flaws, without Mohammed, Islam would have been much more harmful to the history of the world than has been the case.
This circumstance has been the case with the creation of all religions. None of them have been close to the religion the Brotherhood of Light would create for themselves if they were here as a group. Each religion created has to be adapted to the consciousness of the people who will be practicing it. The fact that there are a billion and a half members tells us that indeed there is a large pocket of humanity who desire such a materialistic religion and if Islam were not available something else more harmful would be.
We all know that an important goal of the Brotherhood of Light is to present the good, the beautiful and the true and draw mankind in this direction. But they have another important goal that is rarely mentioned, which is to raise the bar on what humanity sees as evil.
That which is seen as being good and evil changes with the centuries. A short time ago the evil which concerned many seekers was human slavery. After much struggle and pain, human slavery was basically eliminated in civilized nations. This great evil was then replaced by lesser evils such as:
Violations of civil rights and excessive taxation and regulations.
Such things are a much lesser evil than physical human slavery where one person owns another like they would a piece of property.
Now the forces of darkness would like to return to the standard of past evils, but, fortunately, the power of dominating good ever moves us forward. True, there are steps backward at times, but overall the power of good dominates because intelligence dominates over chaos.
The evils in the forces of Nazism were somewhat diffused when Hitler was defeated and the evils that have surfaced in radical Islam will also be diffused when they are defeated. When this happens then the evil that we see in Islam will be moved up a measure or two so it become less harmful.
This happened to Christianity. In the Middle Ages the religion was so intolerant that they severely persecuted heretics. Now the bar of evil within this religion has been raised. We still see problems, but they are much more tolerant in this age and that which is evil in the religion is not so bad as in the past.
Seekers indeed look forward to the coming new age when good and evil will be moved up a notch. It will be interesting to see where things level off to in the next couple hundred years.
Judaism is old, obsolete and separative and has no true message for the spiritually-minded which cannot be better given by the newer faiths; the Moslem faith has served its purpose and all true Moslems await the coming of the Imam Mahdi who will lead them to light and to spiritual victory; the Christian faith also has served its purpose; its Founder seeks to bring a new Gospel and a new message that will enlighten all men everywhere. Therefore, Jerusalem stands for nothing of importance today, except for that which has passed away and should pass away. The “Holy Land” is no longer holy, but is desecrated by selfish interests, and by a basically separative and conquering nation.
Rays and Initiations, Page 734
Sept 13, 2015
DK on Islam
I knew I had read about the link of Jesus to Islam in the Bailey writings but had a very difficult time in finding it. The reason is that AAB used an odd spelling of Mohammed and spelled it as Mahomet.
Here is the Quote:
Teaching upon the new world religion, with its emphasis upon the three major Full Moon periods (Aries, Taurus, Gemini, falling usually in April, May and June respectively) and the nine (occasionally ten) minor Full Moons each year. This leads to a consequent relation being established between the work of the Christ and of the Buddha in the minds of spiritually inclined people everywhere, with the result of a great broadening of the human aspiration. This work is as yet embryonic, but it should receive increasing attention. Eventually it will demonstrate as the main linking unit between the East and the West, particularly if Shri Krishna is shown to be an earlier incarnation of the Lord of Love, the Christ. Thereby three major world religions the Christian, the Hindu and the Buddhist will be intimately related, whilst the Mahommedan faith will be found to be linked to the Christian faith because it embodies the work of the Master Jesus as He overshadowed one of His senior disciples, a very advanced initiate, Mahomet.
Rays and Initiations, Page 254
Sept 14, 2015
In this discussion of Islam we have many points where there is group agreement, but only one where there is some disagreement.
Here are points where I believe we are at agreement.
(1) The teachings given out through Christ via Jesus are of a much higher quality and closer to spirit than those given through Mohammed.
(2) The teachings of Islam are more centered on this world, more materialistic and easier to interpret as approving aggression.
(3) Whereas a theme for Christian behavior was “turn the other check” the theme of Islam was to meet force with greater force.
(4) The Jews had been nurtured by many centuries of teachings by the prophets whereas the tribes of the Middle East lagged behind in spiritual thinking and had little religious structure.
(5) Authoritarian and designing caretakers of both religions used their scriptures as an excuse for control and aggression.
(6) Christianity still has its flaws but has mellowed out and generally is not a threat of terror or to world peace. On the other hand, an alarming number of Muslims support aggression and suppression which creates a threat to world stability.
