2004-3-13 17:42:00
Douglas,
Thanks for replying, but you completely eluded my question. Let me repeat:
What actual teaching that I have given out do you take issue with?
Secondly, as a basis of your condemnation of me you use the teachings of Richard Kieninger as a standard of truth.
Perhaps it might be useful to compare his record to my own.
(1) Reliability
Richard's teachings that can be proven, such as predictions, have been proven false. Among them are:
(A) He was told to build a city called Stelle in Illinois to prepare for a cataclysm which would come around 1977. It was supposed to have a population of well over 250,000 by now.
Reality: No cataclysm came in 1977 and all that is left of Stelle is a ghost town.
(B) He predicted World War III in 1999. Nothing happened.
(C) He predicted that a new land would rise out of the Pacific Ocean on May 5, 2000 where a new nation would be created by their group. By this time 90% of the world's population was to have been destroyed.
Reality: Completely false prophecy.
Now look at my record. So far I have not made a single prediction that has not come true. In fact, one of my teachings is that very few predictions can be relied on because of the malleability of the future. Only when a powerful life makes a decision and follows through with it can the prediction be relied on.
Most of my firm predictions have been about disasters that have not happened. One of the latest ones was the prediction that started a few years ago that. Zecharia Sitchin's Planet X was supposed to arrive here in the Spring of 2003 and a number of people on the list were concerned about it. In June of 2002 I told them that nothing was going to happen. Some were upset with me over saying this, thinking we needed to make emergency preparations. I wouldn't be surprised if Richard was not also taken in by this prediction of doom.
When the whole world was concerned about Y2K I predicted it would not be a big deal and we would solve the problem. I made no preparations for doom.
I also predicted up to 30 years ago that Christ would not come near the year 2000 neither would the world come close to ending.
The question is now this. Why would you believe one who has 100% failure in prediction over one who has 100% success? Which one is most likely connected to the Brotherhood of Light?
Actually my teaching is to believe neither unless you first run a teaching by your own soul, but if we use pure logic we should be more inclined to believe an accurate teacher over one who is not.
(2) The Teachings.
Richard has some good insights, but there is not much that is new in his teachings. His critics say he received most of them, not from Doctor White (a master), but from Lemurian Fellowship from Ramona California that he joined in the 1950's.
The teachings I present contain hundreds of new principles and concepts that are published no where else. You only have to go back a couple posts to find some. For instance in my last post was presented the principle that mankind is the soul of the universe and before that the idea that God is not perfect.
(3) Authority.
Richard set up a standard authoritative organization and himself as an absolute authority. After all, if he speaks for the masters who can question him.
I make no claim to speak by the authority of any master. Even John in the Immortal is published as a work of fiction so all are free to accept or reject anything in the books without feeling like they are challenging God or a Master.
When people are forced to look to the outside for the voice of God they have the mark of the beast. I direct them to the inside where they find their true authority - The Kingdom of God within.
(4) Scriptures
I notice that you quote the scriptures a lot so they must be a strong authority to you. Richard expounds very little upon them and rarely illustrates how his teachings harmonize with them.
I have quoted the scriptures thousands of times to illustrate how my teachings are in harmony with them. You would have difficulty in finding even one teaching I have given out that is not in harmony with the scriptures.
(5) Honesty
Richard's works are a combination of truth and fiction, but he presents the Ultimate Frontier as 100% truth and coming directly from the Masters.
The Immortal series is a combination of truth and fiction and I tell you truly that this is so. I do not present fiction, or made up events, as being true.
The rest of my teachings are presented with no authority but are for your consideration to run by your own souls to determine the validity thereof. If you find something with which you disagree you will not be looked upon as challenging the voice of God, a Master or a master-wanna-be.
Question:
Taking all this in consideration I would wonder why you would use Richard's teachings as a benchmark to condemn my own. What reasoning do you have to do this?
Why do you accept that Richard's teachings are true yet condemn me?
I would recommend that you wipe all dogma out of your mind and begin with a clean slate. Become as a little child and enter the Kingdom of God.
A fool always finds a bigger fool to admire him.
Nicolas Boileau (1636-1711) - French poet and critic
Copyright 2004 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved