Keys Writings 2015, Part 6

This entry is part 7 of 13 in the series 2015B

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



Series NavigationKeys Writings 2015, Part 5Keys Writings 2015, Part 7

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

code