The one point of disagreement is whether Mohammed was originally inspired by the light or the dark side.
Just using reasoning alone, arguments can be made in either direction. One can argue that the emphasis of the Islamic scriptures through Mohammed focused more on materialism and aggression, but they were in many situations where they had to fight for their survival as did ancient Israel when they went to war. In such a situation one may assume that revelations would direct them toward survival and success.
I think we can agree that the emphasis on what is revealed to different peoples of differing consciousness will not be the same, but may differ significantly.
What is much more important than who initiated the foundation of Islam is the correct discernment of good and evil as we face it today. Ancient teachings could have easily been twisted and corrupted, but today we read and hear many actual words coming from the minds of those who seek to control or destroy us. We only have ourselves to blame if we do not accurately see the threats that lie before us.
If it fits in a frame, it’s not the big picture.
The Covert Comic
Sept 15, 2015
Mohammed & Washington
“One can argue that the emphasis of the Islamic scriptures through Mohammed focused more on materialism and aggression, but they were in many situations where they had to fight for their survival as did ancient Israel when they went to war.”
After Mohammed was run out of Mecca his “fight for … survival” largely consisted of raiding Meccan caravans for loot, not protection.
“The Caravan raids refer to a series of raids in which the Islamic prophet and his companions participated. The raids were generally offensive and carried out to gather intelligence or seize the trade goods of caravans financed by the Quraysh. The raids were intended to weaken the economic and in turn the offensive capabilities of Mecca by Muhammad.”
You left out the reason for the raids., Just below your quote it reads:
Muhammad’s followers suffered from poverty after fleeing persecution in Mecca and migrating with Muhammad to Medina. Their Meccan persecutors seized their wealth and belongings left behind in Mecca.
Now substitute George Washington For Mohammed and see the British in place of the Meccans and Washington’s Gorilla tactics in place of Mohammed’s raids and we have an interesting correspondence.
Sept 16, 2015
Washington was fighting against British occupation and to secure freedom from Britain. When that was accomplished he didn’t invade Britain or France, or S. America.
Mohammed may claim they were just trying to get back some things they lost when forced to leave Mecca, but in fact they never stopped the looting, ever. There was never enough loot for them as long as they could find someone to conquer. This was true during Mohammed’s life, and afterwards (with millions killed in the conquest of India alone).
Mohammed and his followers were never in the fairly secure position comparable to the Founding Fathers after independence was secured. During his lifetime they consistently faced threats, often from numbers greatly exceeding their own. They felt they had to take aggressive measures to survive. During times where a people are struggling to survive many acts will be committed by even the good guys that look bad on hindsight.
For instance, during World War II the obvious good guys were the Allies but they also committed many acts that would be war crimes by today’s standards. Here is a link that lists many of them.
This is to be expected in a fight for survival. “All’s fair in love and war is indeed a truism.”
All may seem fair but all may not be right on hindsight.
The fact that the Allies committed some atrocities does not make them the bad guy in the overall picture.
The major problem I see with Islam is that after their survival was secured (after Mohammed’s death) that they continued to fight with the same mindset. That would be like Jefferson deciding that many nations still needed to be fought against as if they were the invading British using the same playbook as did Washington at war.
Using this mindset, Islam made many aggressive moves that resulted in much pain and sorrow. The invasion and destruction of India was a sad story indeed.
Unfortunately, this aggressive mindset still exists with many Moslems today and presents a great threat to world peace. Their religion needs to be invaded with light and truth, which would be a higher turn of the spiral of physical aggression coming back to them.
Analyzing the Quran
lwk points out these disturbing scriptures from the Quran (I guess I’ll update my spelling).
From the Quran:
Qur’an (6:93) – “Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah?” If the death penalty is prescribed for lesser crime, then it stands to reason that it should be imposed for the most “wicked”.
I checked out this verse in a half dozen translations and they all give an entirely different slant. Here is the commonly accepted meaning which has nothing to do with the death penalty but the fate that liars meet at their death.
6:93 And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah, or says: It has been revealed to me; while nothing has been revealed to him, and he who says: I can reveal the like of what Allah has revealed? and if you had seen when the unjust shall be in the agonies of death and the angels shall spread forth their hands: Give up your souls; today shall you be recompensed with an ignominious chastisement because you spoke against Allah other than the truth and (because) you showed pride against His communications. Shakir Translation
Jesus gave an equally disturbing warning:
Matt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Qur’an (33:57) – “Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained”
Qur’an (33:61) – [continues from above] “Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.”
Commentators see this scripture in its full context dealing with internal rebellion and traitors more than being directed to going after outsiders. In a time of war the issue of internal threats is often the greatest problem to be dealt with.
George Washington had hundreds of traitorous associates put to death to insure internal cohesion. If he had not done this he would have probably lost the war.
It is interesting that the next verse of this scripture justifies the death penalty by referencing Old Testament practices.
33:62 (Such has been) the course of Allah with respect to those (Old Testament prophets) who have gone before; and you shall not find any change in the course of Allah.
And what similar thing is written on the Old Testament?
“Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.” Leviticus 24:16
This scripture sounds more ominous than the Quran and it specifies that outsiders are subject to the death penalty for merely disrespecting their God.
The fact that draconian measures were used to insure the survival of early Israel and Islam does not mean that they were motivated by the dark side. We have to examine any religion as it applies to the time and the people where the words were given. The question to be asked is whether the entirety of the scripture had the intent of lifting the people as a whole to a higher level than before.
The question not to be asked is whether the generations following the initiator corrupted the teachings. As a general rule the words of initiators are corrupted later on and used to control the people with dread and fear.
When the corruption becomes obviously harmful and then contrasted with other enlightened teachings reform eventually comes. This reform happened with Christianity and hopefully it will come sooner rather than later with Islam.
Sept 17, 2015
Part of the problem as I see it is that JJ has accepted the AAB/DK writings as a trusted authority and to find significant flaws would undercut the edifice of that authority.
I do not trust any teacher 100%. DK is an earned authority with me because they reflect many things I have verified in my life and many others speak to my soul, mind and common sense.
There are maybe three things in his writings that I disagree with and a half dozen that are questionable.
You brought up a questionable one which is the existence of Vulcan which is supposed to be within the orbit of Mercury. It is obvious now that there is no physical planet such as Vulcan, but there are two other possibilities that would still make DK correct.
First he said there where five etheric planets in our solar system that are not visible to physical eyes. Vulcan could be one of these.
Secondly he said that Vulcan was “the sun, exoterically considered” Treatise on Cosmic Fire, Page 369
If we take this literally then when he speaks of Vulcan he is really speaking of the Sun and there is no doubt the Sun is there.
As far as Mohammed being originally inspired by the light I believed this before I read the Alice A. Bailey material. I hadn’t considered that it was Jesus who worked through him, but the idea was in harmony with what I already believed so I didn’t have a problem with it.
That certainly doesn’t mean that modern Islam is the light of the world. As DK said it has served its purpose. I now see the radical elements of Islam as the focus of evil in the world and the greatest threat we face. North Korea is included with this. Though they are different in religion they are similar in totalitarian thinking and are willing to cooperate.
I do not have any more problem considering that the Quran was inspired by the brotherhood any more than the laws of Moses. Both of them support aggressive war and have draconian punishments, but that was for a different people, a different time and different consciousness.
JJ (previous quote)
I checked out this verse in a half dozen translations and they all give an entirely different slant.”
That is indeed an issue. I have seen the same thing – you can get ridiculously different interpretations sometimes.
What I meant to imply was that the half dozen different translations were all in harmony with the one I quoted but all gave a different slant to the one you quoted. I could not find your quoted translation anywhere.
You are right though that sometimes a single verse will be translated with a number of different slants.
Sept 18, 2015
Examining the Bailey Writings
lwk wants to know where I may disagree with DK. Ordinarily, I find very little with which I can disagree as I discover more light in the Bailey teachings than any other writing. Most disagreements would be on what he may emphasize rather than a black and white rejection.
Here is one thing he stated about auras that didn’t seem quite right to me.
Now he (the disciple) is admitted to the secret place to be found at the very heart of the Ashram and becomes a chela within the aura.
The aura of any form of life can be defined as the quality of a sphere of radiatory activity. Very little is as yet known about auras, and a great deal of nonsense has been written anent the matter. The aura is usually spoken of in terms of colour and of light, due to the nature of the vision of the one who sees and the apparatus of response which is in use. Two words only describe an aura from the point of view of occult knowledge and they are “quality” and “sphere of influence.” What the clairvoyant really contacts is an impression which the mind rapidly translates into the symbology of colour, whereas there is no colour present. Seeing an aura, as it is called, is in reality a state of awareness. That the seer may in all sincerity believe that he has registered a colour, a series of colours, or light, is entirely true in many cases, but what he has really recorded is the quality of a sphere of radiatory activity; this he does when his own individual sphere of radiatory activity is of the same nature and quality as that contacted. Most seers register the astral range of vibrations of a person or a group and this through the medium of their own astral body. The impact of a truth or of a mental concept and its recognition is an expression of a similar contact, carried forward this time into the realm of the mind.
