Jan 18, 2016
Finding the Truth
A reader tells us that we should not believe a thing just because someone says it.
Where have you been? This has been a core teaching here since he Keys started in 1998. I don’t think that anyone here is making the case that we should believe anyone just because they say it. I have taught one should not accept a man, angel or god if the teaching does not harmonize with our own souls or make sense. Following an unearned authority without thinking for yourself is taking the mark of the beast.
Nothing is completely black or white.
Some things are black and white, but others, where not all the facts are known, may not be. For instance, it is a black and white truth that I post regularly to the Keys. It is not a black and white fact that all my posts are brilliant.
If X says A is good, and I say A is bad, that doesn’t entail that I think X is bad. X may be simply wrong about A, which happens all the time in the world of humans.
Opinions do not represent any universal truth. If A says that red is the most beautiful color and B says blue is then the black and white fact is that those are merely two opinions. The opinions themselves do not establish any universal black and white truth.
For instance, when JJ says Obama is similar to Nero, this shows me that he has no idea who Nero was and what he did. JJ doesn’t read too many books. Nero wanted to wipe the Christians (he fed them to the lions, for example), he burned the biggest city in the world (Rome), his own city, just because of boredom and wickedness.
I think that it is you that must not read much. If you have studied the life of Nero you would discover that he was much more like Obama than any other Roman emperor. He loved rubbing shoulders with the celebrities of the time and loved the praise of the people and even participated in various performances. Similarly, Obama rubs shoulders with celebrities and visits Hollywood, or invites celebrities to the White House whenever possible. He appears on TV as much as possible. And to top it all off he is fiddling around while Iran, North Korea, and ISUS are preparing to burn us down.
Nero had the advantage of having ultimate authority as emperor, but fortunately Obama is restricted (somewhat) by the Constitution. Even so, he has used the IRS to attack his political enemies, something Nixon only dreamed of doing.
Thanks to Obama withdrawing all troops from Iraq millions of Christians have been persecuted and many killed. He shuns taking Christian refugees but gleefully invites Muslims.
Like Nero he is cheered on by his supporters and causes great angst among the rest who fear for the fate of the nation.
I know, I know, you think he is as innocent as the driven snow, as the mounds of evidence goes over the head of ideologues.
JJ put forward some of the most preposterous assertions, such as “Obama is a communist/Marxist” (again, he has no idea who Marx was and what he wrote),
I have made no statement about Obama being a Marxist. I think I made a link one to some site that indicates Marxist tendencies and this bothered you immensely.
My main complaint against Obama is that he is taking us away from the principle of freedom instead of toward it.
“Climate change is manipulation” (he makes this assertion against the whole of the scientific community),
I support all proven facts about climate change as do all real scientists. The trouble with the argument is that it is led by politicians, like Al Gore, rather than real scientists. It is a fact that scientists have not proven how much effect humans have on the climate. Opinions of scientists vary over 1000%.
What the climate will do in the future is not a black and white thing.
I’ve written quite a bit on climate change and so far you haven’t been able to refute anything I have said about it.
“Bush had legal grounds to invade Iraq” (all evidence shows the contrary).
Did you miss my post where I said this:
After this the war was not declared over but a cease fire was arranged through U.N. resolution 687. The agreement that Saddam signed on to in order to enact a cease fire and save his skin was that he would allow full inspections and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction and not build any more. He also agreed to honor the civil rights of his people.
The deal was that if Saddam did not live up to his agreement (WMD inspections and civil rights) then the cease fire could end and the war would resume. No time limit was placed on this.
Bush and Blair enforced UN Resolution Number 687 as well as Number 1441. The latter was unanimously passed by the UN Security Council in November 2002 shortly before the war. Bush is accused of initiating a new war. It is not a new war, but an old one that was legally resumed and after he went the extra mile and got an additional UN resolution passed approving action. Clinton resumed the war legally several times (without an additional UN resolution) but not on the same scale Bush did. Bush and Blair merely enforced UN resolutions that others dragged their feet on because of their own oil contracts with the tyrant, Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein’s refusal to obey the UN resolutions, especially cooperating with inspections of WMDs was then the number one reason for going to war. What good are UN resolutions if they are not enforced? Passing a resolution may make people feel good, but it means nothing if the described action is not taken. Bush and Blair were the only ones who meant what their country said when they voted for them.
In addition the Democratic-led Senate voted 77-23 for a war powers resolution and the House approved the war by 296-133. Hillary Clinton was one of the ones who voted for it.
If Bush bombing Iraq was illegal then Clinton’s bombing was even more illegal because he never sent anything through Congress.
Bush is good, then it’s settled. Everybody saying the contrary opposes JJ, which means opposes the Brotherhood of Light.”
I have never taught any such thing here. All are free to agree or disagree with me. I am recognized here for giving strong evidence to back up what I say and many have received soul confirmation on things that cannot be empirically proven.
Some of my strongest supporters here disagree with me on a number of teachings and this is fine.
You, on the other and seem to approach members here with a jaundice eye which makes many wonder why you are even here if you do not see much truth to be found here.
I see you end with a quote from the Bailey books. I am surprised you even read them when you say
that statements have “to be logically and empirically convincing.” DK leaves most of his teachings to be proven by the intuition rather than empirical evidence.
From A Course in Miracles
How can he (the Son of God) enter, to rest and to remember, without you? Except you be there, he is not complete. And it is his completion that he remembers there. … Think you when this has been achieved that you will rest without them? You could no more leave one of them outside than I could leave you, and forget part of myself.
Basically it is touching on the same principle that Jesus did when he said that a sparrow falling to the ground does not escape the attention of God. God needs all his creations for Itself to be complete for the ALL is God.
Copyright 2016 by J J Dewey