Discipleship in the New Age, Page 752
He is correct here as he seems to be defining the aura which he says is “the quality of a sphere of radiatory activity.” As he uses the term here and in other parts of his writing he is referring to the interplay of a person’s whole being with other lives. For instance, I may pick up vibrations from someone thousands of miles away. This can happen because souls are linked with all other souls. Because energy follows thought two entities can establish an interplay of energy with the intermingling of their thought and feeling. They could be said to be within each other’s aura as the Tibetan uses the term here.
The aura, in this sense as well as group auras, are indeed colorless and any color seen here would involve some mental interpretation. I’ve also met a number of psychics who claim to see auras who I believe do not see them but do merely give filtered impressions through their astral body as he says.
In my younger years I seriously studied the teachings of Lobsang Rampa, another controversial writer. He taught quite a bit about the human aura that it is possible to see in color and gave instructions on how to see it. I followed his directions and after a period of time gained the ability to see the aura and its colors. After considerable practice I got pretty good at seeing the colors.
I eventually lost interest in keeping up the practice as I found I could intuitively pick up what was radiating from others. Even so, I still pick up some auric light now and then.
DK here says that when one sees color in an aura “what he has really recorded is the quality of a sphere of radiatory activity; this he does when his own individual sphere of radiatory activity is of the same nature and quality as that contacted.”
I think this happens with many psychics, but I wouldn’t say this is the case with me. I have seen many auras that are not merely a radiation from my own self.
Here is an example. When I was with my first wife I noticed a new sweater hanging in the bathroom that she had apparently just bought. As I looked at it I saw a bright red aura radiating from it that looked nothing like my wife’s. I then asked her from where she got the sweater. She said that she bought it from a used clothing store.
This made sense to me as our clothing tends to keep our auric light for a period of time and that strange aura belonged to a previous owner.
Now if I were just seeing the residual aura on the sweater through the filters of my own self then I should have seen my own colors or that of my wife, for I did not know at the time the sweater had a previous owner.
The colors I have seen in auras are as real, or moreso, than the colors we see about us every day. Now if DK were to say that all color we see is caused by filters in our own mind then this interpretation of auric colors would make sense.
Now it is possible that the auras I have seen are colorless from the vision of the soul and my mind just translated the vibration of the aura into color. After all, our eyes and brain do a similar thing with color and light.
Most of my other disagreements are on points of emphasis, some of which we have discussed before. He places too much emphasis on the problems of capitalism as well as the virtues of socialistic sharing. I can see his points, but it sometimes sounds like he could use a life or two as a business person in the current world to sharpen his outlook.
Sept 21, 2015
Questions on Evolution
I haven’t given the group an assignment for a while. Let us see what the group comes up with on the next principle, which is evolution.
How would you define the Principle of Evolution?
Evolution is seen by many as disproving the existence if God. Why is this incorrect? How does it instead prove God’s existence?
Give three examples of evolution and what causes it to happen in each example.
Sept 23, 2015
Comments on Evolution:
Thanks for answering the questions about the mysteries of evolution. There were some very intelligent comments that deserve to go in the archives. Below is a summary. I’ll post my article on the subject shortly.
How would you define the Principle of Evolution?
A process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state through the intelligent application of energy and a process of slow change and development directed by intelligence.
The expansion of consciousness and refinement of vibration, through applied Intelligence. Evolution is the force of inertia which pushes or propels against the molecular structure, which produces growth through resistance or wear and tear.
Robert gave a summary view.
All change is positive when you learn the lesson from it. We are making all the changes to do so in order to get to the point where we realize there are no changes or bodies. The Holy Spirit is what gives us the lessons and the answers.
The application of intelligence to create and organize increasingly complex forms and systems toward increasing harmony and unity, which manifests ‘greater freedom, livingness, intelligence, light, and love’ of the individual parts and the whole.
This proves that existence of God in that way that there has to be energy directed by intelligence or this all was created by monkeys that did not have a clue or how to evaluate the results of change or in what direction to go when things went wrong other than that that they add more gibberish.
Nothing can exist or evolve, without the existence of a higher Intelligence. Evolution proves that God or a Higher Intelligence exists, because of the appearance of form or matter, and because of consciousness.
Organization that evolves toward higher form and purpose is its own proof of higher intelligence in a system that is becoming greater than it’s evolving parts.
If it is true that nothing can come from nothing, then the manifestation of intelligence in form, evolving toward increasingly organized forms and systems, is proof that intelligence came from Something, intelligently applied.
Give three examples of evolution and what causes it to happen in each example.
What causes it to happen is adaptation? The environment adapts to the evolving phenomena in question and vice versa.
Here is a link to 8 examples.
- Evolution of a crystal…….(mineral body)……intelligence applied to the base molecular structure within form.
- Evolution of a butterfly…..(animal body)……..intelligence applied to the basic molecular structure within form.
- Evolution of a human…..(physical/soul body)……….intelligence applied to the midway point of molecular structure within form.
Yellow bellied, three toed skink lizard going from egg-laying to live birth. The theory is that egg layers continue along warmer shorelines, which has a suitable habitat and climate. The more inland and elevated skinks have adapted to live birth in order to better incubate and facilitate the offspring in a colder, harsher environment. In short, the skink needed a “better” way of ensuring survival in diverse and increasingly complex climates and environments.
Evolution of humans from tribal living to kingdom-states. Tribal living became limited in its ability to create greater livingness and freedom of the whole, so it expanded beyond its prior limits. Kingdom states gathered tribes and united different cultures that had specialized knowledge and technology. That ensured greater survival of the whole while expanding knowledge and lifestyle to some degree – how to grow a better garden, kill an animal, defend against invaders, build a better house, etc. Greater livingness for more parts in a gathered state.
Evolution of human consciousness – live and let live attitude. More focused on the things that make us human rather than our differences – race, sex, belief, ideology, education, social status, etc. Evolution resulted from education, social integration, economics, etc, but largely is the result of having lived many lifetimes in different situations. The soul itself is driven toward more unity and tolerance because of long experience that has figured out what doesn’t work well long-term, versus what works best to bring greater livingness.
Dan gave a good summary of the principle related to intelligence:
Without answering your questions in detail 🙂 the only major discrepancy I have with the generally accepted scientific view is that “science” avoids the question of intelligence (tendency toward order, organization, symmetry, coherence, etc) – attempting to explain away the “magic” of evolution through equally magical, but perhaps more mundane-seeming (but not, Not, NOT!) words/phrases such as: “random processes”, “complexity”, “self-organization”, and “emergence”.
Show me a “process” that is truly (proveably) random or a self-organizing complexity and I will . . . eat my hat.
Simply ask yourself how two hydrogens and an oxygen can come together to create an entirely NEW, uncharacteristic entity (water)!
We can either ignore that MAGIC and pretend it is mundane, ho hum, old hat, and “thats just chemistry” or recognize and admit there is an elemental involved that science has not yet (well) accounted for – an underlying tendency of matter to cohere and organize (intelligence) – except to make it SEEM mundane by making up esoteric labels that do NOTHING to define, describe or explain it, such as: “emergent properties”.
Sept 25, 2015
Church and State
On Thursday (Sept 24, 2015) Pope Francis gave an address in the White House and then to Congress. Friday he will address the UN.
He is the first Pope, and I believe the first leader of a church, to address Congress, ever.
A question that I haven’t seen asked by anyone on either side of the political equation is this:
Why are there no demands for separation of church and state as there usually is when there are impositions much milder than the Pope addressing Congress?
There have been protests, complaints and even lawsuits over religious encroachments which have taken place routinely since the founding of this country such as:
The Ten Commandments on display on public property.
The mention of God or prayer in any school or public function.
Kids taking religious symbols or the Bible to school.
A government worker having a Bible laying on his desk.
Public employees discussing religion during breaks or lunch.
Religious symbols in public view. For instance, in Boise, where I live, there is a large cross erected in the 1950s on private land on a hill overlooking the city. There have been many complaints, as well as lawsuits, attempting to have it removed. Similar efforts are being made in other cities with similar crosses.
The political left has incessantly complained about the more conservative churches and leaders having too much political clout and access.
Ironically these same people are now cheering on a controversial Pope to preach to them in the White House, the halls of Congress and the U.N. – and give him numerous standing ovations.
Why the big change in attitude here?
The answer is quite simple. The Left sees him as one of their own who supports important items on their agenda.
Do you think the Pope would be invited to lecture Congress if he wasn’t expected to endorse essential political ingredients of the Left? I don’t think so.
What if, instead of supporting the leftist agenda, he lectured against abortion, standard immorality and in support of standard marriage and honoring the laws of the land on immigration?
Even if the Republicans, who are in the majority, supported a visit, the left with their friends in the media would wage such protest that an address to Congress would be impossible.
Now that this crucial barrier between church and state has been broken what next? Are we going to invite Pat Robertson, the Mormon prophet and Islamic leaders to lecture to us about what we need to do to correct the wrongs of this country?
The wisest course of action is to not start this process to begin with. The Pope and other religious leaders can get all the Facebook likes they need through regular media sources. The Pope could have rented a stadium and still gotten plenty of media coverage to reach those who wish to hear and see him. He doesn’t need the U.S. President and Congress to help him out.
To add insult to injury the chastisements from the Pope are largely directed, not to all, but to the political right.
He was very nebulous on standard Christian values, but specific on issues supporting the Left such as.
Socialistic sharing, evidently under the control of the modern Caesar.
Support of the orthodox view of man made climate change. It is obvious he has not studied both sides of the issue and has bought into sound bytes that seem alarming.
Those on the left have already shot their goals in the foot by stopping nuclear energy in its tracks, which has reduced CO2 emissions much more than any other source. If they have their way they will not only have negligible positive effect on the climate, at great cost, but cause an increase of poverty throughout the world.
The best thing to do to reduce CO2 is to provide an atmosphere for a good economy so clean energy technology can continue to develop.
Another main specific item he lectured us on was the taking in of immigrants and refugees. He speaks to us with great condescension, as if we are the anti immigration center of the world. The truth is that the United States has taken in more immigrants than any other nation in the world. Instead, he advocates for a violation of our laws and basically open our borders to all.
This idea goes against the principle taught by Jesus in the parable of the Ten Virgins. There were five wise who gathered oil for their lamps and five foolish that did not. When the time came that the oil was needed the five foolish asked the others to share their oil.
Because if they did then none would have enough.
This principle should apply to immigration. It is fine to share the abundance of our country to a degree, but if it comes to the point where the sharing is so great that none have enough then such thinking runs contrary to the wisdom expressed by Jesus.
The solution to the refugee problem is not so simple as to just send them to the Western nations. Even though almost all of them are Moslems, the Moslem countries are not taking them in.
Saudi Arabia has 100,000 air conditioned tents all set up, but going unused that could be offered, but they are not accepting any refugees. They have, however, offered to build Mosques all over Europe for them once they get settled.
One goal seems to be to get as many Islamic believers as possible settled in the West so they can eventually take over by shear strength of numbers.
The solution to the refugee problem is to secure a piece of land and settle them on it. Some could then apply for legal immigration to various countries. After all, they may be able to return later when the political situation stabilizes.
Next he lectures us on the death penalty, advocating for its abolishment. This is a political view of the left and runs contrary to the scripture he claims to support.
Have you noticed that the more a people lean toward atheism the more they are against a justified death penalty?
Why is this?
Because if this life is all there is, one clings to it more desperately and has no faith that death will place you in the hands of a just God who knows how to place you in situations of intelligent reform, much better than a life in prison.
Overall the political solutions offered by this Pope are feel good proposals rather than actions that will actually be good.
Like I said I think he was very nebulous in his support of conservative issues, but specific on liberal ones.
For instance on marriage he said, as you noted:
“I will also travel to Philadelphia for the Eighth World Meeting of Families, to celebrate and support the institutions of marriage and the family at this, a critical moment in the history of our civilization.”
This was quite nebulous and could be endorsed by gay marriage activists who see themselves supporting “the institutions of marriage and the family” as long as they can be in on them. If he wanted to be specific (as he was with global warming) he would have said, “the traditional institutions of marriage and the family.”
In saying this let me note that I am neither for or against traditional or gay legal marriage. I only support the freedom to establish any relationship contract desired and being allowed to call it what one wants.
“The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization…resolve to support one another, with respect for our differences and our convictions of conscience.”
What system confronts every form of polarization?
And where do we find no polarization?
North Korea, Cuba and China to a large extent.
Until unity is accomplished through seeing with understanding and vision, polarization is good and essential to positive social evolution.
” If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance.”
Again this was very nebulous and can be interpreted several ways, but if you go by his past comments one would think he is merely speaking against human greed and possibly the free enterprise system in the U.S.
Part of the responsibility of government is to insure the safety of the economic system. Some would think this is being a slave to the economy.
I believe him to be an initiate and a sane voice in today’s world. I believe he is speaking a message I find in the LDS scriptures and in the Bible, “and there was no poor among them.”
But he has made no proposals to help the poor outside of taking from the wise virgins and giving to the foolish. The process advocated by forced socialism and communism merely makes all poor except for a few at the top.
Promoting a surplus of freedom and teaching (without imposed restrictions) the benefits of good will is the key to eliminating poverty.
Our free enterprise system has done more to eliminate poverty than all the religious teachings ever have.
Sept 26, 2015
The Vicar of Redistribution
“But be has made no proposals to help the poor outside of taking from the wise virgins and giving to the foolish.”
Without knowing you, it kind of looks like you are insinuating that all poor people are ‘foolish’. I think we all know that there are some people out there who are poor for reasons that are outside of their control.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Yes, most of the poor are not in that condition by choice and many of them would be willing to work to get ahead if they had the opportunity – providing the opportunity pays substantially more than handouts being received. So far supplying good jobs through free enterprise has been the best long term solution for helping the poor, but for those in a situation where a hand out is needed two solutions are offered.
(1) The Jesus Solution. Those who have means can voluntarily give of their substance to help those in need.
(2) The Caesar Solution. Government takes the money by force and, after taking its cut, gives to the poor.
The Caesar Solution is the situation I talked of where the five wise virgins are seen as having more than their share and forced to give to those who have not.
With the Jesus Solution the wise virgins will use their free will and common sense and not give so much oil that they do not have sufficient for their own positive goals. In the Caesar Solution they often have to give so much that they are short of oil themselves and they wind up joining the foolish virgins who are in need.
The Pope has made it clear that he supports the Caesar solution. Here he is in his own words:
I do not hesitate to state . . . that equitable economic and social progress can only be attained by joining scientific and technical abilities with an unfailing commitment to solidarity accompanied by a generous and disinterested spirit of gratuitousness at every level. A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State…
Every woman, man, child and elderly person everywhere should be able to count on these guarantees. It is the duty of every State that cares for the wellbeing of its citizens to subscribe to them unreservedly, and to take the necessary steps to ensure their implementation.
Speech to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, May 2014
Here are some other quotes from him from his from his “Apostolic Exhortation” manifesto. These show an obvious hatred, as well as a misunderstanding, of the free market system.
“Inequality is the root of social ills … as long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.
The current model, with its emphasis on success and self-reliance, does not appear to favor an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak or the less talented to find opportunities in life.”
The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.”
“We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the ‘invisible hand’ of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programs … Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs.”
“Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape. … Just as the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality.
In his speech before Congress he praised Dorothy Day as a great American. This selection was highly praised by socialist Bernie Sanders. No wonder, when one checks out some of Dorothy’s words such as:
We need to change the system. We need to overthrow, not the government, as the authorities are always accusing the Communists ‘of conspiring to teach [us] to do,’ but this rotten, decadent, putrid industrial capitalist system which breeds such suffering in the whited sepulcher of New York.
“On Pilgrimage,” Catholic Worker (September 1956)
It is only through religion that communism can be achieved, and has been achieved over and over.
From Union Square to Rome (1938)
We stand at the present time with the Communists, who are also opposing war….
“Our Stand,” Catholic Worker (June 1940)
Marx… Lenin… Mao Tse-Tung… These men were animated by the love of brother and this we must believe though their ends meant the seizure of power, and the building of mighty armies, the compulsion of concentration camps, the forced labor and torture and killing of tens of thousands, even millions.
“The Incompatibility of Love and Violence,” Catholic Worker (May 1951)
I was always much impressed, in reading prison memoirs of revolutionists, such as Lenin and Trotsky … by the amount of reading they did, the languages they studied, the range of their plans for a better social order. (Or rather, for a new social order.) In the Acts of the Apostles there are constant references to the Way and the New Man.
“On Pilgrimage,” Catholic Worker (December 1968)
I think everyone with a good heart wants to help the poor. The question is as to how the poor can be helped by the wise virgins without exhausting the oil in their lamps so the golden goose gets killed and all become poor.
The best way was taught by Jesus and that was for people to voluntarily take of their wealth and give it directly to the poor. This way they get all the money without Caesar taking his cut. Anything done through Caesar should have the support of the vast majority, else many will feel theft by force is at play.
Sept 28, 2015
Discernment vs the Pleasant Thoughtform
A Pope’s visit to the United States is always a special occasion for Catholics. Not only does it inspire many members but it gives the church an opportunity to reach out to non members as well and establish some good will.
What makes the current visit from Pope Francis different is the tone was much more political than normal. This in itself is a break from the past but becomes of even more concern when the new political specifics turn out to only support the left and gives many on that side ammunition to use against their political adversaries. Thus, instead of furthering unity as is one of his expressed goals, he winds up fueling increased division, and even hostility in some.
This country has always been wary of the possibility of a church gaining too much influence on our political system. This was brought into focus when JFK ran for president and later when Romney, a devout Mormon ran. In both cases, the people worried that such individuals would be overly controlled by their church’s doctrines or even directly by their leaders. Fortunately, JFK proved to be his own man and put the nation first.
Political influence from the Catholic Church has always been a concern to many non Catholics, largely because there are so many of them. Here are some figures as of 2013:
The Pope is commander-in-chief of the world’s largest, religious army of1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, including 78 million Americans in 17,645 parishes. There are approximately 200 cardinals, over 5,000 bishops, 450,000 priests.
Of more concern, when the Pope gets political, is that six of the nine members on the Supreme Court are Catholics, including the chief justice. Three Catholics are in the direct constitutional line of succession if the president dies. Twenty-four of our 100 Senators are Catholic. So are 163 of the 435 members of the House.
Therefore, when the Pope takes a political side he is taking unfair advantage of those naturally leaning to the other point of view. When disagreeing with the Pope is as close as you can get to disagreeing with God then the safe thing in the eyes of many is to just submit no matter what your gut says.
Already we hear reports of Catholic representatives who are changing their views on legislation concerning orthodox global warming, not because of the people they represent, but because of the words of Pope Francis.
When a leader as powerful as the Pope tells our representatives which way their votes should lean then such a leader is interfering with our political process, as there are more than enough Catholics to turn the tide of legislation in his favor. This is of particular concern since the Pope is not even a U.S. citizen.
If he is interfering then why is there so little outcry? There are several reasons why he seems to be so widely accepted.
(1) Catholic representatives with different views are reluctant to criticize or even publically disagree with the man who represents God on earth in their eyes.
(2) Yes, Pope Francis generically speaks of supporting tradition which mildly assuages the Right, but he specifically throws support behind a number of leftist views. Since most of the media, bureaucrats, and celebrities lean to the left and are thrilled with the Pope’s support, their endorsements bring into our living room the appearance of even more support from the people than is in reality the case. This has the effect of moving those on the fence toward the views of the left.
(3) Since the Pope seems to be a man with good, intentions stressing brotherly love and sharing many feel it best to drop the analytical approach and just focus on the positive, as others seem to be doing.
One lesson Obama should have taught us, is to ignore the huge supporting crowds and media support and look closely at what the man says to discern his true beliefs. Obama gave a few clues but many of his real beliefs were highly veiled and were only seen ahead of time by those who did pay close attention and analyzed.
Pope Francis uses a similar approach to Obama in that it is difficult for the general public to understand his mind and direction as there are many gaps in his reasoning that they seem to have to fill in themselves – and they fill them in with their own beliefs as a comfort to themselves.
Remember when Obama ran in 2008 and few understood where he really planned to take us. It was said that he was a blank slate and this allowed people to fill in the blanks as they desired about the direction he would take us.
The Noble Prize committee also filled in the blanks and gave in the Peace Prize only based on what they wanted him to be. The Noble prize secretary, Geir Lundestad, now regrets going along with the almost universal praise and giving away the prize prematurely.
Yes, Pope Francis is a nice guy and it would be fun to sit down and have a beer with him. He says some pleasant things, but here is what we need to ask.
If he actually got his way on his goals he is working toward what would be the result? Would he take us toward abundance, low poverty, less homelessness and more satisfying lives – or not?
The mistake made by many is that they accept statements that feel good rather than working out in there minds how such ideas will play out in real life and what must be done to make good sounding ideals a pleasant reality.
Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE