The Gathering of Lights

This entry is part 24 of 34 in the series 2011C

TEACHER: Today we are going to discuss a principle that is talked about repeatedly in the scriptures, yet I doubt that you have ever heard a sermon preached upon it. The Bible calls it “The Gathering.” Can you remember who it was that the prophets said would be gathered?

STUDENT: I’m not sure.

 

TEACHER: Let us read a scripture to clarify this. Please read here in Matthew: (Open to Matthew 24:31): {Scripture #1} And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Now according to this scripture who will be gathered?

STUDENT: The Elect.

 

TEACHER: Elect comes from the Greek EKLEKTOS which can be translated as either “elect, chosen or selected”. The elect are generally thought of as being the chosen of God, but does it not make sense that they are also people who have chosen God?

STUDENT: It seems to.

 

TEACHER: Therefore, does it sound right to say that the elect are those who have chosen God and in return are chosen back as a recognition that they are on the correct path?

STUDENT: Yes.

 

TEACHER: Who does it say here will gather the elect?

STUDENT: Angels

 

TEACHER: Most people think of angels as spiritual beings, but the word angel is a mistranslation. It comes from the Greek AGGELOS which literally means “messenger”. Did you know that regular mortal men were called angels (or AGGELOS) in the Bible?

STUDENT: No. (Note: If they want proof refer to Rev 2:1 and Matthew 11:10. The word “messenger” here comes from AGGELOS)

 

TEACHER: Therefore, it seems quite possible that regular mortal men and women will gather the “elect” doesn’t it?

STUDENT: Yes.

 

TEACHER: In the Old Testament this event is called “The Gathering of Israel.” Let us read a prophesy of this in Jeremiah 16:14-16: {Scripture #2} “Therefore, behold the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, the Lord liveth that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; But the Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers. Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the Lord, and they shall fish them; and after I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.” Here the Lord says that He will gather Israel from all the lands that they were driven to, and that it will be such an event that it will eclipse the deliverance of Israel through Moses. How does it say here that God will gather his people again?

STUDENT: It says that He will send fishers and hunters, who will find the scattered people of Israel.

 

TEACHER: Even though spiritual beings may assist us in the gathering, much of the responsibility lies with men and women here on the earth. Do you think that these fishers and hunters could be regular mortal people?

STUDENT: It seems possible.

 

TEACHER: Most of us have heard the name Israel, but few are aware of its origin and meaning. The Bible tells us about a man named Jacob who wrestled all night with a supernatural being in the form of a man. Jacob bested the being and told him he would not let him go unless he gave him a blessing. We can read this blessing in Gen 32:28. {Scripture #3} And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed. What was Jacob’s new name?

STUDENT: Israel.

 

TEACHER: We are told here that Jacob prevailed and had power with who?

STUDENT: God and men.

 

TEACHER: Doesn’t it seem unusual that a mortal man would not only have power with God, but also prevail with or over God?

STUDENT: Yes.

 

TEACHER: Verse 30 tells us who the person was that Jacob prevailed against: (Read Gen 32:30) {Scripture #4} And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Who does Jacob tells us he prevailed over in the wrestling match from whom he received a blessing?

STUDENT: God

 

TEACHER: This background helps us to understand the name Israel for it comes from the Hebrew YISRAEL. The first part of the word is derived from the prime root SARAH which literally means “to prevail” or “have power.” The second half of the word is EL which is often translated as “God.” Therefore, the name literally means “to prevail or have power as God or a god.” From what we have read why was Jacob given the name Israel?

STUDENT: He prevailed over God so he was called a name that meant “to prevail as a god.”

 

TEACHER: Now the Bible tells us that Jacob had twelve sons who had a great posterity that were eventually scattered among all nations. Descendents of Jacob are called the children of Israel, or Israelites. The Jews, which are only one of the tribes, call themselves Israelis. Did you know that the Bible indicates that many descendents of Israel will be in the United States?

STUDENT: No.

 

TEACHER: Do you think that all the millions of people who are literally descended from Israel are good and spiritual people?

STUDENT: Probably not

 

TEACHER: This is correct. Even those who put Jesus to death were descended from Israel. Now, on the other hand, do you think that there are some righteous and good people on the earth who are not literally descended from Israel?

STUDENT: I would think so.

 

TEACHER: Therefore, does it sound logical to conclude that the gathering of Israel, or the elect, refers to a quality of people rather than a race?

STUDENT: Yes.

 

TEACHER: The Bible verifies this. (Read Romans 8:14-15) {Scripture #5} For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. How many here can be the sons of God?

STUDENT: As many as follow the Spirit.

 

TEACHER: If a person is not of the race of Israel, but follows the Spirit of God what happens to him?

STUDENT: He is adopted by God.

 

TEACHER: If you follow the spirit of God you are adopted into the house of Israel. Therefore, a true Israelite is not necessarily one belonging to a particular race, but one who has what inside of him?

STUDENT: The Spirit of God.

 

TEACHER: Therefore, if you have, or recognize, God in you, you will then prevail or have power as God. Does it sound right to say that an Israelite is one who realizes that God is in him?

STUDENT: Yes.

 

TEACHER: Do you think we could then say that the gathering of Israel is, in reality, the gathering of those who feel God in them, no matter what race they may be?

STUDENT: I think so.

 

TEACHER: The names Jacob and Israel are symbolic of the two types of people on the earth today. Jacob means “supplanter” and symbolizes the person who is ruled by the lower self. In other words, the lower or carnal self supplants or replaces the rule of the Spirit of God in man. On the other hand, when Jacob’s name was changed to Israel it symbolized that the Spirit was no longer overruled by the carnal. What would then be the true ruler within an Israelite today?

STUDENT: The Spirit.

 

TEACHER: We like to refer to the gathering of these Israelites as “The Gathering of Lights.” Such a gathering is described in Revelations 14:1: {Scripture #6} And I looked, and lo, a lamb stood on mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads. Where did these Israelites have the name of God?

STUDENT: In their foreheads.

 

TEACHER: Is it not logical that if you have God within you, and prevail and have the power of God as an Israelite, that you would have the name of God within you?

STUDENT: I suppose so.

 

TEACHER: A son of God is named after his father and grows to be like his father doesn’t he?

STUDENT: Yes

 

TEACHER: This helps us to understand an unusual scripture where the Jews were upset because they thought Jesus was claiming to be God.. (Read John 10:33-36) {Scripture #7} The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the (Correct translation: “a”) Son of God? Who did Jesus say were gods here?

STUDENT: Those who received the word of God.

 

TEACHER: This gives us further evidence that the gathering of Lights will be the gathering of those who are manifesting the God within. How does this doctrine feel to you?

STUDENT: It feels good.

 

TEACHER: Now we will attempt to show you the value of the principle of the gathering by looking into the history of humanity. As you may guess the first gathering of humans in primitive times was the gathering together into families. Eventually a number of families gathered together for their mutual protection. What do we call these first human gatherings?

STUDENT: Tribes.

 

TEACHER: The first governments on the earth were tribal, but man eventually found even the tribe was limited in its protection and numerous tribes gathered together to form a greater unit that is still with us today. What is this?

STUDENT: A nation or kingdom.

 

TEACHER: We will call these early nations kingdoms because they were always presided over by a king or strong ruler with life-or-death power over his subjects. The kingdom was more advanced in civilization than the tribe and within the kingdom there was a much greater measure of safety and security. Even though strong authorities ruled the people and there were some disadvantages, which do you think most people would prefer: tribal or kingdom living?

STUDENT: Most would rather live in a kingdom.

 

TEACHER: The next gathering was rather unique. It began after America was discovered. The call then went forth among the kingdoms of the earth that there was an opportunity for greater freedom and abundance in this new land. Those who did not like the strong authority of the kingdom governments left in search of freedom. What was the basic difference between the people who came to America and those who stayed home?

STUDENT: Those who came to America were more independent and freedom-loving.

 

TEACHER: Yes. The gathering at that time drew many of the most enlightened people of that era: men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and many more. When these people were gathered together they were not satisfied with the old kingdom government. So they created one where the people participated in government. What effect did this third gathering have on the standard of living for its people?

STUDENT: It was greatly improved.

 

TEACHER: The symbolism of these three governments is interesting. The gathering into tribes represented the rule of the physical or instinct. The kingdoms represented emotional rule and the gathering in America produced rule of the mind or common sense. We can see that gatherings have taken us from the physical to the emotional to the mental. Where do you suppose the next gathering will take us?

STUDENT: To the spiritual.

 

TEACHER: This is why we call this next gathering The Gathering of Lights. It will center man’s group consciousness on the Spirit for the first time in history. Do you think that this will improve our quality of life?

STUDENT: Yes.

 

TEACHER: Jesus verified that his work was to bring abundance. Let us read here in John 10:10: {Scripture #8} I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. Does it make sense then that a spiritual gathering would produce more abundance?

STUDENT: Yes.

 

TEACHER: Few Bible students realized that Jesus tried to gather the lights in his day. Let us read what he said in Luke 11:23: {Scripture #9} He that is not with me is against me: he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” If you had lived in the days of Jesus how could you tell if a person truly supported Jesus?

STUDENT: He gathered with him.

 

TEACHER: You will remember that Jesus always had his followers gathered around him. They were the twelve apostles and other unnamed men and women. Why do you suppose he wanted his followers close to him?

STUDENT: So he could teach them and they could grow together.

 

TEACHER: Unfortunately he was only able to gather a few. Near the end of his life he overlooked Jerusalem and said these sorrowful words: {Scripture #10} O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. (Matt 23:37-38) Why was Jesus upset here?

STUDENT: Because the people would not gather with him.

 

TEACHER: The Bible tells us how many people were gathered after his resurrection. We can read this in Acts 1:15: {Scripture #11} And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty.) How many people did Jesus gather through his life’s work?

STUDENT: Only 120.

 

TEACHER: That was not very many, but we must remember that this was a spiritual gathering of some of the greatest lights on the planet. Would you agree that this little gathering had a powerful effect?

STUDENT: Yes.

 

TEACHER: People do not realize the powerful effect of even a few souls working together. For instance did you realize that only about 80 people were responsible for the entire Renaissance and only several dozen key people inspired the American Revolution?

STUDENT: Not really.

 

TEACHER: True spiritual gatherings in the past have concerned only a small handful of people. That was because the time was not yet ripe. Now let us reread the scripture in Matthew 24:31 where the gathering of the New Age takes place: {Scripture #12} And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. This time, instead of a few people gathered around Jerusalem where will the lights be drawn from?

STUDENT: All over the world.

 

TEACHER: Where there is a gathering of Israelites, or the people of light, that place has been called Zion in the scriptures. Let us read an interesting prophecy about Zion: (Turn to Psalms 102:16) {Scripture #13} When the Lord shall build up Zion, he shall appear in his glory. According to this scripture what must the Lord build before he comes again?

STUDENT: Zion.

 

TEACHER: The Lord gives a message to ministers of our time who claim to be shepherds of Israel: (Read Ezekiel 34:6) {Scripture #14} My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them. What was God’s complaint here?

STUDENT: No one searched after scattered Israel.

 

TEACHER: Now let’s read on: {Scripture #15} Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord; As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock. What do you suppose it means when it says the flock became a prey to every beast of the field?

STUDENT: They were deceived by false teachers.

 

TEACHER: Who do you suppose the shepherds are here?

STUDENT: The ministers in the churches today.

 

TEACHER: We are told that the ministers are not searching for the true Israelites. Instead they became a prey, or hunted. This has certainly been true for the greatest lights in history have always been persecuted or ostracized. Now it says something else here that is really true – that the ministers feed themselves and not the flock. What do you suppose that means?

STUDENT: It means that they take care of their own needs, but not that of the flock.

 

TEACHER: Would you say that many ministers today set a bad example, taking riches for themselves while many of the donors were on social security.

STUDENT: That sounds fitting.

 

TEACHER: Now let’s read a little farther: (Read verses 9-10) {Scripture #16} Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord; This saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them. What is God going to take away from the greedy ministers?

STUDENT: His flock, or Israelites.

 

TEACHER: Now read verses 11-13: {Scripture #17} For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day. And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all inhabited places of the country. Here we are told that God will search out his people. Those who are supposed to gather will receive a witness through his Spirit. When God brings Israel out from the people what will He do?

STUDENT: Gather them from the countries and bring them to their own land.

 

TEACHER: Let us continue reading: (Read verse 14) {Scripture #18} I will feed them in good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel. The pasture refers to spiritual food and it tells us this pasture will be good. Mountains in the the scriptures refers to higher consciousness and Israel stands for the power of God. Therefore, what does it mean when it says they will “feed upon the mountains of Israel?”

STUDENT: They will attain higher consciousness through the power of God.

 

TEACHER: What do you suppose it means when it says they shall lie in a “good fold?”

STUDENT: It would mean that they will enjoy the good company of other enlightened people.

 

TEACHER: Now read verse 15: {Scripture #19} I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord. The Lord will feed Israelites with his own Spirit, but what does it mean that they will lie down?

STUDENT: It means that the Israelites are content and able to rest because of the spiritual food. It also means that they have ended the long search for their true shepherd.

 

TEACHER: Finally read verse 16: {Scripture #20} I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and strong; I will feed them with judgement. In the past an enlightened person has felt lost like he is a stranger in a strange land. He was different so he was driven away. His enemies felt threatened so they tried to break him. He became weary in his search and mission so he became sick. What does the Lord say he will do about these problems?

STUDENT: He will heal them.

 

TEACHER: Yes, and he will feed those who oppressed them with a just judgement. The 18th chapter of the Book of Revelations also describes this event. We do not have time to go into the whole chapter, but it says this gathering of Lights will save them from great destructions which may come. Read verses 4-5: {Scripture #21} And I heard another voice from heaven saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. Here they are told to come out of Babylon (see verse 2). Babylon stands for illusion. Why are we told to come out of her?

STUDENT: So we do not partake of her sins and plagues.

 

TEACHER: Sin refers to error and the plagues refer to the destructions which may come. Would this mean that the gathered Israelites will be safe from the foretold destructions?

STUDENT: It seems so.

 

TEACHER: Now let us read another interesting scripture about the gathering: (Turn to Jeremiah 3:14-15) {Scripture #22} Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. Here we are told that the Lord will bring Israel out of the cities and families to the gathered condition of Zion. What will the new pastors give them?

STUDENT: Knowledge and understanding.

 

TEACHER: Eventually the people of Light will build cities. We can read about this: (turn to Isaiah 60:14) {Scripture #23} The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, the CITY OF THE LORD, THE ZION OF THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL. What does the scripture call Zion here?

STUDENT: The city of the Lord.

 

TEACHER: Isaiah gives us additional information about Zion. (Read Isa 4:2-3) {Scripture #24} In that day shall the branch of the Lord be glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent for them that are escaped of Israel. And it shall come to pass that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even everyone that is written among the living in Jerusalem. Jerusalem and Zion are often used synonymously for Jerusalem means “to show the way to peace.” Who do you think the “escaped of Israel will be?

STUDENT: The gathered Israelites who escaped the error and the plagues of the world.

 

TEACHER: Now read verses 5-6: {Scripture #25} The Lord will create upon every dwelling place of Mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defense, and a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain. It looks as if there may be a supernatural fire and protection for the gathered people. It says here that Zion will be a place of refuge from what?

STUDENT: Heat, the storm and rain.

 

TEACHER: We have a lesson that deals with these problems when we talk about the various plagues. Now perhaps we can understand this scripture: (Read Obediah Verse 21) {Scripture #26} And saviours shall come upon mount Zion to judge (correct) the mount of Esau (the world); and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s. Why are people in Zion called saviours?

STUDENT: They shall deliver people physically and spiritually.

 

TEACHER: Isaiah gives another interesting prophecy about Zion. (Read Isa 60:22) {Scripture #27} A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in its time. Zion will start out just a little city, but will grow to be how many?

STUDENT: A thousand

 

TEACHER: Just as the gathering in America started small and produced a thousand cities because there was more opportunity so will Zion grow because of the freedom, peace and abundance that shall be there. Now we will read one final prophecy about Zion in Micah 4:1-3: {Scripture #28} But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach of of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into prunninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation neither shall they learn war any more. There may be literal mountains involved, but the most important meaning here is that Zion will put forth a standard of higher consciousness that will draw many people. In verse three we are told they will even have power to rebuke strong nations afar off. If a nation desires to start a war Zion will have power to rebuke them. Now read again the rest of the verse:

STUDENT: {Scripture #29} And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into prunninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation neither shall they learn war any more.

 

TEACHER: Wouldn’t it be great to have a part in fulfilling this prophecy?

STUDENT: Yes, it really would.

 

TEACHER: Then will the song of the angels after the birth of Christ be fulfilled: {Scripture #30} Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (Luke 2:14)

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

 

 

Ye Are Gods

This entry is part 23 of 34 in the series 2011C

TEACHER:  There has been a lot of controversy over some doctrines taught by the New Age people who say that they are manifesting God.  Others even say that they are gods, or the sons of God and all the powers of godliness are theirs to enjoy.  The unfortunate thing is that few people believing in this philosophy have ever examined this concept from a scriptural viewpoint.  Those who do believe the Bible have generally condemned any teaching that insinuates that man is or can be a god.  The main grounds for this condemnation comes from the first section of the Bible where the serpent was tempting Eve.  As you may remember Adam and Eve were commanded not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Shortly afterward the serpent comes along and temps Eve into eating it with these words (Read Genesis 3:5):  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.  Since this serpent whom most Christians call the Devil used the lure of becoming gods to tempt Eve we can’t really blame them for thinking he may have been lying can we?

STUDENT:  I guess not.

 

TEACHER:  In fact most fundamentalists call this temptation the Devil’s first great lie and they say that anyone who believes it is deceived by the oldest lie on earth.  Let’s assume that this serpent was totally evil and did want to tempt Adam and Eve away from God.  What produces the strongest temptation:  truth or untruth.

STUDENT:  I’ve never thought about it.

 

TEACHER:  Let us use an example.  If a person is tempted to steal a Porshe.  Is he tempted because the Porshe just appears to be a quality car or because it really is a quality car?

STUDENT:  He is tempted because it is a quality car.

 

TEACHER:  In other words, the grounds for the temptation is something which is true, isn’t that right?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER:  If a man is tempted to have an affair with his good-looking secretary because he thinks it will be pleasurable is he deceived into thinking that pleasure is a possibility, or is no pleasure possible.

STUDENT:  Pleasure is a real possibility.

 

TEACHER:  Again he is tempted by something which is true isn’t he?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER:  A tempter may use false information, but true information is much more powerful and appealing.  There is only one major lie that runs through all temptation.  Can you guess what that is?

STUDENT:  I’m not sure.

 

TEACHER:  It is the sentence:  “You can get away with it.”  If we think we can get away with a harmful act that may bring us personal pleasure or gain then it may seem worth it.  The idea that we can get away with something is always a deception for we always reap what we have sowed, but it does not mean that all the allurements of a temptation are grounded in falsehood.  Now let us examine the temptation of the serpent more closely.  What was the first promise the tempter made in this verse we just read?

STUDENT:  Their eyes would be open.

 

TEACHER:   Let us find out if this came true.  Read what happened after they ate the fruit in verse seven (Read Genesis 3:7):  And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew  that they were naked…  Did the serpent’s prediction of their eyes being open come true?

STUDENT:  It seems to.

 

TEACHER:  What was the second item of temptation in this verse five?

STUDENT:  That they should be as Gods, knowing good from evil.

 

TEACHER:  Now let us read a quote from the voice of God himself speaking (Read Genesis 3:22):  And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…  How does God verify that the serpent was telling the truth with this temptation?

STUDENT:  God says that the man became as one of the Gods knowing good from evil.

 

TEACHER:  The serpent also told them that they would not die.  In other words, they would get away with their disobedience.  Was he telling the truth here?

STUDENT:  No.  Adam and Eve did die.

 

TEACHER:  This scripture also tells us that the man is to become as one of “us.”  Now everyone says there is only one God.  Why is the pronoun “us” used?

STUDENT:  It must have been referring to more than one person.

 

TEACHER:  There are several references to God in the plural.  We’ll quote two more. (Read Isaiah 6:8) Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?  Then said I, here am I; send me.  (Read Ecclesiates 12:1)  Remember thy Creators in the days of thy youth…  [Note:  This is translated as it reads in the Hebrew.  Most Bibles mistranslate Creators as singular for obvious reasons.]  Is God referred to here as one or more than one?

STUDENT:  More than one.

 

TEACHER:  This should not be surprising to anyone who has read the Bible in its original language of Hebrew.  The primary word for God is ELOHIYM which is the plural of ELOWAHH.  The singular ELOWAHH is not even used in the first half of the Bible and rarely after that.  Therefore almost every time you see the word God in the Old Testament it is translated from ELOHYIM and if the translators were honest it should read “Gods.”  The Bible tells us that the Gods created heaven and earth, Adam and Eve and all other things.  Does this help you to understand why God refers to himself as “us.”

STUDENT:  Yes.  If God is plural he would refer to himself as us.

 

TEACHER:  The Bible tells us the position of Jehovah among the many gods. (Read Deuteronomy 10:17  You may also refer to Joshua 22:22)  For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God…    Does it sound like Jehovah is the leader of many gods and lords?

STUDENT:  It seems to.

 

TEACHER:   Let us read another similar verse in Psalms 82:1:  God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.  The Bible tells us that Jeshovah is the God of gods and also that he judges among the gods.  Who do you suppose these gods are that Jehovah is over?

STUDENT:  I’m not sure.

 

TEACHER:  The scriptures make it clear a few verses later (read Psalms 82:6):  I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.  Who is he calling gods here?

STUDENT:  All of us who are children of the most High.

 

TEACHER: The Jews thought Jesus was guilty of blasphemy because he said that he and his Father are one.  They thought he was claiming to be God.  To defend himself he used this scripture from psalms.  (Read John 10:34-36):  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?  If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?  Who did Jesus here say were called Gods?

STUDENT:  Those who received the word of God.

 

TEACHER:  In this scripture Jesus was accused of saying he was God because he said that he and his Father are one.  Now let us read about the destiny of his disciples (Read John 17:11):  Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.   What did Jesus ask on behalf of the disciples?

STUDENT:  That they would be one as Jesus and the Father are one.

 

TEACHER:  And if Jesus was a god because he was one with the Father what would the disciples be for also being one with the Father and Son?

STUDENT:  Gods.

 

TEACHER:  The primary message of Jesus was to preach the kingdom of God.  The question to consider is who are the inhabitants of the kingdom of God?  We may use common sense to figure this out.  The mineral kingdom consists of minerals, the plant kingdom has plants, the animal kingdom has animals and the human kingdom is inhabited by humans.  Therefore, who would inhabit the kingdom of God?

STUDENT:  Gods.

 

TEACHER:  The scriptures tell us the main ingredient necessary to be called a god.  Let us reread an earlier  scripture we talked about. (Read Genesis 3:22):  And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…  What must man know to become as God?

STUDENT:  Good and evil.

 

TEACHER:  The word “know” comes from the Hebrew YADA which can also mean “to discern.”  A person who “knows” or discerns good from evil is usually called a judge.  Let us read a scripture about those who were judges in ancient Israel (Read Exodus 22:8-9):  If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods.  For all manner of trespass, whether it be of ox for ass, for sheep, for rainment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbor.  Even though the leaders were judges the word here is mistranslated.  In all three cases the word “judges” comes from ELOHIYM which should be translated as gods.  Why were the leaders, or judges, called gods here?

STUDENT:  Because they were supposed to know good from evil.

 

TEACHER:  One who was supposed to know good from evil was Moses.  Let us read an interesting statement about him. (read Exodus 4:16 & 7:1):  And he (Aaron) shall be thy spokesman unto the people:  and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou (Moses) shalt be to him instead of God [The Hebrew reads:  Thou shalt be to him a god]…I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.  What was Moses called here by Jehovah himself?

STUDENT:  A god.

“`

TEACHER:  The fact that men are called gods is often covered up by translators.  The next scripture is a good example (read Genesis 23:5-6):  And the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying unto him, Hear us, my Lord:  thou art a mighty prince among us…  Again the word “prince” is a mistranslation.  It should read “mighty god.”  Does it seem clear here that men in Bible times were often called gods?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER: Not only are prophets like Moses and Abraham gods, but this promise to become such is available to all.  Let us now read the words of Paul  (Read Romans 8:14-17):  For as many as are lead by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.  For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.  And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. If we follow the Spirit of God and become the sons of God what do we become heirs to?

STUDENT:   Heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ.

 

TEACHER:  Isn’t it logical that a child grows to be like his parent and becomes an heir?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER:  Therefore, if we are truly sons and daughters of God should we not mature into gods?

STUDENT:  It would seem so.

 

TEACHER:  Now let us read an even more interesting passage from Paul  (read Phil 2:5-6):  Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:  Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.  What mind is supposed to be in us?

STUDENT:  The same that was in Jesus.

 

TEACHER:  And what thought does it say was in Jesus?

STUDENT:  He did not think it robbery to be equal with God.

 

TEACHER:  The apostle John seemed to verify these words  (Read I John 3:2):  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be:  but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.   When we see Jesus again what will we discover?

STUDENT:  We will be like him.

 

TEACHER:  What confuses Bible scholars is that there are other scriptures which tell us that there is only one God. If the scriptures we have just read are true then all of us can become gods and it would seem that there is not just one god but an untold number throughout the universe.  Since it seems that both doctrines cannot be true then each religion has to pick either one God or many gods as a correct teaching.  On the other hand, this contradiction gives Bible critics ammunition to claim the Bible is not inspired.   Can you think of a way that there could be one God, but also many gods?

STUDENT:  I’m not sure.

 

TEACHER:  Believe it or not this is exactly what the Bible teaches.  It is also the foundation of all metaphysical belief.  The Apostle Paul explained what Christ is which is the same as explaining what God is.  Let us read this scripture (Read I Corinthians  12:12:  For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body:  so also is Christ.  According to this scripture is Christ or God merely the man Jesus or is it composed of many members?

STUDENT:  It is composed of many members.

 

TEACHER:  The scriptures plainly tell us that the body is composed of not just one superbeing, but many members.  Just think of how many members are in your body.  You have all the different limbs and organs and smaller units called cells that make up the whole.   Do you have any idea how many cells there are in your body?

STUDENT: A lot

 

TEACHER: The average person has about 80 trillion cells. Some religions teach that the universe is the body of God. Does it seem possible that there may be 80 trillion or more people who are a part of the body of God?

STUDENT: It is possible.

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

 

MOLECULAR RELATIONSHIPS

This entry is part 22 of 34 in the series 2011C

TEACHER: Today we are going to talk about a unique concept you have probably never heard of before. It is called MOLECULAR RELATIONSHIPS or MOLECULAR MARRIAGE. The reason we use the word “Molecular” is that there is a strong correspondence between the tiny world of the atoms and molecules, and the human kingdom. Ironically, the evolution of the atomic world in its sphere has reached a higher degree than has the human. Thus we can learn a lot just by observing nature. The special relationships of the molecular world has actually created higher life forms than themselves. This is also what man must do. We must form bonding relationships that will create something higher than ourselves so we will all be able to share in a higher consciousness together. We will be like Columbus finding a whole new world to explore. That sounds exciting, doesn’t it?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: The first principle we need to understand in grasping Molecular Relationships among humans is called THE LAW OF CORRESPONDENCES. This law could be stated thus: Higher lives, systems, and worlds are created out of the lower; therefore, there will always be “correspondences” or similarities between the two, but with subtle differences that can be ascertained by the intuition, or scientific discovery.

Following this law we can see that humans as well as planets, stars, and galaxies are all made out of atoms and molecules; therefore, we will all bear certain similarities. For instance, it is easy to see how an atom is similar to a solar system. Both are circular and have a heavy nucleus encircled about by numerous lighter orbs
Now, can you see any similarities between a human and an atom?

STUDENT: I’m not sure.

TEACHER: Let’s cover several possibilities. An atom is circular. Is a human also circular?

STUDENT: Not really.

TEACHER: That’s what most people assume, but that’s because all most of us see is the nucleus which is the physical body. Have you ever heard of the human aura?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: This is quite similar to the light electron layers that circle around the atoms and, like the atoms, the human aura is nearly circular in shape, eggshaped to be exact. If we could see our auras we would see that humans are in a constant state of circular movement. Atoms are also charged with an overall positive or negative charge. What would these charges correspond to among humanity?

STUDENT: Male and female.

TEACHER: Good. Atoms also join together in long term bonded relationships. What is it called when humans do this?

STUDENT: Marriage.

TEACHER: That is correct. But now we come to the point that the correspondence breaks down for atoms bond together in many diverse ways producing innumerable molecules with a multitude of properties. The only permanent bonding among humans is the simple human molecule composed one male and one female through marriage. At this point we can use the law of correspondences to lead us to higher knowledge. We know that atoms bond together in many ways producing numerous properties. Correspondingly, then, does it seem logical that there are other bonding relationships possible among humans than the regular marriage?

STUDENT: I would suppose so.

TEACHER: The correspondence in atoms to the simple marriage unit would be hydrogen bonds. These are composed of two hydrogen atoms united together and is probably the key building block of the universe. But when atoms make other combinations they acquire properties which are new that they never had before. For instance, when two atoms of hydrogen unite with one of oxygen they form water which has properties they never had individually. Do you think it is also possible for humans to unite in a group effort to produce properties they never had individually?

STUDENT: I suppose.

TEACHER: Do you know of any time in history that humans have united into a group to acquire properties that are more than human?

STUDENT: I’m not sure. People have united to form businesses, religions, and other things.

TEACHER: It is true that people have united in various group endeavors for business, religion, politics, and others, but such unions are not molecular and do not produce superhuman properties. A molecular union has very strong bonds and set numbers for each particular type of molecule. A human molecule would have to have a strong covenant or bond and a set number just as the atoms do. There is one time in recorded history that this has happened. Can you guess when that was?

STUDENT: I’m not sure.

TEACHER: We can read about this in the Bible where there was a set number of persons in a strong bonding relationship who acquired super human properties. Let’s turn to Matthew 10:1,7-8: “And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he GAVE THEM POWER against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease…And as ye go. preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely you have received, freely give.”

Now a molecule must have a set number of atoms before it can form a molecule with superior properties. What was the set number of human atoms in the molecule that Jesus created?

STUDENT: Twelve.

TEACHER: And what were some of the superhuman qualities that they acquired?

STUDENT: They were given great power so they could heal the sick and cast out devils.

TEACHER: Jesus even speaks of the principle that creates the power of the molecule. Read John 15:4-7: “Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, EXCEPT IT ABIDE IN THE VINE; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I AM THE VINE, YE ARE THE BRANCHES: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: FOR WITHOUT ME YE CAN DO NOTHING. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, YE SHALL ASK WHAT YE WILL, AND IT SHALL BE DONE UNTO YOU.”

Here Jesus tells us that the source of the power of the twelve comes through him as the life of a branch comes from its parent vine. Do you think that Jesus was the source of this power, or was he dependant on someone higher than himself?

STUDENT: I’m not sure.

TEACHER: In this same fifteenth chapter Jesus talks about his Father, the husbandman, who is the source of life and power of both the vine (Jesus) and the branches (the twelve). Jesus talks about this in John 5: 19: “…The Son can do NOTHING OF HIMSELF, but what he seeth the Father do…”

Just as the apostles had no power except they received it through Jesus, Jesus also had no power unless he received it through whom?

STUDENT: The Father.

TEACHER: Just as the apostles created a molecule of twelve with Jesus as the source of power, Jesus was connected with a set molecule on the other side, and he received his power through one he called “Father”. Now Jesus and the twelve maintained this power until the molecular structure was shattered through the betrayal of one of the apostles. Can you remember who that was?

STUDENT: Judas.

TEACHER: After Judas betrayed Jesus the twelve became the eleven and the correct number to create the molecular power no longer existed. The scriptures tell us that the remaining apostles were so devitalized that they could not stay awake or aware and that Jesus was drained to the point of death. At this time Jesus received additional strength from a member of his molecule. Let us read about this in Luke 22:41-43: “And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: Nevertheless not my will, but thine be done. AND THERE APPEARED AN ANGEL UNTO HIM FROM HEAVEN, STRENGTHENING HIM.”

This angel gave Jesus strength just as Jesus gave the apostles strength because Jesus and this angel were a member of the same molecule containing a set number of persons. Now from the time of the betrayal of Judas until after the resurrection there were only eleven apostles. Can you think of even one incident of supernatural power manifested among the apostles when they were just eleven in number?

STUDENT: No.

TEACHER: That’s because there were none. They turned from men of great courage to frightened men. They turned from men of miracles to men who were powerless. Jesus, however, never lost contact with his molecular power source and continued to have power, even over death. Now let us see what happened when the apostles restored the correct number to their molecule. We can read about this in Acts 1:26;2:1-8: “And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?”

From this scripture we see that the supernatural powers came back in abundance. They received the Holy Spirit and fire enveloped each of them, but most amazingly, men who of a dozen different languages heard the apostles messages in their own tongues. This miracle is not repeated by any of the modern day Pentecostals or religions. By what principle do you suppose it was that men of a dozen different origins heard the same speech in their own language?

STUDENT: It must have been mental telepathy.

TEACHER: Mental telepathy, or hearing within their minds had to be the only answer. In other words, they all heard the same language within themselves. The scriptures tell us that Jesus had the power to read minds. Do you think it is possible for a modern day human molecule to also acquire the talent of mental telepathy?

STUDENT: It’s possible.

TEACHER: We have seen here that in the days of Jesus the Molecule had great powers when it was properly functioning. That was, however, only the beginning. Let us read a prophesy from Jesus about the potential of the Molecule. Read John 14:12-14: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; AND GREATER WORKS than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father (he rejoins his parent molecule). And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son,”

Do you know of anyone who has done greater works than Jesus?

STUDENT: No.

TEACHER: Yet we are told that the Molecular Order of the Twelve will do even greater works. In addition verse thirteen tells us they will receive what?

STUDENT: Anything they ask for.

TEACHER: Do you know of any group of people on the earth today who can do greater works than Jesus and can receive anything they ask for?

STUDENT: No.

TEACHER: Would you like to gain the knowledge necessary to acquire this great spiritual power?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Why would you like to have this power?

STUDENT: To be of service to mankind. (If he gives an answer that indicates that he wants power for selfish
reasons guide him into an answer that the power must be used for unselfish service, or else the powers of heaven will not manifest.

TEACHER: It is certainly a wonderful thing to contemplate that the great powers from the days of Jesus may manifest again. Now we need to understand the principles that bring this power so we may have the knowledge to create modern day molecules. We have thus far learned that there had to be a set number in the molecule or it didn’t work. What was that number?

STUDENT: Twelve.

TEACHER: Do you have any idea as to why they were all male?

STUDENT: The custom of the times, I suppose.

TEACHER: There was a specific purpose in this, but this does not mean that there are no females in the Molecule. Male and female are merely manifestations of different kinds of energy and one is no more important than the other, but to balance the Molecule an equal number of each is needed. To understand this let us read about the creation of the first human. Read Gen 1:26-27: “And God said, LET US make man (MAN is from the Hebrew word that is translated as ADAM) in OUR image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man (ADAM) in his own image, in the image of God created he him; MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM.”

This scripture was written before the creation of woman from the man. Interestingly, the word “man” should be translated as “Adam”. Those who created Adam call themselves “Us”, meaning more than one, and say that he is in their image. Verse 27 tells us what that image was. Can you see what it was?

STUDENT: Male and female.

TEACHER: Yes, in other words, Adam was not just male, but in the image of God and that image was: Male and Female. In the original race male and female were united together into one body which was in the image of the male-female God. After the creation of the male-female Adam the Bible tells us that God opened up Adam’s flesh and took woman out of it. This also sounds like woman was originally united with the male in Adam, doesn’t it?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Woman is called such because she was taken out of the womb of the original race of Adam. Let’s read a commandment given because of this. Read Gen 2:24: “Therefore, shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be ONE FLESH.”

Why do you suppose they were told to be one flesh?

STUDENT: Because they were originally one flesh.

TEACHER: We could say it this way. It takes one man and one woman to make one Adam. It may not be entirely coincidence that the word Adam and atom are so similar for it also takes one male and one female to create one complete human atom, the foundation to building all human molecules. To understand how to build human molecules we must see the difference between the male and female. What do you think that basic difference is?

STUDENT: I’m not sure what you mean, but physically they look different.

TEACHER: The physical difference is the undenyable, but it is built around the same principle difference as in the emotional and mental areas. Let me state the principle difference, then illustrate how it applies: Male and female are basically the same as the positive and negative in the atomic units that create the entire universe. Male and female are energy states. The male is the sending energy and the female is the receiving. Physically this is obvious. For instance, in sex who is the sender of the seed?

STUDENT: The male.

TEACHER: And who is the receiver?

STUDENT: The female.

TEACHER: The man is physically stronger which again puts him in a sending position. Even among the atoms the male, or positively charged atom, sends out an extra electron and the female receives it. Now let us look at the emotions and instincts of the two. The male is by nature more aggressive. This again puts him in a sending position and the female receives the aggression. The female is more sensitive emotionally and needs to receive emotional support from the sending male. Now let’s talk about the mental plane. Mentally, the one that is the main decisionmaker and assumes the position of teacher, or dominance in the relationship is the male energy. The one that receives the domination is the female. On the other hand, have you noticed that sometimes in a relationship the female will be the sender and dominate one?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Now we need to think of male and female as energy units and realize that all of us are composed of both male and female charges, but each of us have a definite polarity in one or the other. If a person finds himself in a male body it is because the charge of their whole lifeforce is in the male. In other words, the physical expression is a sign of the soul force we deal with. Therefore, if a person is male he feels fulfilled when he is giving physically, emotionally and mentally. But let us suppose the male is married to a dominate female and finds himself in the receiving position emotionally and mentally. This would be going against his natural energy flow wouldn’t it?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Do you suppose he would feel out of balance, even if the two seem to get along together?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: To create balance so a stable molecule can be formed the males must be senders and the females receivers. The prophets realized this and stressed it in the scriptures. Many people, however, have not realized the principle they were talking about and thought that they were merely sexist old men who wanted to keep women under their thumb. For instance read Gen 3:16: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; ; AND THY DESIRE SHALL BE TO THY HUSBAND, AND HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE.”

According to the Bible then, who is supposed to dominate in a relationship, the male or female?

STUDENT: The male

TEACHER: Ephesians 5:22-24 sheds more light upon this: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” This sounds pretty chauvinistic, doesn’t it?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Many people think Paul wrote this because he merely wanted to keep women enslaved, but a closer reading reveals a very inspired principle. Women are supposed to be subject to their husband “as the church is subject to Christ.” Why is the church subject to Christ?

STUDENT: Because he is the Lord.

TEACHER: It’s something deeper than that. It’s the principle that makes him our Lord. Does Christ have more light and knowledge than the people in the church?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Let us reverse things and see what would happen. Let us suppose that you had more light and knowledge than Christ. How would you feel if you had to subject yourself to an inferior intelligence who told you to do things you knew were wrong. Would this throw you out of balance?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Many conservative religions try and follow this scripture. Do you think that an intelligent woman who happens to marry a man of inferior intelligence feels comfortable in subjecting herself to a husband who commands her to do things she knows is wrong?

STUDENT: No.

TEACHER: Just as water reaches it own level so will intelligence. If the woman is more intelligent than the husband who do you think will eventually dominate in the relationship?

STUDENT: Probably the woman.

TEACHER: Correct. Many females in conservative religions feel guilty because their elders tell them that they are supposed to let their husbands dominate, but because of their nature many women find that they cannot help but control the relationship because of their natural intelligence. If they understood the scripture there would have been no reason for guilt for if they are to be subjected unto their husbands as their husbands are subjected to Christ then they would have to have husbands that can teach them just as Christ can teach their husbands. Do you agree with this?

STUDENT: I think so.

TEACHER: The problem in following this admonition is that a large portion of the females out there are married to men of lesser intelligence than themselves arent they?

STUDENT: I suppose so.

TEACHER: To create a working molecule that can manifest great spiritual powers there has to be a balance between the male and female units in humans just as there is in atoms. In other words, all females must be placed in receiving positions and all males in sending ones. Do you know of any organization on the planet where this is so?

STUDENT: No.

TEACHER: Even in the most male dominated structure in the world this could not be so if the females marry men of lower intelligence than themselves. The most intelligent will always dominate whether he be male or female. But to create a molecule the male and female energies must be balanced and each person must have a feeling of fulfillment. To achieve this each intelligent male should have a female he can teach and give light and knowledge to, and each female should have a male that she can receive from. Those marriages that are out of balance are those in which the male is of lower intelligence than the female. If either a male or female find themselves in this unbalanced situation what should they do?

STUDENT: It’s hard to say.

TEACHER: This is a difficult teaching, but the best solution for both of them is to find different spouses. The male would be more fulfilled if he divorced his wife and found a less intelligent female that he could teach and be a sender to. The female would need a man she can receive and learn from. We, of course, realize that many marriage situations are not that easy, or even advisable, to just drop. Therefore, a female who is married to a husband that she dominates can achieve some balance by participating in a molecule wherein she selects a spiritual teacher that she can receive from. If what we are teaching here is true it would mean that the molecule organized by Jesus not only had in it twelve men, but also twelve women, wouldn’t it?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: None of the apostles of Jesus are mentioned as being single, and Peter, the head apostle, is definitely mentioned as being married. In addition we find that Jesus and his group definitely had women in it. Read Matt
27:55 “And many women were there beholding afar off (the crucifixion), which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him.” Do you think these women would have included the wives of the apostles?

STUDENT: Probably.

TEACHER: If the molecule contained twelve human units and each unit was composed of a male and female then in reality there would be twenty-four people involved in the complete molecular structure wouldn’t there?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Can you think of a significant scripture where the molecule of twenty-four is mentioned?

STUDENT: No.

TEACHER: We can read about it in Revelations 4:4 where we have a description of the throne of God: “And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raimnent; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.”. Does it make sense to you that twelve of these “elders” could have represented female energies?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: If all of the apostles had a female counterpart does it make sense that Jesus had one also?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Do you know who that was?

STUDENT: I’m not sure.

TEACHER: After his resurrection the first person that Jesus showed himself to was a female. It is only logical that he would have wanted the most important person in his life to be the first to share this joy with him. We can read about this in John 20:14-18: “And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardner, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Robboni; which is to say Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethern and say unto them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.”

The Greek word translated “touch” here should be “cling”. In other words, Mary was trying to embrace him. She also called Jesus her Master, a title given in Bible times to husbands. Mary’s language and reaction was quite normal if she had been Jesus’s wife. Does it seem possible to you that Jesus had a relationship with a woman in the Molecule he formed?

STUDENT: I hadn’t thought of it, but I suppose it is possible.

TEACHER: People get the wrong idea as to how Jesus found the twelve. If we read the Bible out of context we see that Jesus was passing by various men and said: “follow me” and they immediately dropped everything and followed. This is not a normal human reaction today and it was not then. We need to realize that the reason they did drop their fishing nets and other work and follow is that they were prepared by John the Baptist. This was his mission: To be a forerunner for Christ and prepare the first molecule so when Jesus came and gave life to it they would all see eye to eye. Jesus called him the greatest prophet who ever lived because he was successful in finding and preparing twelve couples who could accept the Christ and create a molecule. Why do you suppose a second twelve was never created?

STUDENT: Maybe there was only supposed to be one.

TEACHER: In nature there is never just one lone molecule, but they always multiply in great numbers. John the Baptist was killed just after the creation of the first twelve. After he died was there anyone left to prepare a second twelve for the Christ?

STUDENT: No. Not unless Jesus or the twelve themselves would have done it.

TEACHER: We know that Jesus was killed at the completion of the training of the first twelve and that only left the twelve apostles that understood to any degree the molecular principle. Shortly after the death of Jesus all of the twelve apostles were also killed and never replaced. Did this leave anyone on the earth with the knowledge to create another molecule?

STUDENT: I guess not.

TEACHER: You’ll notice that in the history of the Christian Church that the twelve were never replaced or duplicated. This is because no one besides the apostles understood the molecular principle and thus saw no reason to create another twelve. Do you know of any other time in recorded history where a group of twelve persons healed the sick, raised the dead, received visitations of angels, and even spoke by mental telepathy?

STUDENT: No.

TEACHER: We believe that it is our mission to recreate the molecular order and not only find one group of twelve male-female units, but eventually twelve thousand of them. What is 12,000 times 12?

STUDENT: 144,000.

TEACHER: Do you remember hearing that number from the scriptures before?

STUDENT: Yes, isn’t it from the book of Revelation?

TEACHER: We can read about them in Revelations 14:1,4-5: “And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads…These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they were without fault before the throne of God.” Here we are told that the 144,000 are on mount Sion (or Zion). This will be the population of the first finished city of Zion. It calls them men, but actually each of the 144,000 is a male-female unit which are counted as one in the scriptures. What do you suppose it means when it calls them virgins?

STUDENT: I’m not sure.

TEACHER: When the male-female units are in balance and are as one flesh and see themselves as one entity under covenant to Christ then they are as virgins aren’t they?

STUDENT: I suppose.

TEACHER: What does it mean when it says they are not defiled with women?

STUDENT: I would think it would mean they are sexually pure.

TEACHER: The scripture is referring to a principle here more than physical actions. For a man to be defiled with a woman he must allow his energy to be thrown out of balance so that he becomes the receiver and the female is the giver. In other words, he must loose control. If he gives into sexual temptation outside of a coventanted relationship, for instance, he looses control, the female is his master, and thus he is defiled or dominated by woman. Anytime the male is in a situation where the female dominates him there is imbalance, and the male becomes the female, and the female-male. This is how the male is “defiled” by the woman. As we have said earlier to make the molecules work there has to be a correct balance in the male-female energies. This can only happen when each female in the molecule unites with a male that she can receive from and accept as her teacher. Does this make sense to you?

STUDENT: Yes. (If it does not make sense explain the male female balance over again and find out why he has a problem with this principle. Some will misunderstand because of prejudice).

TEACHER: Now if twelve units of humans make one molecule; what would twelve thousand molecules create?

STUDENT: A cell, perhaps.

TEACHER: A cell is the right answer. Now a cell is the
beginning of the creation of all life and has properties much more spectacular and complex than a molecule. Do you have any idea what properties a living cell of human beings will produce?

STUDENT: I imagine it would be something.

TEACHER: This is covered somewhat in our lesson on the Gathering of Israel, so we will not go into it now, but it will be amazing. The Bible goes on to tell us that eventually there will be over one thousand cell cities on the earth until the earth is covered with the knowedge of the Lord. You might call this a ground floor opportunity to particupate in the most important and far reaching enterprise that has ever been initiated on the planet. Tell me, would you like to be a modern day apostle and manifest the powers of Christ unto men?

STUDENT: Yes. (Try and get a definite yes or no. If he or she cannot give a definite yes then there is no sense in preparing them to join a molecule. The molecule will not work unless it is filled with those of a positive polarization).

NOTE: The student may raise this question in the course of the lesson: “Doesn’t the Mormons and some other religions have twelve apostles. Does that create a molecule?”

ANSWER: The number twelve is only one of the ingredients of the molecule. Actually, the number is twenty-four – twelve males and twelve females. Thus there are several reasons why the Mormon apostles do not create a molecule: (1) The molecule has to have twelve males and twelve females working together. In the Mormon church the females are excluded. They do not see any use for the female energy and lack the knowledge to direct it. (2) The male-female units have to all be in balance or the Christ energy cannot flow any more than electricity can
flow through rubber. (3) Even after all this the molecule has to be accepted and linked up with a working molecule or nothing happens. The only way to be accepted by the Molecule of the Christ is to be in complete alignment with his purpose.

Let’s read a scripture about this in Revelations 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I WILL COME IN TO HIM, and will sup with him, and he with me.”

Thus if we have a completed molecule prepared and in alignment with his purpose we are told that he will actually enter it. When the molecule is ready the presence of the Christ will truly be there. That is something to look forward to isn’t it?

STUDENT: It certainly is.

TEACHER: Is this opportunity just opened to a select few or to anyone?

STUDENT: The scripture we just read says “any man”.

TEACHER: That would, of course, include you and me. All we need do is obtain a knowledge of how the Molecular Order works, be open to the truth, and be willing to act upon it. Sounds easy enough, doesn’t it?

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

THE LAW OF REBIRTH

This entry is part 21 of 34 in the series 2011C

TEACHER:  Where we came from, why we are here and where we are going are three questions that have been asked since man came on the earth.  We will delve into these as clearly as possible using the scriptures and common sense as guidelines.  Most religious teachers seem to think that we began at birth and before that time we were in total oblivion.  Few realize that this idea is contrary to the Bible.  In this lesson we are going to show you that:

(1)  Man is an eternal being who existed before birth.

(2)  Why we are here.

(3)  Where we go after we die

(4)  That man is reborn, or reincarnated until he reaches perfection.

 

The Bible clearly tells us that there is a spirit in man but a scripture that illustrates this quite well was given by Paul.  (Read II Corinthians 12:2)   “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (Whether in the body, I cannot tell, or whether OUT OF THE BODY, I cannot tell:  God knoweth;)  such an one caught up to the third heaven.”  II Cor 12:2  Paul here speaks of being caught up to the third heaven and he tells us that he could not tell if he was in the body or out of the body.  Why do you suppose he could not tell if he was out of his body or not?

STUDENT:  Because being out of the body was similar to being in the body.

 

TEACHER:  Have you heard of out-of-body experiences that people have had in recent times?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER:  As you probably know there are many books written on the subject  relating near-death experiences where people have left their bodies and were hardly aware of it.  In fact their astral, or spirit, body seemed so much like their regular body that they often thought they were still in the physical.  Often when these people are brought back to life they will relate conversations they heard or events they have seen that happened some distance from their physical body, but were verified to be true.  Does it sound here like Paul may have had an out-of-body experience?

STUDENT:  It seems so.  He even uses the phrase “out of the body.”

 

 

TEACHER:  First we’ll read one of the more metaphysical scriptures in the Bible.  (Read Eccl 12:6-7)  “Or ever THE SILVER CORD BE LOOSED, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel be broken at the cistern.   Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:  and the SPIRIT SHALL RETURN unto God who gave it.”  Those who have had out-of body experiences have seen that the spirit or astral body is connected to the physical by a silver cord.  Many spiritual people throught the world believe that this silver cord is a life cord that sustains us and that at death it is severed.  In this scripture the writer is talking about what happens at death.  What does he say happens to the silver cord?

STUDENT:  It is loosed.

 

TEACHER:  He also tells us that at death the golden bowl is broken.  Do you have any idea what this is?

STUDENT:  I’m not sure.

 

TEACHER:  This is the etheric body which is an energy body of light and us usually golden or yellow in color.  The great thing about this is that you can actually see it.  Would you like to see my golden bowl, or etheric body?

STUDENT:  Why not?

 

TEACHER: (Stand several feet away against a light wall, perferably white.)  Now look at me right in the center of my forehead for a minute or so and don’t take your eyes off for a second.  (Have the student stare at you for about two minutes.)  Now  keep staring at this same location without moving your eyes while I move away.  What do you see?

STUDENT:  Wow!  I see a glowing yellow or golden image.

 

TEACHER:  This is the golden bowl which is broken at death.  It is not the spirit which continues to survive.  The pitcher  broken at the fountain, and the wheel be broken at the cistern refers to the destruction of the physical body.  What does it say happens to the spirit of man at death?

STUDENT:  It says it returns to God.

 

TEACHER:  Can you return to a place if you have not been there before?

STUDENT:  Not really

 

TEACHER:  If we return to God, does that mean that we came from there?

STUDENT:  It would seem so.

 

TEACHER:  Now most people believe  that  we as individuals had no existence before birth.  How does this scripture indicate to us that this is not the case, that we did exist before birth?

STUDENT:  If we return to God at death we must have been there sometime before birth.

 

TEACHER:  Now there are a lot of religions who believe that all this spirit is is breath and that we have no consciousness or form away from the body.  Lets read a scripture from Paul that clarifies this:  The things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.  For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle (the physical body) were dissolved, we have a building of God, (The Spirit of man) an house not made with hands, ETERNAL in the heavens.  II Cor. 4:18;5:1  Now the “earthly house” would be our physical body.  What happens when this dies or dissolves?

STUDENT:  We still have a house made without hands, eternal in the heavens.

 

TEACHER:  Now reread the first scripture.  How does that tell us we still have consciousness out of the body?

STUDENT:  If Paul could not tell if he was out of the body or in the body then we must still have our natural consciousness out of the body.

 

TEACHER:  There are a number of scriptures that clearly teach that we lived before birth.  Please read Titus 1:2:  In hope of eternal life which God who cannot lie PROMISED BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN.  When did God promise eternal life to us?

STUDENT:  Before the world began?

 

TEACHER:  How could he promise it to us if we were not there?

STUDENT:  He couldn’t.

 

TEACHER:  Now we will read a fascinating scripture that reveals where we were before the world began.  Here the “I” referred to represents the wisdom of God.  This could have been Jesus Christ.  (Read Prov 8:1,22-31)  The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.  I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.  When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.  Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:  While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.  When he prepared the heavens, I was there:  when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:  When he established the clouds above:  When he strengthened the fountains of the deep:   When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment:  When he appointed the foundations of the earth:  Then I was by him as one brought up with him:  and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of HIS EARTH; and my delights were WITH THE SONS OF MENHow do we know that wisdom, or Christ was speaking of a time before the creation of the world?

STUDENT:  It says clearly that the earth was not made yet.

 

TEACHER:  And who did Wisdom share his delights with (verse 31)?

STUDENT:  The sons of men.

 

TEACHER:  Are you and I part of the sons of men?

STUDENT:  Sure.

 

TEACHER:  Where were we at when we rejoiced with God and wisdom?

STUDENT:  In the habitable part of his earth?

 

TEACHER:  Do you think this may mean that we lived on other planets and spheres before we lived on this earth?

STUDENT:  It seems to indicate that.

 

TEACHER:  God verified to Jeremiah that he knew him somewhere before he was born on this earth.  (Read Jeremiah 1:4-5)  Then came the word of the Lord unto me saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I KNEW THEE; and BEFORE thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.  Why did God know that Jeremiah would make a good prophet?

STUDENT:  He knew him before he was born.

 

TEACHER:  This also makes sense.  Most of the religious world tells us that man will live forever but began at birth.  Modern mathematics teaches that this is impossible, that there is no such thing as a beginning to something that lasts for infinity.  Therefore, if man lives forever after death, he also had to exist forever before birth.  That sounds logical doesn’t it?

STUDENT:  Seems to.

 

TEACHER:  One of the great mysteries sages have pondered on throughout time is the question of why we are here.  Have you ever wondered this?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER:  Now the Bible does not come out and say point blank what the purpose of man is, but the answer can be discovered by searching the scriptures.  A clue to our destiny is given in the name of God.   When  Moses had his great revelation and spoke to God face to face the first question he ask of Him was his name.  The reason he asked his name was simple.  In those days a persons name represented something  very important about the person.  For instance  Moses meant “drawn from the water,”  Joseph meant “he will increase”  and David meant “Beloved of God.”  Moses thought that God’s name would tell him once and for all who or what he was.  We can read  God’s answer in Exodus 3:14.   And God said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM:  and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.   I AM THAT I AM seems like a strange name doesn’t it?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER:  One of the reasons that people have had difficulty in making sense of it is because this is not an accurate translation.  It is more correctly rendered:  I AM BECOMING WHAT I AM BECOMING.  In other words, God was telling Moses that he could not give him a name like  the Hebrews used that would reveal who he was because he was becoming whatever it was he wanted to become.  Moses learned that God was an evolving God and that His goals, pupose and plan would be different tomorrow than it is today.  Therefore a meaningful name given in one age may loose its meaning in the next.   After examining this name do you think that God himself still sets goals for himself?

STUDENT:  I would think so if he is in a state of becoming.

 

TEACHER:  “Becoming” is very close in meaning to “evolving.”  What God chooses to be, or evolve toward is certainly a goal isn’t it?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER:  Imagine what your life would be like if you had reached some ultimate perfection and could have no new goals.  That sounds pretty boring, doesn’t it?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER:  Yet the sects of the world seem to wish this nightmare existence on God.  Actually, they have it backwards.  God is the God of life and life is newness and change.  A static condition is death and this is the true hell.  Now we’ll read an interesting scripture in Isaiah 43:7  Even every one that is called by my name:  for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.  Does it say here that we can be called by God’s name?

STUDENT:   Yes

 

TEACHER:  When the I AM presence in us decides to be or do a certain thing and we allow ourselves the freedom to do it then we bear the name of God.  Now why does it say that God created us?

STUDENT:  For his glory.

 

TEACHER:  We bring glory to god by glorifying his name and we do this by becoming free to accomplish any good goal that we set for ourselves to all eternity.  Just like we are proud of our children, and happy they bear our names when they learn to set worthwhile goals and reach them, even so is God glorified when we realize we must actively pursue a joyous life.  That sounds a lot better than just playing a harp for eternity doesn’t it?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER:  Now let us find out what happens when we die.  Jesus gives us a clue in his words to the repentant theif that was crucified with him:  (Read Luke 23:43)  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.  Where did Jersus say that he and the thief would be after death?

STUDENT:  In Paradise.

 

TEACHER:  Peter tells us of another place Jesus visited (Read I Peter 3:18-19:  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:   By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison.  Where did Jesus go to preach here?

STUDENT:  To the spirits in prison.

 

TEACHER:  From these two scriptures we have read we know that Jesus visited two places in the spirit world.  One was a place called paradise where he promised to meet te repentant thief.  The other place is called the spirit prison where live the “unjust.”  In the next chapter Peter tells us why Jesus visited this spirit prison.  (Read I Peter 4:6)  For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.  Who did Jesus teach the gospel to here while his body was in the tomb?

STUDENT:  The dead.

 

TEACHER:  Why is that?

STUDENT:  So they can be judged on the same basis as the living.

 

TEACHER:  Its only logical that the dead need to be taught the truth just as much as do we the living.  Now we basically know where we go right after we die the question is:  What happens to us next?  The next scripture gives us a clue.  (Read John 5:28-29)  The hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.  How many does it say here will here the voice of God and  be resurrected?

STUDENT:  All that are in the graves.

 

TEACHER:  The scripture talks about two resurrections.  What are they?

STUDENT:  The resurrection of life and the resurrection of damnation.

 

TEACHER:  The word “resurrection” means “to come to life again.”  The scriptures make it clear that the resurrection of life was the kind that Jesus had.   That is, even though his body was destroyed,  he came back from the spirit world and brought it back to life and then ascended to his Father.  Do you have any idea what the resurrection of damnation is?

STUDENT:  I’m not sure.  Hell perhaps.

 

TEACHER:  People misunderstand what the resurrection of damnation is because the word is a mistranslation.  “Damnation” comes from the Greek word KRISIS and in the King James Bible has been translated as “accusation, condemnation, damnation and judgement.”   Translators are reluctant to render it correctly because it does not support orthodox Christian thought.   The modern English word “crisis” comes from it and the Greek implies “a decision that brings correction.”  The word “damnation is not even a close word to this.  Therefore, if we translate the phrase “resurrection of damnation” literally from the Greek it would read:  “Coming to life again to face decisions that bring correction.”  The modern English word that is closest to this meaning is “reincarnation.”  Have you ever considered that we may live more than one life on the earth?

STUDENT:  I’ve thought about it.

 

TEACHER:  It is interesting that the only useful scripture in the Bible for refuting reincarnation has this word in it.  (Read Hebrews 9:27)  And as it is appointed  unto man once to die, but after this the judgement.  On the surface here it sounds like we will only die once and therefore only live once, doesn’t it?

STUDENT:  Seems to.

 

TEACHER:  When we read it in the Greek,  however,  we get a different view.  “But” comes from ALLA which literally means “contrariwise.”  This tells us that “after this the judgement” contradicts the “once to die.”  The word “judgement” here is the key to the scripture.   Again, it is a mistranslation for it also comes from the word KRISIS.  No doubt Paul is telling us that we will only have to die once if we are entering the resurrection of life, but the exception will be those who enter the resurrection of KRISIS.  This is supported by another scripture.  (Read Revelations 20:12-15)  They [the dead] were judged every man according to their works.  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.  This is the second death.  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast [to suffer a second death] into the lake of fire.  How do we know that we can die more than once?

STUDENT: Because the scripture clearly mentions a second death.

 

TEACHER:   Those who do not suffer the second death are written in the book of life.  Which resurrection do you suppose these people will have.

STUDENT:  The resurrection of life.

 

TEACHER:  Which resurrection will those not written in the book of life have who also suffer a second death?

STUDENT:  Probably the resurrection of KRISIS (mistranslated damnation).

 

TEACHER:  The Bible tells us how long we must suffer the resurrection of KRISIS:  (Read I Corinthians 3:16-17)  Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?  If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy:   for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.  The scriptures tell us that the temple of God is the body.  What happens if we defile it?

STUDENT:  We will be destroyed.

 

TEACHER:  Our bodies return to dust and are destroyed until we quit defiling ourselves.  We live many lifetimes and are reborn again and again until we do not defile ourselves.  When perfection is reached we are then written in the Book of Life and are brought back to life again in a perfect undefiled body that does not have to ever die again.  A few verses later Paul gives some interesting information to those who are following the Spirit.  (Read I Corinthians 3:21-23):  Therefore let no man glory in men.  For all things are yours;  Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all are yours;  And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.  How many things are promised to those who follow the Spirit?

STUDENT:  It says “all things are yours.”

 

TEACHER:  In other words those who do not defile themselves can have their choice of anything they want.  It even says they can choose life or death.  How do you syppose we choose life?

STUDENT:  That would probably be the everlasting life that is talked about.

 

TEACHER:    It says that we can also choose death.  It is not speaking of death here as a punishment, but as something we are free to choose.  Do you have any idea as to how this could happen?

STUDENT:  I’m not sure.

 

TEACHER:  The average person is forced to be reborn whether he wants to or not in circumstances not to his choosing, but he who follows the spirit may choose to be reborn and live a mortal life in circumstances of his choosing to accomplish some good purpose.  Being able to choose death in this way is a nice option to have, isn’t it?

STUDENT:  It seems to be.

 

TEACHER:    Paul also says “things present, or things to come” are ours.  If we have the freedom to be reborn whenever we want in circumstances we choose then that gives us the power to enjoy the challenges and experiences of any future age we wish.  Have you ever thought that you would like to live in an era when there was perfect peace and harmony on the earth?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER:  If we follow the spirit then we can make that choice.  Jesus elaborates on this further.  (Read Matthew 19:28-29):  And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you.  That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.  And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.  The word “regeneration” is an interesting one.  It comes from the Greek PALLGGENESIA.  It basically means “to be reborn again and again.”  Therefore, the scripture is telling us that the Son of man will sit on the throne of power on the earth not once, but numerous times and that his followers will judge (or set right) Israel numerous times.  Next he tells us that those who forsake ‘houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands” for his sake shall receive a reward.  What is that?

STUDENT:  A hundredfold and life everlasting.

 

TEACHER:  What will the person receive a hundredfold of?

STUDENT:  I’m not sure.

 

TEACHER:  The Gospel of Mark carifies this somewhat.  (Read Mark 10:30):  But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time (era), houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.  We are plainly told here that if we make a sacrifice for Christ and have to forsake a mother or father, for instance, that in this era we can have a hundred of them  back.  Is there any way you can literally have a hundred mothers and fathers without being reborn?

STUDENT:  No.

 

TEACHER:  Now we can see how this whole scripture makes sense when we translate “regeneration” as  “to be reborn again and again.”  The Bible indicates that reincarnation was a popular doctrine among the people.  When Jesus was with his disciples he asked them who the people were saying he was.  We can read their response in Matthew 16:14:  And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist:  some, Elias (Greek for Elijah.  We will hereafter use Elijah for this word); and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.  Why would the common people think that Jesus could be Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets returning?

STUDENT:  They must have believed in rebirth.

 

TEACHER:  One of the reasons that they thought Jesus may have been Elijah is that the Bible prophesied that he would appear before the coming of Christ.  We can read this in Malachi 4:5-6:  Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:  And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.  Who would God send before the coming of the Lord?

STUDENT:  Elijah.

 

TEACHER:  Now let us read the Angel Gabriel’s words concerning John the Baptist: (Read Luke 1:17)  And he (John) shall go before him (Jesus) in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.  Does this sound as if John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of the coming of Elijah?

STUDENT:   It seems to.

 

TEACHER:  Jesus tells us clearly that  John the Baptist was Elijah in answer to his disciple’s question on the subject..  (Read Matthew 17:10-13 [Quoting the New English Version]):   Why then do our teachers say that Elijah must come first?  He replied, Yes Elijah will  come and set everything right.   But I tell you, that Elijah has already come, and they failed to recognize him, and worked their will upon him; and in the same way the Son of Man is to suffer at their hands.  Then the disciples understood that he meant John the Baptist.  Who did Jesus here say fulfilled the prophecy of the coming of Elijah?

STUDENT:  John the Baptist.

 

TEACHER:  Jesus not only said that Elijah had already come, but notice that he said that he also “will come and set everything right.”  How do you think this prophecy will be fulfilled?

STUDENT:  Perhaps John will be reborn before the next coming of Christ.

 

TEACHER:  Jesus repeats this affirmation in Matthew 11:14.  We will read from the Concordant Version which is more accurate than the King James:  And if you are willing to receive him (John the Baptist), he is  Elijah…  That’s about as clear as word can be, isn’t it?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER:  Elijah is not the only prophet who is to be reborn and do an additional work.  A similar promise was made to John the Revelator.  (Read Revelations 10:10-11)  And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey:  and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.  And he said unto me,  thou must prophesy again before many people’s, and nations, and tongues, and kings.  John was an old man when he received this vision so how could he fulfill the prophecy to teach many people in different lands?

STUDENT:  He’d probably have to be reborn.

 

TEACHER:  One of the main reasons that more and more people are accepting reincarnation is that it introduces the principle of fairness in God’s plan.  The orthodox way of looking at the opportunity for eternal life seems to be lacking something.  For instance most religions teach that we only have one life and when we die that is it.  There are no more chances to prove ourselves in the flesh or to catch up on what we missed out on.  If eternal life does indeed last billions of years then this life is less than an hour in comparison to it.  Do you think it would be fair for someone to sit you at a desk  with no preparation and command you to take a test for one hour which will determine whether you life in rags or riches for the rest of your life?

STUDENT:   It doesn’t seem so.

 

TEACHER:  Yet this is the reasoning that man thinks God uses.  Would it be fair if you were placed with others of better natural ability than  yours, yet judged by the same standards?

STUDENT:  No.

 

TEACHER:  Yet the people think that God makes no allowances for the differing stages  of man’s spiritual awareness.    What if you were to die before you could finish the test, or even review your answers?  Would it be fair to judge your test with a half hour’s work on the same basis as those who had the full hour?

STUDENT:  No.

 

TEACHER:   Yet people think that if a person dies when he is twenty, or thirty, he will be judged on the same basis as one who lives to be a  hundred.  Let us say that two brothers were headed to hell at age twenty and one dies.  The other lives to a ripe old age and straightens out his life and dies a saint.  Is it fair that the brother who died first suffer for all eternity without another chance whereas the other one has eternal bliss.

STUDENT:  I wouldn’t think so.

 

TEACHER:  Furthermore, if the latter man loved his brother could he really enjoy heaven if he knew his brother was suffering?

STUDENT:  No.

 

TEACHER:  Could you enjoy being in heaven if your loved ones were suffering in hell for all eternity without the possibility of another chance?

STUDENT:   No.

 

TEACHER:   What is wrong and injust with the  orthodox doctrine of heaven and hell.

STUDENT:  It is not fair.

 

TEACHER:  Jesus tried to correct the notion that God was  not fair.  (Read Matthew 7:9-11)  Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?  Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?  Here Jesus tells us that earthly fathers have enough sense to try and give good things to their children, but God is much better and wiser than they.  Now would you sentence one of your children to burn forever in hell?

STUDENT:  No.

 

TEACHER:  Then neither would God for he knows how to give better gifts than you do.  We do however, give our children temporary punishments so they can learn don’t we?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER:  God also allows us to suffer pain in this world so we can learn.  Now a good earthly parent would not only refuse to sentence his child to an eternal hell, but he would also never give up on the child and always seek to help him or her progress.  Yet what do many think God’s attitude toward the damned is on judgement day?

STUDENT:   He gives up on them

 

TEACHER:  Fortunately, the fundamentalist view of heaven and hell is not supported by the Bible.  Let us read several scriptures relating the true will of God toward man. (Read I Tim 2:4)  Paul spoke of God who will have all men to be saved, and to come to a knowledge of the truth…. (read Matthew 18:14)  Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.  What is the true will of God here?

STUDENT:  That all should be saved and none perish.

 

TEACHER:  Do you think that God has power to fulfill his will?

STUDENT:  Yes.

 

TEACHER:  Therefore, do you think that all his children will eventually be saved?

STUDENT:  It seems so.

 

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to be a member to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

Keys Writings, Part 12

This entry is part 20 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 13, 2011
Re: Secret panel can put Americans on “kill list’

Blayne: Let me get this straight do you think this justifies executing citizens on the presidents word he is a terrorist threat with no accountability authority or evidence?

JJ No. That’s not what I said. I posted that example from George Washington’s execution without trial to illustrate that much worse has been done by our heroes. The men Washington executed appears to have been less of a threat than Anwar al-Awlaki is to us.

I agree with you that the law needs to be followed. It does look liked he could be tried for treason as he apparently is advocating a violent overthrow of the United States openly on his web site. Treason has carried the death penalty in the past.

If this guy is a threat that needs taken out then Obama should work within the law to accomplish this. If there is no way to bring him in then perhaps he could be tried in absentia or have his citizenship revoked and treated accordingly.

So, do you agree with George Washington’s executions I cited? If not then what should he have done?

Molecular Disagreements

Blayne and Duke are among my favorite people so I do not relish them going after each other and disagree so strongly but such things happen. After all, a number of the good members here have gone around with me a number of times. Such disagreements are likely to surface in the molecule now and then so this provides an opportunity to ask some new questions.

Let us suppose that Blayne and Duke are in a molecule together and this very argument breaks out.

Would this disagreement interfere with the spiritual flow? After all the subject is somewhat removed from spiritual conversation.

Let us suppose the topic involved a spiritual principle. Would such a disagreement create a problem?

In both cases can anything be done to cause them both to look through the eyes of the sol together and see as one?

The Governing Principle Blayne writes: Perhaps we can try an experiment here? Point out what you think my illusions are on this issue and lets see of we can at least agree on what the issue is and is not and if we can come to agreement there then we can seek soul contact on if it was handled appropriately?

JJ Thanks for the brave suggestion.

Let’s handle this as if we were in a molecule and we are trying to bring harmony and agreement on this issue.

Now the problem with many disagreements is that both sides of the issue are often not understood or articulated well. For instance, I have had people disagree with me when they really agree but just did not understand what I was saying. If they have their mind made up to be disagreeable it seems that no clarification satisfies them.

It doesn’t do any good to attempt to solve a disagreement through group soul contact unless both sides are clearly understood. If the problem is nebulous then the soul cannot give a clear answer.

In addition the principles involved must be understood and articulated as much as possible.

Steve asks – what shall we do if two or more principles are involved? Which one should we follow?

The answer is that there will always be a dominate principle governing the situation. More often that not, the governing principle concerning the action of a disciple is to accomplish the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

For instance, we are told to not kill which falls within the principle of harmlessness. But suppose you were in a bank and a crazy man had planted a bomb and was about to detonate it when such a blast would kill about 100 people. You just happen to have a gun and know you can take him out before he presses the button? Do you do it when this action seems to violate the principle of harmlessness?

Yes, you do because the overriding principle is to follow that course which brings the greatest good to the greatest number. If you shoot the guy you will take one life and save 100 thereby doing a much greater good than doing nothing.

That said, let us look again at the argument between Blayne and Duke. Answer these questions.

List all the principles involved.

Whose reasoning seems to support the greatest good for the greatest number?

Why?

If you think it is neither side then what action would have been the greatest good.

Believe me, the answer will not be as simple as some may think.

Oct 16, 2011

Re: The Governing Principle

Good comments again today by the group. If we are to harmonize we need to hone in on the principles that apply to the subject.

I think we all agree that the most desirable outcome for an action is the greatest good for the greatest number.

The problem is that both Blayne and Duke believe their conclusions support that direction. What causes two intelligent people to come up with opposite conclusions here? There are several things.

(1) The primary one is the Second Key of Judgment. This is the Second Key of Knowledge because it is of prime importance, right up there with the power of decision itself.

(2) Different core beliefs.

(3) Different values.

(4) Different focus.

Blayne places great emphasis on individual; freedom and focuses in that direction.

Duke places emphasis on flexibility to achieve the greatest good.

Both points of focus have their place and, used with judgment, can produce good results but understanding this will not bring them to agreement. Let us therefore look at the two perspectives and the principles involved in understanding the argument.

Blayne and Duke are free to correct me if I am not accurate.

Blayne sees the killing of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, by the decree of our president as a major threat to the freedom of us all. He broke the law to do this, and if he gets away with it this means that the government can target anyone they dislike. All they have to do is discredit them and then take them out. This could lead to a situation where everyone would be afraid for their lives if they criticized the government.

Duke thinks there is enough evidence to prove that Anwar al-Awlaki was a threat. Maybe not an imminent one but one that was planning an attack on Americans that would take many lives. Since there is no way to just arrest him to neutralize the threat Duke thinks that it is good common sense and serve the greater good to take him out even if it is not clear that such an action is technically legal. After all, we targeted thousands of American citizens for death that had similarly withdrew from the union during the Civil War.

I think the first question to settle is whether of not the assassination was legal. Read this article (or Google others) and give your opinion. If it was legal, that may not mean it was right, but it would mean that the action was justified legally.

Was it Legal?

Oct 16, 2011

Re: The Governing Principle

It is interesting that both Blayne and Duke were arguing from the conclusion that the action in taking out Anwar was illegal. But the New York Times article indicates that it may have been legal after all. Actually any president has to confer with many legal advisers in taking any controversial action.

One of the reasons Blayne was against this was because it was illegal and established a bad precedent. But if it was already legal then the action does not establish anything as it is already legal.

Duke was arguing that it is okay to break a law when the greater good is at stake.

But if the action was legal it appears that both of the were arguing about a point that does not even exist.

It appears then that the argument should just boil down to this question.

Was the action the right thing to do. In other words, was the greater good served by taking him out or not?

Is this assessment correct? What do you think?

NOTE I want to stress that even though this is not a metaphysical subject our end goal is very spiritual in quality. One out of a 1000 of these type of arguments end in agreement so if can accomplish this it will serve as an example and be worth whatever effort it takes.

I must admit that i have not read all the dialog in this ongoing discussion. I’m sure many others haven’t also. Therefore, for those who want to catch up I posted all the pertinent dialog at:

Discussion Link

Oct 17, 2011 Good comments today and I enjoyed them all but we are becoming a little scattered here. To unravel this subject and find agreement we have to dissect it into its pieces and then put them back together. If we just argue the whole subject we will have a cacophony indeed.

Here was the question that needs to be our first point of focus.

“I think the first question to settle is whether of not the assassination was legal. Read this article (or Google others) and give your opinion. If it was legal, that may not mean it was right, but it would mean that the action was justified legally.”

NYT Link

When I made my first comment on this subject I was under the assumption that Obama was operating outside the law in going after this guy. Then I read the New York Times article and changed my mind. After studying the details it appears that Obama may legally squeak by on this and it looks like Ron Paul may not have much of a case in his talk of impeachment.

The courts and the legal experts seem to accept that we are legally at war with terrorists and that those who take sides with the terrorists are fair game citizens or not.

To this Blayne replies: As for the courts ruling blah blah it does not matter the courts are wrong here and I addressed why. There is no authority for such in the document that defines the scope of congress and the president. The courts have long ago given up their duty to stick within the scope of the constitution.

JJ I often think the courts are wrong, but it is still their decisions that determine the interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of the land. Sometimes I think they are right and others way off base, but it is a fact that they determine legality.

It is a hard fact that many lines in the Constitution are open to interpretation. Yes it says that Congress shall have power to declare war, but is the only way to do this with a document that says, “We declare war”?

Congress has authorized the war in Iraq and the War on Terror and these have been upheld by the courts as legal war action.

It appears then that Obama operated within the law and as proof of this we will see that those who disagreed with him will be powerless to legally prosecute or even do much to bring an investigation into the matter.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process, but what this is, is subject to interpretation. I’m sure Obama believes he went through due process through his legal maneuverings.

I’m sure that FDR felt he was legally justified in taking away the freedom of Japanese Americans during World War II. Woodrow Wilson also jailed thousands of Americans without normal due process during World War I.

Many things presidents have done have been very questionably legally and morally, but if thy are upheld by the constitutionally mandated courts of the land then they are technically legal.

We can say the Constitution says otherwise, but the opinion of a U.S. citizen does not make law.

If citizens to not like certain laws then they can pressure Congress to write better laws that are more just – as well as clearly written.

One of Blayne’s concerns is that Obama’s action will set a bad precedent so in the future a President could pick on someone he just doesn’t like, declare him a terrorist and take him out.

If we had a dictatorship this could happen, but a dictator doesn’t need any precedent. But what about this concern as it applies to our current system? Is this something we should lose sleep over?

Oct 17, 2011

Legalities

I’ve been thinking of a conclusion on the legality of Obama’s decision to take out Awlaki that we could all agree on. Blayne seems to have strong opinion that the act was flat out illegal and unconstitutional, but there are arguments in both directions and it is always important to see the logic of both sides. I thought this New York Times article was fairly balanced on the issue:

NYT Link

Another Link

Here’s my conclusion that I would like Blayne and Duke to consider and would also like comments from the rest of the group.

My Conclusion: Obama’s taking out Awlaki, an American citizen, was controversial with some believing it to be illegal and others legal. In reality if it was clearly illegal the ACLU (which thinks it is illegal), Ron Paul and hundreds of Obama’s Republican enemies in power could bring Obama and others up on charges.

Since this hasn’t happened, nor is likely (and the courts seem to support Obama’s action) we have to conclude that the action was technically legal enough for Obama to proceed with impunity.

This is not an attempt to judge whether or not the action was morally right or wrong but merely to reach consensus on the legality of the issue.

Note: This part of the process has nothing to do with soul contact but we are merely using our minds and best judgment to go as far as we can on our own.

Oct 17, 2011
Re: The Governing Principle

Blayne: Hitler came to power in a democratic election (yeah I know it was not a majority) still he did not seize power by brute force. He did not just implement his plan over night. He gradually implemented it over time.

JJ Actually Hitler did not receive enough votes to become Chancellor. Because of the lack of majority needed he managed to use his influence to get himself appointed. After that, things did not change gradually but was pretty much overnight. He used the full force of his will and power from the moment he took office.

Oct 18, 2011
Re: Conclusion for Consideration

Okay, we are at step one in this harmony seeking process concerning Obama’s termination of Anwar al-Awlaki.

In the beginning I thought Obama broke the law in his action and I think several others did also. But then after studying the details I can see the logic in the legal argument on both sides. The law in this case is not clearly demarked and seems to favor Obama’s action. Even though a number disagree and threaten legal action it is doubtful that Obama will wind up in any trouble over this.

In the early days of this country we published wanted posters stating: “Wanted Dead or Alive.” A reward was offered to anyone who would bring outlaws (U.S. Citizens) in dead with no trial, no judge and no jury. This idea of going after obvious criminals without a jury trial is not new.

It appears that everyone but Blayne who has responded agrees that the matter is not black or white – that Obama could be legally justified.

From the Beginning Blayne took the stance that the action was just plain black and white, crystal clear illegal and unconstitutional and nothing was going to change his mind.

Nothing did.

He still thinks the same way, hasn’t budged an inch, and sees absolutely no value in any argument or legal defense made. It would appear that if God, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington appeared to him to show him any error in his thinking he would not consider changing his mind.

I would admonish Blayne to consider this. He alone is holding to his view with absolutely no wiggle room. We have an intelligent group here. If they are intelligent and this case is so crystal clear to anyone with a brain – then why cannot even one other person see with this crystal clear vision you have?

Is it possible that you are holding on to your interpretation so tightly that you are not looking at or considering the other side?

If you know the sky is blue and someone says it is green then you feel justified in flat out rejecting them because the truth is so obvious. But civil law is not so black and white. It has shades of gray and it appears to me and others here that there are shades of gray in judging the legality of Obama’s action.

I’d like to hear feedback from the group on this.

Next question.

It appears that Obama’s legal team has worked pretty much in secret and wrote up a 50 page legal memo justifying the action. Parts of this memo have been leaked but the process and the details are kept secret.

Is Obama justified in this? If not what should he have done?

Oct 18, 2011
Letter of the Law
Quoting JJ In the early days of this country we published wanted posters stating: “Wanted Dead or Alive.” A reward was offered to anyone who would bring outlaws (U.S. Citizens) in dead with no trial, no judge and no jury. This idea of going after obvious criminals without a jury trial is not new.

Blayne: So you think this justifies killing American citizens without trial?

JJ We haven’t got to this yet in the process I am attempting to guide. We are just dealing with whether the action was legal or not.

Blayne Nowhere have I said this sort of thing is new.

JJ You had me fooled. Here is what you said in post # 54101

“This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.”

You have also talked about this setting a bad precedent many times as if such a precedent had not been set before.

In truth there have been many times American Citizens have been executed without a trial with the blessing (right or wrong) of the legal powers.

Placing a bounty on outlaws “dead or alive” is just one example. If you are worried about precedent that is a much more egregious one than the Awlaki case.

Blayne: You act like I have just dismissed everyone’s arguments without consideration when I have explained my reasoning on every point some many times.

JJ Just because you give your reasoning (which is in this case unconvincing) does not mean you have considered the opposing views. It sounds more like your mind was just set in stone and you found what you were looking for – for you anyway, but not for anyone else here.

Blayne; Yeah we have nearly 200 years of due process meaning trial by jury as defined in the 6th Amendment and Article III, Section 2, Paragraph [3] of the US constitution and wars being handled by formal declaration and lesser actions by letters of marque and reprisal but I am the one being unreasonable here because we have departed from those sound principles of freedom in the later half of the 20th century… OK…

JJ I agree with you (as I am sure many others here) that in many cases we have gone astray from the original Constitution and original intent. In many cases it has been to our detriment, but others not so much. Let us take that section of the Constitution you referenced. It reads:

“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

Like many laws there is more than one way to interpret this.

Is it saying that all crimes must be tried by a jury or is it telling us how to handle all crimes that are to be tried by a jury?

I haven’t checked but judges must have not gone by the first interpretation because most crimes are NOT tried by a jury. Even in the crime of murder only 20% of those caught wind up before a jury. For the letter-of-the-law guy this would be unconstitutional.

If we followed the letter of the surface interpretation here the legal system would be so bogged down that there would be no justice served anywhere.

Judges here were forced to discover wiggle room or face disaster.

Blayne: So by this logic I should just give in to peer pressure and ignore my own reason and logic when nothing has been presented that refutes my logic?

JJ No. I would never suggest this. I have always advised to follow the highest you know and for all of us the highest we know will be wrong at times.

The disciple must continually question and examine the highest he knows and challenge himself to see from a higher angle of vision. If he does this continually then the highest he knows will he more accurate as his life proceeds.

In your case, you are surrounded with other seekers who are also intelligent. When none seem to agree with you on this legality (that I have seen) then it would be wise to ask yourself if there is something you are not seeing. Is there a blind spot, an illusion, a dogma held too close etc?

I know you do this at times but it doesn’t seem to happen in the midst of an argument. In your quiet moments, where you have time to think, you do digest higher soul guidance and you are indeed making progress overall.

Blayne: After saying I would be trying very hard to consider the other sides point of view what makes you think I have not?

JJ Not only in this case but in many other arguments I have seen powerful evidence presented that you are not correct and you either dismiss it or ignore it and change the subject.

In this case, the greatest legal minds in the country are looking at the situation and most do not see the issue as black and white the way you do, yet you dismiss them. If you were adhering to some principle I could give you some slack but legalese deals more with data and angles of interpretation than principles.

Blayne: So far I have just been lectured on why I have not considered anyone else’s view. I asked folks to point out where they think I am wrong but I only get why they think they are right without addressing my points and reasoning.

JJ Yet you have offered even weaker arguments as to why you are right. The Jefferson story makes little sense to me concerning your case.

Blayne: Apparently not giving in to peer pressure means to you I must not have considered the other sides point of view.

JJ If this happens time and time again then it may be a sign you need to examine your thought process.

There was only a couple times where Churchill had to stand against the many. More often than not his logic was strong enough that the many stood with him.

Blayne: So does considering the other sides point of view mean I should not give counter points where ever I see them? Heaven forbid of those that responded could they all be wrong?

JJ You are on the right course by being honest and speaking your mind. If you are not correct on some issues then (if you are honest with yourself) then you will eventually make corrections. I am hoping this little exercise will make that time come sooner rather than later.

Quoting JJ: If you know the sky is blue and someone says it is green then you feel justified in flat out rejecting them because the truth is so obvious. But civil law is not so black and white. It has shades of gray and it appears to me and others here that there are shades of gray in judging the legality of Obama’s action.

Blayne: Believe me I know firsthand that civil law is anything but black and white. The constitution is pretty black and white though and we have ample writings from the founders on their intended meanings written into it.

JJ I don’t think the Constitution is black and white at all. If it were we wouldn’t have thousands of different interpretations arising from it. Many Fundamentalist Christians think the Bible is black and white as they read it, but obviously it is not which is evidenced by thousands of different interpretations.

Blayne: How many of you have even read this law that you think may give Obama legal authority? Correct me if I am wrong but none of you have even read it right? So how can you make any judgment never having read it not knowing the facts of what it actually says?

JJ I’ve read legal interpretations concerning this and it sounds more plausible than someone just shouting “follow the Constitution!”

Blayne Where is the wiggle room in the 5th and 6th amendments that no American can be deprived of life liberty and property without due process and the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury?

JJ Let’s look at the pertinent language of these two:

Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

JJ In Awlaki’s case the due process was conducted by the President and his legal team. So far this has been accepted by the Constitutional judges of the land. It can indeed be argued that Awlaki had due process and the process deliberated for about a year on the matter. That is much more consideration than most criminals have.

Sixth Amendment In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State …

JJ As I said earlier this usually doesn’t happen because it is not practical and if it did justice would be destroyed. It doesn’t say that every lawbreaker will be subject to regular criminal prosecution. Awlaki was not even subject to a regular criminal prosecution so this does not even apply to him.

Blayne: People say the 2nd amendment is not black and white on bearing arms either however it is about as black and white as it gets when is say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

JJ I agree with you that this amendment is pretty black and white and those that say that only militias can have guns are being disingenuous.

Blayne: You also seem to be ignoring that I said even if we accept this law as legal that Obama has still over stepped even that.

JJ That may or may not be true but I am trying to go one step at a time.

Blayne As far as being legal lets take your version of legal to its logical conclusion. Do you think interning Japanese Americans who committed no crime or act of war was legal? After all it was justified because of war and done based in interpretation of the Presidents legal power to conduct war. This is another case where the majority was in agreement and but they were wrong. If congress passes a law that it is ok for congressmen and Judges to rape women at will and the courts uphold it is that legal? After all it went through the legislative and judicial process so it must be technically legal right?

JJ I think rather than asking if such things are legal you should be asking if they are right? That which is legal is not always the right or moral thing. If Congress passed a law saying that women could be raped and it was upheld by judges then it would be legal, but it would be immoral as it has always been.

Again, what is being asked is this: Was Obama’s action legal? The question was NOT: Was Obama’s action the best of all possible choices.

Oct 19, 2011
Question Three

Blayne and I are still dissecting the first question – Is it legal? – but let’s move ahead on some others.

Here was the second question.

It appears that Obama’s legal team has worked pretty much in secret and wrote up a 50 page legal memo justifying the action. Parts of this memo have been leaked but the process and the details are kept secret.

Is Obama justified in this? If not what should he have done?

My thanks to the few who responded to this. I think the group will agree with my conclusion here which is:

It’s fine if he checks with his attorneys in secret and has them do some research and write up a memo. But to proceed with a controversial action he should be sure enough of his legal correctness that he can release all the legal justification around the decision.

LWK made a good point in that he promised an open administration, supposedly the opposite of Bush, but he is even more secretive than Bush was.

Awlaki has been a target for some time so the legal justification for taking him out should have been out there for all to examine from the beginning. If the legality receives a serious challenge and he thinks it is essential to continue then Congress would need to pass legislation placing the action on more secure legal grounds.

Unless I hear some disagreement with this conclusion I will assume that all feel this is reasonable.

Next question: For this question let us assume that it would be legal to assassinate Awlaki and Obama is open and honest about the legalities, motives and details connected with it. The next natural question is would such an action be the right thing to do?

This question has already been tossed around like crazy and no agreement has been reached. Instead of asking that question now let us ask this?

If such an action were legal under what circumstances would it be the right thing to do?

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to be a member to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

Keys Writings, Part 11

This entry is part 19 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 8, 2011
Physical Presence

Judy writes: I appreciate that you take time to answer our questions. You left a question that I had yesterday unanswered. When you get around to it can you explain why we need to be in close proximity for a molecule to work as you mentioned it would be hard or possibly not work over the Internet? I do not understand the necessity of being in close proximity.

JJ There are a number of reasons the spiritual flow is so much easier to established in person. To give you an idea of what I mean let me point out a couple things.

How many fall in love and get married through internet communication only? It would be very rare. They often discover mutual interests on line but most will insist on getting to know each other in person before talking the plunge. It often turns out that the chemistry in person is much different than over the internet. If they are a match the flow of the love energy is much easier and stronger after meeting in person.

Do you suppose that phone sex is as good as physical in-person sex? You do not have to be into such things to know that it is not. In person the flow of the sexual energy is much more intense.

We’ve all made friends von the internet, but have you noticed that when you meet them in person that they seem a lot different than the image you created in your mind?

I’ve made friends with many members of the Keys on the internet and then later met them at gatherings, as have many of you. It is often strange how different various people look and act than the image that was conjured up. For instance, I remember Susan Carter telling me that she had this image of me as a very strong overpowering personality and was surprised at how soft spoken and approachable I was.

I had similar misconceptions toward a lot of you but I will say this. Those of you who I saw as nice and friendly people did live up to my expectations in that area but often had different appearances and personalities than expected.

To really get to know someone and their chemistry you pretty much have to meet them in person.

The internet is overcoming this hurdle somewhat with video connections. On a one-to-one basis we can see the other person as we communicate with them. This doesn’t work so well in a group, however. We could have a video conference where I could speak to the group and they could all see me but my experience with them would be somewhat nebulous for I could not see them all at one time as when they are physically present.

The bottom line is this. The possibility of spiritual flow and mutual soul contact is greatly enhanced when in each other’s physical presence than any long distance relationship, even enhanced by technology. This especially applies to a group.

We experimented with a group drawn from the Keys we called the Triads. Even though the members were great people and willing I found it was very sluggish to get any group work accomplished with them. This was not their fault but the fault of the separation we had. If you have a group before you in your physical presence you can decide on assignments and get a lot of feedback within an hour or so. To do the same thing online may take weeks as well as using up a lot of time trying to keep things working.

Another point was made by a Book of Mormon prophet who said:

And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men. II Nephi 33:1

When speaking to a group that is ready and united the door of the soul can open and words can touch the Spirit and all can be elevated together at one moment. This experience is essential preparation for the Molecular experience.

We’ve had some great gatherings and spirits have often been high but we have not yet touched the soul as a group – though we have come close several times. To do this I would probably have to hand pick those who I thought were ready. This would be awkward to do at a gathering as those not picked could be highly offended.

I look forward to the day when the teachings will draw many more people and we can have substantial numbers of seekers physically gather in the various population areas.

Oct 9, 2011
Molecular Questions

Thanks JJ for your time & effort,

No question for us to contemplate this time?

JJ You’re making me think here Rob. Okay… Here goes.

Let us suppose we are proceeding with the creation of a molecule and have a group of 24+ members who are attempting to harmonize for group soul contact. Everything seems to be going well until I give a class which reveals some new information. Most of the members accept it well but four of them have serious doubts. Two of them remain as supportive as they can and say they’ll just put this teaching on the shelf and move forward the best they can. The other two seem quite upset are very vocal. They say their soul contact tells then that I am dead wrong and we need to not include this in the group teachings.

Question: How should this situation be handled? Can a molecule be created with these four involved?

Situation Two: Everything seems agreeable on the direction of the group and the teachings. Then Bob and Alice come to me in private and share a grievance, but they do not think it is a grievance. They are upset that three members of the group are slackers and not doing their share. They tell me I should do something about it. They are also upset at two other members because they are not supportive enough. They think that most of the members of the group need a lot of work and question the motives of some.

How should we deal with Bob and Alice?

Oct 10, 2011
Re: Molecular Questions

Continuation of Situation One. We realize that we must be united by seeing as one through the eyes of the soul if we are going to touch the higher spiritual energies and be linked with spiritual molecules. We therefore meet together to seek oneness, not a oneness imposed by an authority, but a oneness through contacting the Source of truth.

We first seek to meditate as one together while seeking higher contact. When we reach a high state I then explain the necessity of reaching oneness if we are to move any further. I also explain the importance of keeping our feelings positive while we discuss differences. Then I ask the four who disagreed to voice their opinions and reasoning behind their disagreement. I ask the group to tune into their souls as each person speaks to register whether or not truth is spoken.

The four each speak. Afterwards I ask the members to express what they received from their souls as they heard the words.

I then speak and give what I believe to be the truth of the matter. Then the time is turned over to members of the group to give their soul impressions of my words. All but the four felt their soul contact verified my words.

I then ask for a group prayer to petition for one answer for us all. We ask and we wait in silence for five to ten minutes for confirmation.

We arise and several commented on the powerful confirmation they received. We ask the four what they received. The two who said they would put things on the shelf said they received confirmation and were ready to move ahead with the group. One of the remaining two said he wasn’t sure. The final one gave us a lecture. He said he was his own man and an independent thinker and the rest of us were being brain washed. He said he still believed in the molecule and wanted to stay in it but we should make space for different opinions – that everyone thinking the same was not natural.

Question: How should we handle this guy? What should we do next?

Situation Two; I tell Bob and Alice that their problems with the group need to be discussed with the group in our next meeting.

They reply that they did not want to cause a disturbance and that is why they came to me privately.

I tell them that their grievance has already caused a disturbance in the spiritual flow and to restore it the problem needs to be resolved with group effort.

They insist they do not want their feelings made public to the group.

How should this situation be handled?

Oct 10, 2011
Re: Molecular Questions

Continuation of Situation One. We realize that we must be united by seeing as one through the eyes of the soul if we are going to touch the higher spiritual energies and be linked with spiritual molecules. We therefore meet together to seek oneness, not a oneness imposed by an authority, but a oneness through contacting the Source of truth.

We first seek to meditate as one together while seeking higher contact. When we reach a high state I then explain the necessity of reaching oneness if we are to move any further. I also explain the importance of keeping our feelings positive while we discuss differences. Then I ask the four who disagreed to voice their opinions and reasoning behind their disagreement. I ask the group to tune into their souls as each person speaks to register whether or not truth is spoken.

The four each speak. Afterwards I ask the members to express what they received from their souls as they heard the words.

I then speak and give what I believe to be the truth of the matter. Then the time is turned over to members of the group to give their soul impressions of my words. All but the four felt their soul contact verified my words.

I then ask for a group prayer to petition for one answer for us all. We ask and we wait in silence for five to ten minutes for confirmation.

We arise and several commented on the powerful confirmation they received. We ask the four what they received. The two who said they would put things on the shelf said they received confirmation and were ready to move ahead with the group. One of the remaining two said he wasn’t sure. The final one gave us a lecture. He said he was his own man and an independent thinker and the rest of us were being brain washed. He said he still believed in the molecule and wanted to stay in it but we should make space for different opinions – that everyone thinking the same was not natural.

Question: How should we handle this guy? What should we do next?

Situation Two; I tell Bob and Alice that their problems with the group need to be discussed with the group in our next meeting.

They reply that they did not want to cause a disturbance and that is why they came to me privately.

I tell them that their grievance has already caused a disturbance in the spiritual flow and to restore it the problem needs to be resolved with group effort.

They insist they do not want their feelings made public to the group.

How should this situation be handled?

Oct 11, 2011
The Beast or Not?
Situation One:
Through group soul contact we were able to incorporate three of the four who disagreed back into the group. I explain to the group that the principle I taught was an important one for the group. If there was a difference of opinion over where to have the next gathering or what topic we would discuss next that wouldn’t matter much unless hurt feelings were involved. But there are some things where oneness is necessary or group soul contact will not be possible.

I then explain that we will have to release this one dissenter from the molecule and invite someone else to take his place. He will still be welcome in the general group and he is welcome to attempt to organize a molecule of his own if he thinks his beliefs are superior.

The guy is pretty upset and accuses us of being just one more arm of the beast. “This is what the beast does, even according to your own teachings,” he said. “He demands everyone think the same or there will be hell to pay.”

The guy leaves in a very angry state and we are all concerned that he may turn into an enemy, or, at best, never fellowship with us again.

Question: Does the guy have a point? Did we turn into the beast? If not what is the difference between us and the beast?

Situation Two

Bob and Alice do not want to work through their negative feelings with the group. I tell them that the prime directive of the group is soul contact and if they are interfering with that then they will not be able to participate until feelings are resolved.

I give them a choice, present their feelings honestly to the group and work through them or we will substitute someone else in their places until they decide to move ahead.

They were very agitated but finally decided to present their feelings to the group.

When this occurred there was some offense taken by various members but we kept the dialog going until there was harmony. It seemed that part of the problem was just a few minor misunderstandings and lack of communication.

The meeting ended with lots of hugs and a sweet spirit.

Question: Was I right in pressuring them to communicate with the group? Why or why not?

Oct 12, 2011
Hierarchy Manifestation
Blayne writes:

Something that stood out to me in one of the DK quotes that perhaps you could comment on JJ?

“The Hierarchy incarnates on Earth again, and for the first time since its last incarnation in Atlantean days. It is, however, a group incarnation and not the incarnation of individual Members. This is probably a subtle point too difficult for you to grasp.”

Back then this would seem puzzling but since JJ’s teachings have come to light I assume this is the human molecule/s he is speaking of here? How else can the hierarchy incarnate on the earth again but not as individuals? But humans building the body they will incarnate into in the form of the human molecule?

Further I assume the Hierarchy doesn’t just mean a panel of individuals but the Christ energy and principle manifesting on the physical plane? Am I on the right track here?

JJ
Not very often does someone point out something DK said that I missed, but you just did and I’m glad you posted this as it indeed points toward the Molecular Order which will indeed be a manifestation of the Hierarchy.

The point he was making would have been difficult to grasp for those who did not yet know about the Molecular Order but now makes perfect sense in hindsight.

Members of the Hierarchy will manifest periodically as regular mortals but they will increasingly manifest through overshadowing and then though molecules as they come into being.

Oct 12, 2011
Molecular Details
Dan:
Here is what you wrote the other day:

“… one cannot rule anyone out for being in a molecule who is sincere, who seeks the truth and has a cooperative spirit.”

and in response to this question:

“If folks were to decide that they trusted the Molecular Initiate enough to argue/debate but ultimately allow him to make the final decisions, whilst still always SEEKING their own soul contact – would that work?”,

you replied:

“Yes, that would work as long as there is no resentment or grievance.”

[quotes taken from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Keysters/message/53966 ]

On the basis of those 2 quotes, I’m going to say this guy was dealt with unjustly – as far as we know; he is sincere, seeks the truth and soul contact, has a cooperative spirit, and no resentment or grievance (AFAWK – at least until he got the axe).

JJ
Let’s start with your first quote:
“… one cannot rule anyone out for being in a molecule who is sincere, who seeks the truth and has a cooperative spirit.”

My point was that one cannot rule such people out. That doesn’t mean that all who are sincere and cooperative will be workable in a molecule. My point was that one doesn’t have to be a high initiate, but many aspirants who are sincere with a cooperate spirit could reach the group soul contact necessary create the spiritual flow.

When the molecules are created there will be siftings made. The original net has to gather from a large variety as we are doing now. If we do not give all sincere people fair consideration then we may miss some good molecular applicants.

Concerning your second quote it applies to those seeking consideration for molecular membership. True membership can only be attained through group soul contact and is not up to the molecular leader. His job is to only facilitate the process.

Three who disagreed voiced different opinions but still managed to see through he eyes of the soul. One did not. Some disagreements are of no consequence. Others have to be harmonized before there can be group soul contact.

In the reference you made my next statement was:

“A person has to have a degree of soul contact for a molecule to work, but if he ceases progressing toward Spirit then it will only be a matter of time before he has a falling out with the leader or other members.”

This happened with the fourth person.

The tricky fact is this. One doesn’t have to be perfect by any means to be a part of a molecule but he does have to not be a block to the spiritual energy or group soul contact will just not be there and if it is not there the molecule will not materialize.

It is going to be a tricky thing indeed to create the first molecule without hurting some feelings and appearing to be exclusive.

On the other hand, those who are not workable for the first molecule may be more ready for the second or third one.

Stephen asks:
I know JJ is an earned authority in many respects for most of us, so I was just wondering if JJ thinks he is ready to lead a Molecule or if he might want a few more years/Principles before going for it.

JJ
I’m probably as ready as I will ever be but that is not what is needed right now. These teachings must reach a much larger group of people throwing out a larger net. When the net gets large enough the real work will begin.

Oct 12, 2011
Re: Molecular Details

A formation of a group a 24 people does not a molecule make. True membership is only attained when there is group soul contact. When this happens then all the 24 will become actual members until the time comes that there is a blockage that must be handled.

Oct 12, 2011
Re: Secret panel can put Americans on “kill list’

George Washington executed problem soldiers for much less than this guy we executed. His biographies reveal some actions and discipline that would raise eyebrows today. Here is one account:

During the winter of 1780-1781, George Washington’s troops at Valley Forge, Morristown and Pompton had suffered bitter cold, hunger and inadequate clothing. Also, the soldiers had not received their back pay. The success of the Pennsylvania troops at Morristown who had mutinied in order to bring attention to their condition, encouraged the New Jersey troops at Federal Hill in Pompton to take action to help resolve their grievances. Hoping to demand justice from an apathetic Congress, they mutinied on January 20, 1781.

When George Washington learned of the rebellion, he ordered General Howe to quell it. Sergeants David Gilmore and John Tuttle were executed by a firing squad of 12 mutineers at dawn on January 27, 1781 for their part in the weeklong rebellion. George Grant was given a last minute reprieve from the same fate.

http://www.pomptonlakeshistory.com/events/pompton_mutiny.htm

Oct 13, 2011
Dan’s Questions

Dan: Then the Molecule MAINTAINS fulltime soul contact as a group? Or are they just ABLE to contact the soul at NEED and then only as a group – when there is a question on molecular direction, action, etc?

JJ The first group soul contact of all the members together is a major accomplishment but it is just the beginning. This doesn’t mean the group will have instant soul contact on demand any more than happens with the individual when he gets his first contact.

The first contact is important because at that point all members will realize that a living molecule is indeed possible. The concept will no longer be theory, but reality.

However, the next step is crucial. This involves working together in harmony while seeking continued contact until the group is stable in the soul. A number of members will come and go before this is likely to happen.

The years that both John the Baptist and Jesus spent with the disciples was a part of their training toward this end and it wasn’t until the day of Pentecost that the overshadowing life finally incarnated in the group. This group had the advantage of being a witness to the resurrected Jesus which was indeed a unifying experience.

Dan: Will each member INDIVIDUALLY (have to) be able to contact the soul at will/need also? Or is there a group dynamic at play that assists them at it together as a group but not necessarily individually/personally?

JJ Some will have their first potent soul contact as a group but may not be far enough along the path to have consistent individual contact – though on subtle planes all the pure in heart have some type of contact – often unrealized.

Dan: So, any time a situation such as scenario #1 arises and the group seeks an answer through the soul TOGETHER – in this case as to the correctness of a teaching – if ALL 24 members don’t get the same answer, so to speak, this indicates a “blockage” (with those that don’t get the same answer) that must be corrected or else suddenly no molecule – is that correct?

JJ If the answer sought is essential to the oneness of the group this is correct.

Paul was an advanced soul but he had disagreements with Peter and other disciples so he was never a part of the molecule. He sacrificed greater spiritual contact to do things his own way. It was unfortunate that his slant on the teachings of Jesus was preserved and dominated more than the unified apostles. Here’s a couple quotes from DK about Paul:

“Starting with St. Paul, the theologians interpreted His (Christ) words in such a manner that they served to bridge the gap between the spiritual future of the world and the Jewish dispensation which should have been passing out. So effective has been their work that the teachings of the loving, simple Son of God have been largely ignored; the failure of Christianity can be traced to its Jewish background (emphasised by St. Paul), which made it full of propaganda instead of loving action, which taught the blood sacrifice instead of loving service, and which emphasised the existence of a wrathful God, needing to be placated by death, and which embodied the threats of the Old Testament Jehovah in the Christian teaching of hell fire.

“This situation is one which the Christ is seeking to alter.”

“In the past, the keynote of the Christian religion has been death, symbolised for us in the death of Christ and much distorted by St. Paul in his effort to blend the new religion which Christ brought with the old blood religion of the Jews. In the cycle which Christ will inaugurate after His reappearance, the goal of all the religious teaching in the world will be the resurrection of the spirit in mankind;”

Even though Paul had soul contact his strong personality kept him from becoming one with the molecule and he wound up introducing Christianity’s’ most destructive doctrines through his own personality efforts.

The story of Paul also illustrates that one doesn’t have to be in a molecule to do great works. Paul had his faults but he was still a great initiate.

Dan: What happens to the incarnating entity when/if molecular flow becomes interrupted like this?

JJ The entity doesn’t incarnate until the molecule is stable. After that if there is an interruption of the energy flow the one who is the cause is merely replaced. Remember each molecule has associate members and one of these can replace one of the 24 at any time.

Dan:

In the case of scenario #1, we must assume the guy was PREVIOUSLY a full, active, flowing member and then this one teaching caused him to “fall out” of group harmony, soul contact, flow or whatever. Is that likely to happen very often? That someone is able to contact the soul with the group readily, then POOF, the next day he suddenly CANNOT just because a challenging teaching comes his way?

JJ My intention was to present a situation as the molecule is in a state of formation, before the incarnation. The guy didn’t understand group soul contact because he hadn’t had it yet. Once the experience is achieved he then knows what it feels like and is less likely to disbelieve other members when they tell him they felt it again. If he is stuck in his personality beliefs he is likely to just not seek a contact that would reveal he is incorrect.

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to be a member to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

Keys Writings, Part 10

This entry is part 18 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 4, 2011
Soul Contact = Anarchy?

Dan writes: When a group of folks have attained consistent ‘soul contact’, what need is there for an ultimate decider (leader) (person in control/charge) as in ‘The Molecular Relationship’?

Can’t each just ‘tap in’ and get an “impression” as to what’s best in any particular situation (one aspect of soul contact is guidance/direction)?

If ‘soul contact’ is THE source, then why would there be disagreement about the best way to proceed (amongst peers – I can see why there might be between one ‘level’ and another)

JJ You’ve overlooked THE most important teaching of the Molecular Relationship which is this.

Soul contact alone by any group of people does not create a molecule. All this does is create an agreeable group that may or may not accomplish anything innovative, but should be fairly productive. Soul contact is merely one ingredient in the molecule like tires are an ingredient that makes up a usable car. The Molecular Order cannot be created until the initiating group has its initiator overshadowed by a member of a working molecule used by the Hierarchy. Without this link we only have a group like any other group that is now created in great numbers. When the link is established we will have a link to our hierarchy, which is linked to their hierarchy, which is linked to still a higher one on to the highest. The overshadowing will not take place on a permanent basis until the working ingredients are all in place.

Here is the chapter from The Molecular Relationship book on the subject:

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR

The Spiritual Link

In the days of Jesus the spiritual link was made at His baptism. John the Baptist stated several times that he did not know who the Christ was, even though Jesus was his cousin. On one occasion he was told how to recognize Him: “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see THE SPIRIT descending, and REMAINING ON HIM, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God.” John 1:33-34

Who was it that John called the Son of God? Most assume it was Jesus, but there is another entity involved here. This was the Spirit that descended and remained in Him. Was this the real Son of God?

While it is true that we are all sons of God, we also know that the Spirit that descended upon Jesus was a special entity. This is the person who is the Master of the Christ Energy for this planet. It is true that the Christ Energy is in us all, but on each planet there is one person who is the purest representative of that energy. He is given the official title of “The Christ.” This is the person who entered into the body of Jesus and was Melchizedek and also Krishna in a previous time. The disciple Jesus was Joshua in the days of Moses.

Therefore, after the baptism and the connection was made, two entities shared one body: There was Jesus, a son of Man and a member of humanity, and also the Christ, the unborn, an active member and leader of the Hierarchical Molecule.

Jesus often referred to this higher entity as his Father. His disciples misunderstood and thought he was referring to God in the normal sense. Nevertheless, the understanding of the principle of divine possession, of two entities in one body helps us to understand some of the more ambiguous statements of Jesus For instance: “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU I SPEAK NOT OF MYSELF: BUT THE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, HE DOTH THE WORKS.” John 14:7-10

Jesus made many references like this, but the disciples were slow to understand exactly where or who the Father was. Jesus even went so far as to promise that the disciples could have the same experience of divine possession that he had: “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and WE WILL COME UNTO HIM, AND MAKE OUR ABODE WITH HIM.” John 14:23

This prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. The Molecular energy manifested, and the apostles felt the presence of the Hierarchical entities merging with them, thus giving them the spiritual energy which had been long lost from the earth.

One of the more interesting references that Jesus made to the Molecular connection is as follows: “I am the vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. AS THE BRANCH CANNOT BEAR FRUIT OF ITSELF, EXCEPT IT ABIDE IN THE VINE; NO MORE CAN YE, EXCEPT YE ABIDE IN ME. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for WITHOUT ME YE CAN DO NOTHING. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered’ and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. ” John 15:1-7

A tree or a vine is an excellent illustration of the Molecular Principle. The fluid in the tree corresponds to the spiritual energy of the Molecule. The vines and branches 89

are like the tributaries of that energy. Jesus said that for a branch to bear fruit, or to even continue to have life, it must be connected to the vine, and that he was the vine, or the source of the spiritual energy for this planet.

If the branch is severed from the vine, it receives no fluid, life. It then withers and dies and is good for nothing except to be gathered and burned. What kind of life was he referring to here? Virtually none of humanity are connected to the Vine, or the Molecular Order at the present, yet humans definitely are alive. We must bear in mind that Jesus was referring to a much greater life, a life source which is eternal with no limitations and a fullness of joy. This is a life so great by comparison to what we have now that to one experiencing the greater life, what we have now would be considered death.

Examining nature provides us with an understanding of this principle. When a branch is severed from a tree it does not immediately die, but still looks healthy and normal for a short period of time. However, it only takes a short time before it withers and looks deathly in comparison to the connected branches. Long after the severed branch is dried and burned is the connected branch still alive and well.

We are all severed branches from the Vine of God. We may appear to be alive and well, but it only takes a few years before the signs of death and disease become apparent. If we are connected to the True Vine, we then have an eternal supply of life energy and eventually even death is overcome.

The Vine that was established on the earth in the period of Jesus was rejected by humanity. They chose death instead of life. But now we are approaching a new era, an age wherein the Molecular Order will again be established on the earth and eventually accepted, and will cause a transformation of the entire planet.

The first step in this process is to create an actual Molecule in a correct state of balance. When this is then done, and possibly even before, a member of the Hierarchical Molecule will descend into one of the bodies of a member of the Order. Thus, we will again have a body on the earth possessed by two kindred spirits that will link humanity up to the spiritual flow from the presence of God. If the Molecule is then at a point of oneness, the divine energy that is carried into the body of the disciple by the Hierarchical member will circle around and flow through the bodies of the rest of the members and they will be instantly translated from the Kingdom of Man to the Kingdom of God. This will be a time of tremendous rejoicing in the spiritual spheres, for it will be a time of the creation of true spiritual life on the earth, which will lead man back to his true inheritance.

Oct 5, 2011
More on the Molecule

Dan: I assume the ultimate will be for each member of each Hierarchical Molecule to overshadow ‘his’ own Human Molecule. So a single Hierarchical Molecule of say 12 individuals would spawn 12 separate Human Molecules “under” it.

JJ There only needs to be one link in the human kingdom and the link would be made either by Christ himself or through another master under his direction. The only reason for a second link is if there was some type of separation where the molecules could not communicate. The second molecule (and others that follow) would then be linked to the first – not bypassing it and going to a second Master. The members of additional molecules will have access to the spiritual flow just as does the first. An overshadowing of a disciple only needs to take place in the initiating molecule.

Dan: That would seem to indicate (at least to me 🙂 that the Human Molecular initiate must be of the Human Kingdom rather than the God Kingdom, ie; (s)he would not have achieved the 5th Initiation yet and therefore likely a 4th degree initiate, READY for the 5th.

JJ You are on the right track. A molecule in the human kingdom must be created by regular mortals. The masters will not come and do it fort us, except for creating the spiritual link when we are ready.

JJ wrote: “… the divine energy that is carried into the body of the disciple by the Hierarchical member will circle around and flow through the bodies of the rest of the members and they will be instantly translated from the Kingdom of Man to the Kingdom of God.

Dan: Is this ‘translation’ permanent for each member (as in a ‘normal’ 5th initiation) or only “in effect” if/when/while (s)he is acting in a Molecule?

Does each Molecular member have to be a 4th degree initiate to begin with, or is the ‘translation’ sort of a shortcut from whatever initiation level the member already is directly to the 5th (God Kingdom) at least “in effect”?

JJ The quote you gave refers to a duplication of the day of Pentecost where all the members were engulfed in a spiritual fire. This changed them but they didn’t have that high intensity with them all the time after the experience. At that time Peter was the one that was overshadowed and was the link. This is why to this day the Pope, who sits in Peter’s seat, is said to be “in the place of the Son of God.”

The regular members of a molecule do not have to be high initiates but must be supportive and not be resistant to soul energy but seek to have it.

Oct 6, 2011
Re: More on the Molecule

JJ quote: The regular members of a molecule do not have to be high initiates but must be supportive and not be resistant to soul energy but seek to have it.

Dan: That is GOOD to know.

Isn’t everyone WITHOUT consistent soul contact resistant to soul energy to some degree – almost by definition – even if they are seeking to have it?

JJ There are a lot of good people without full soul contact who are neither resistant or accept soul contact because they know not what it is. A person has to do three things to achieve contact.

(1) Seek communication from God, as one understands the term.

(2) Pay attention to all possible extra sensory communications sent to you.

(3) Act on those communications that seem to be valid.

(4) Do not resist following intelligence that is higher than yourself.

Many people receive soul contact on some points but then will resist on others that go against their mindset. Often advanced people have more beliefs stored in their brains which cause more resistance than their brothers who are not as far along on the path. In this case the one who is not so far along may be more useful for group work where acceptance of controversial ideas is essential.

The bottom line is one cannot rule anyone out for being in a molecule who is sincere, who seeks the truth and has a cooperative spirit.

Jesus said many times, “The first shall be last and the last first.” Sometimes the most advanced souls develop stumbling blocks that hinder their usefulness for a time – but fortunately most of them will catch themselves after a time and move forward again.

Dan Is there anything other than what you’ve taught about seeking soul contact that we can do to “lower our resistance to soul energy” even WITHOUT soul contact?

JJ Take note of the four points above. If you follow the highest you know you will naturally move forward over time. The earthly self often doesn’t want to follow the highest so choosing the highest is good exercise in overcoming resistance.

Also – if there is a question with a brother who seems to have soul contact then seek an answer through the soul together even if you may resist an answer contrary to your views. One cannot get an answer if his mind is fixed beforehand.

Dan If folks were to decide that they trusted the Molecular Initiate enough to argue/debate but ultimately allow him to make the final decisions, whilst still always SEEKING their own soul contact – would that work?

JJ Yes, that would work as long as there is no resentment or grievance.

Dan I suppose tho, when it came right down to the nitty gritty, it’s unlikely that anyone without soul contact would keep that committment – especially if their own personal sacred cows were at issue.

JJ A person has to have a degree of soul contact for a molecule to work, but if he ceases progressing toward Spirit then it will only be a matter of time before he has a falling out with the leader or other members.

JJ Quote: The regular members of a molecule do not have to be high initiates but must be supportive and not be resistant to soul energy but seek to have it.

Blayne: This sounds so simple yet is apparently so illusive. Most here are seeking soul contact yet must be still too resistant to soul energy to form a molecule…

JJ If the whole group here were physically gathered in one location it is quite possible we could form a working molecule. Creating one through the internet would be difficult indeed.

Blayne: Apparently one cannot just disagree on some aspect and still be supportive but one must come to agreement through the soul before the energy can flow freely?

JJ That’s basically the principle. Now often people can disagree about non essential items and still have oneness in soul on the essentials. But when an essential is seen differently then the two (or more) must seek higher contact as one and seek the same answer from the same source so they can become one. This is where becoming as a child enters in.

JJ wrote: At that time Peter was the one that was overshadowed and was the link. This is why to this day the Pope, who sits in Peter’s seat, is said to be “in the place of the Son of God.”

Dan: “Said” by whom? If this is WHY they say it, then obviously whomever “says” that (or originated the saying) must know of the overshadowing/Molecular Relationship (whether by those names or some other). Are you saying the Catholic hierarchy secretly knows of/believes in overshadowing and the significance of the Tree of Life?

JJ Larry was correct when he said the Catholic Hierarchy knows nothing about the Molecule. The Pope has always been seen as infallible because he stands in the place of God or Christ for the church. In the beginning it was realized by the leaders that Peter was possessed by the spirit of Christ so they assumed the Pope, who occupied Peter’s seat, would be also. This caused the church to see the Pope as infallible.

The doctrine of infallibility remains but the details of how it originated is partly lost.

Steve Jobs Quotes Posted by John C “Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure – these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart. … Stay hungry. Stay foolish.” — Stanford University commencement address, June 2005.

“You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.” — Stanford University commencement address, June 2005.

JJ Great quotes John.

I think it is possible the seeds of his disease was planted when he was fired from Apple, the company he founded. That had to hurt and if he didn’t let the negative feelings go it could have created major problems for his health.

Oct 7, 2011
Seeing What We Want, Part 2

Rob reminded me to continue my post on Seeing What We Want. I have not forgotten. Sometimes members ask good questions that need to be answered and if I do not answer them when asked they may not get answered. Here is the continued post.

We’ve established the fact that many humans are inclined to believe in doom because of various programming from their past, but there is another important reason. To understand this reason we must look at both attitudes toward the future.

(1) A disturbing percentage of the population see the future as dark with lots of gloom and doom, followed by destruction. It is all in God’s (or Nature’s) hands and there is little or nothing we can do about it, except accept the inevitable.

(2) A minority are optimistic about the future and see that humanity does have a reasonable say in their future. We have power to correct past mistakes and create a better world.

What’s the difference between these two attitudes? This answer is key and here it is.

Attitude one embraces the path of least resistance, destruction or the path of entropy. This becomes real if intelligent creative force is not applied. A disintegration of organization always happens if nothing is done to prevent it.

Attitude two embraces the path of high resistance and is the path of creation. Creation of the good and the beautiful take place when we place our attention on building the world we want and desire for happiness.

Another way to look at this is – attitude one is the lazy man’s way. He throws his hands in the air and does nothing but leave his destiny up to God. Unfortunately for him God does not approve of laziness and will leave such a person to his own devises to learn a lesson.

On the other hand, the second attitude is the path of constructive labor and service. This is the path of those who are not lazy but are industrious and usually make something of their lives.

Have you noticed that the vast majority of those who preach doom and gloom are as poor as church mice? Their lazy belief translates to a lazy approach in taking care of themselves and their families.

It takes a certain amount of industrious thought to merely contemplate and expect a better tomorrow.

So what about the fact that real destructive things do happen now and again? If we are not lazy, but positive, does this mean we do not take such future possibilities into consideration.

No it doesn’t, but what it does mean is that we will not plan on gloom and doom when there is no reason to.

For instance, many have been concerned about Elenin destroying us when there was no reason behind it. From the beginning calculations determined it was only a small comet a few miles across and was definitely not a red or brown dwarf. There was less than a chance in billions that it could do us any harm and any connection between its location and earthquakes had to be coincidence. Remember coincidences happen and they happen often. If we look for them we will find them.

The creative person will move forward as if he has eternity awaiting him and will only give destruction much thought when reason or intuition tells him to.

For instance in this time we are faced with a dire economic situation. Collapse is not a sure thing but it is a possibility. For the first time I have recommended that we prepare for even worse times by storing up some food and necessities. At the way inflation is proceeding this is a good investment even if there is no further collapse as food prices have gone up about 25% the past year, so whatever you bought a year ago is worth quite a bit more today.

Right now it is a good idea to live your life as if everything will work out well, but be prepared for the worst just in case.

Now concerning Rob’s question of how to get rid of illusionary foundational beliefs…

The first thing the seeker must do is to realize he probably has a blind spot or two and be open to the possibility that he has some illusion. If the seeker does not find his illusion then he cannot dispel it and he will not find it unless he looks for it.

I’ve already stated the most important thing we can all do and that is to follow the highest we know. If we do this in all honesty then illusion will eventually be revealed and dispelled.

One can speed up the process by focusing on finding the real and testing as well as proving all things. If a thing is true then it works. If it is not true then it does not fit into the bigger picture and causes things not to work.

The seeker who feels his life is not working out for him or gets frustrated usually has some illusion because illusion and error causes things to not work as desired.

Find the areas of life where the greatest frustration dwells and it is quite possible illusion is at the root of it. If the illusion is a dearly held belief it will take an act of will to let it go. If one does not let it go then the soul will bring pain into his life and force him to let it go. This sometimes takes a significant amount of time, however.

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to be a member to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

Keys Writings, Part 9

This entry is part 17 of 34 in the series 2011C

Sept 22, 2011
Einstein was wrong?
Particles can go faster than the speed of light?

Here’s some statements from the archives concerning my thoughts on the speed of light:

6/9/2000 Thank you Samu for your post about exceeding the speed of light. I have always thought this was possible and wrote a while back that Einstein’s theories would be revised after interstellar flight is achieved. Perhaps part of this knowledge will be discovered in the near future.

5/7/2002
Breaking the Speed of Light
Using normal experiments they can’t make things go faster than the speed of light. However, they’ve done some type of subtle experiments with sub-atomic particles that seem to accomplish that but it’s open to interpretation.

When I was using this in reference to the universe I was making the point that the universe seemed to be very evenly expanding and how the speed of light is correspondingly so uniform. I think it’s possible that the uniformity that we have is based on some illusion and that we may discover some principles around this that will open up avenues, making it possible to go faster than the speed of light sometime in the future. Then, of course, there are spiritual principles that can be used whereby we can definitely go faster than the speed of light. But that’s another matter.

Quote from a post made in 1994 Atoms and molecules above the temperature of Absolute Zero does have vibration as do all objects of form. Atoms contain no solid matter and ultimately are created from wavelengths that are in vibration at just below the speed of light. There is other matter created from wavelengths vibrating beyond the speed of light that is beyond our detection.

Sept 29, 2011
Removing Barriers
Blayne asked how one can overcome the obstacles to unity. This is an important question – one that we should never put completely to rest.

Emotionally, the two major hurdles are oversensitivity and various glamours. Mentally the basic problem is illusion.

A problem common to both is a overly critical attitude.

The simple solution to these is found in one of my core truisms:

“Follow the highest you know.”

To follow the highest you know the seeker must have a pure heart. A pure heart greatly increases the power of the pilgrim. “My strength is as the strength of ten because my heart is pure,” said Tennyson.

So, what exactly does it mean to be pure in heart?

We all know that it is a good thing to be pure in heart but rarely has anyone tried to define it. Perhaps it is time to do it.

Here are some of the aspects that should be embraced by a person whose heart is pure:

(1) When such a person voices an intention, that intention is what it appears to be. There is no hidden intention that will cause harm or loss to others. In other words, the intention of the heart is pure, purely what it is expressed to be.

(2) He (or she) attempts to follow the path of harmlessness.

(3) He is honest with himself and others. “To thine own self be true” is the keynote here. You wouldn’t think it would be common for people to lie to themselves but they often do to fulfill the demands of the lower ego.

(4) When error is revealed he will accept the truth and make corrections. This is very difficult for the average person.

(5) He is inclusive rather than exclusive.

(6) He desires to do what is best for the whole rather than putting isolated attention on the part.

(7) He loves his fellowmen and seeks to be of service.

I’m sure this list could be expanded, but this is a good start and takes us the right direction.

A person must be pure in heart to follow the highest he knows for if he is not he will deceive himself and follow some easy deceptive path while lying to himself and assuring himself he is doing the right thing when he is not.

There is no magic bullet to remove the barriers to unity and soul contact but such will take many years and even lifetimes to attain. Even if progress may seem slow at times we must never get discouraged. It is true that sometimes you will be doing your best and it may seem that nothing is happening, but something will be happening.

If you are following the highest you know you will have an inner peace and a general feeling you are headed the right direction. Then at an hour where you may be expecting nothing you will have wonderful experiences that will renew your faith and bring joy to your heart because you will know that all your effort has not been in vain.

The two major problems of glamour and illusion are extremely difficult obstacles to unity. One of the major reasons is that the seeker who is under bondage to them will usually not feel they affect him.

The Course in Miracles tells us to recognize the problem so it can be solved. Illusion and glamour often go unrecognized and often goes for lifetimes unrecognized in the life of the aspirant.

If I had to give one key to removing barriers to unity and soul contact it would have to be centered around this quote from Socrates:

“A life unexamined, is not worth living.”

The disciple must constantly examine himself or he will never find the necessary problems to solve. At the end of each day (and often in the middle) he should ask questions such as:

(1) What flaws do I have that I am not seeing?

(2) How can I correct them?

(3) Do the various criticisms of me from my friends and associates have any merit? If not – why are they criticizing me?

(4) What are my blind spots?

(5) Am I keeping my ego in check?

(6) Do others think I have an air of superiority? If so, why?

(7) What are some foundation beliefs that have been planted in me that could be creating illusion? Are these beliefs accepted by me as being true because I am not examining them in the light of day or would they just be difficult for me to change?

One must never cease questioning. One cannot truly examine his life without asking lots of them.

It would be nice if a teacher could just say, “Do A, B & C and then you will have sufficient soul contact,” but such is not the case. The path is long and the trek strenuous but in the end the disciple would have it no other way because a fulfilling joy awaits at the end of the journey.

Sept 30, 2011
The Real Illusion
It always amazes that even though 99% of specific prophecies do not come true that there is never a shortage of people attempting to get the glory and accolades for making one that would.

We’ve had a couple more failed ones the past few days.

First as I related a while back David B. Cohen MD has predicted that a Supernova will occur in the constellation of Orion, which was supposed to open The Seventh Seal. This was supposed to happen Sept 23.

It is now Sept 30 and there is no supernova in sight.

He probably chose Orion for his predictions because scientists say that the giant star, Betelgeuse, located there, will go supernova. What he didn’t take into consideration is that it probably will not happen for another million years.

Then we had another prediction around Elenin. It was supposed to cause massive earthquakes around Sept 26 or 27th.

Again, nothing happened. But are believers discouraged?

Not hardly. As usually happens with failed predictions rationalization sets in. Now the word is that Elenin was just a foreshadowing of the real red dwarf star which will shortly come and doom us all.

It is an amazing thing to Google Elenin. Instead of getting writings from any type of real scientists on it at least 95% of the sites associate Elenin with Nibiru, a red dwarf, the end of the world, God’s judgment, UFOs, NASA cover-ups or other conspiracies.

This is indeed an example of an illusion but it is an illusion that should be easy for disciples to see through.

But the thing to take note of is the real core illusion is hidden. Because the truth around Elenin is obvious to the rational mind we can assume that the hype around Elenin is merely a symptom of the true illusion of the alarmists.

I haven’t given the group a question for a while so here is a good one.

What was the real illusion that caused so many to think that Elenin would bring great destruction by now?

As we discuss this I will respond more to Rob’s question.

Oct 1, 2011
Finding the Principle

The question: What was the real illusion that caused so many to think that Elenin would bring great destruction by now?

The group gave some great responses to this question. Here are some:

Dan: That man is an un-natural and evil occurrence that deserves to and should be severely punished.

Ruth: The answer could be that the main core foundational beliefs come from the Bible

Larry W gave an interesting account as to why Elenin attracted his interest.

Judy: They seek an outside-God and external instead of internal spiritual path.

Tom: I think it is fear of death, doom or dying…or being helpless. It gives these others who make the dooms day predication the power to scare the living crap out of people. Also, the illusion of an outward authority figure. It is Fear!!!!

Johann: That change is bad and is to be avoided and a it is a belief in a static unchangeable world/universe where nothing is added to or subtracted from the “fragile” visible order that is.

Then the core belief in the end has to be that we humans cannot create and if we can not create (only god can) then the only things we can create is chaos and death or entropy in a static system.

Kelly: This is another doomsday prophecy that enables the lazy out there to casts shadows on the light and make them believe their end has come. It generates a belief in powerlessness, instills greater fear so to speak and kills hope in people. Hence, the message that comes to me would be «Here is humanity: the product of inevitable destruction so don’t even try! What’s the point in trying so just give up now and save yourself the energy». Sad to say but if you ask people around you, what they’ll do if the earth is coming to an end, they will actually begin to celebrate.

Clayton quotes his friend: “I probably should not merely be resigned to the end, I should actually look forward to the end, as it will resolve all the problems…”

Blayne The real illusion is that such destruction would be a sort of cleansing wiping out the bad guys and the good guys would get to rebuild society without all the problems of today. And of course the strongest believers assume they are these good guys. When in fact it would set back humanity thousands of years.

Rob: I submit that a doom-and-gloom mindset is caused by the belief in the separation of God and man, and that separation is underpinned by the belief that “God is perfect”.

Marcy: I too spent many years anxious and worried about the 2nd coming/end of the world and it came from feeling that I had a responsibility to understand the end of the world prophesies/scripture! I was one of the good gals – of coarse 🙂 – and needed to help others prepare, prepare, prepare so they too could be on the right side of the Lord when the end came.

I even had a little panic when JJ recently recommended food storage again since I had given up my food-storage-hobby!

LWK So I don’t suppose we should be surprised that many people expect disaster. It is what they experienced in many of their lives. You might say their soul is “conditioned” to expect disaster.

JJ LWK’s answer was one few would have thought of yet contains a lot of truth. Good thinking Larry.

Yes, a lot of our illusions and other flaws have their origins in past lives. We may not have our memories when we are reborn but many of our basic impulses carry over.

We do not realize how good we have it in this age and how much things have changed. Through most of our recorded history average people lived in fear of catastrophic happenings.

Today if there is crop failure in Kansas they just import what they need from somewhere else that had good weather. But in the old says a famine created mass starvation. It was just 150 years ago that one million people died from the Irish Potato Famine. Even today there are still many millions starving in various parts of the world.

Very few of us lived in freedom in our past lives and had to deal with a king or tyrant who had power over our lives.

In other words, many of us faced the end of our personal world many times in our past lives. This has got to have a strong influence on us in the present and cause the consciousness of many to contemplate some type of apocalypse.

That said the group did a great job of describing influences that lead to doomsday illusions, but no one has described the principle.

Think… what is the principle involved.

Hint: All these influences the group mentioned push the pilgrim toward illusion, but what actually makes him see and chose illusion over reality? What principle explains it?

Oct 2, 2011
Finding What You Are Looking For

The Question: What is the actual principle involved that causes people to focus on end of the world scenarios?

Again, we had some good comments and insights. Here are a few (but not all) of the good ones. Larry W Powerlessness. People don’t feel good enough to tackle their own problems. They feel powerless.

They want a Hercules or a Christ figure to come and solve their tough problems while they only address the smaller problems.

While I’m asking these questions, JJ, when are you gonna recreate yourself perfect? I realize if you did it for us that would probably violate some principle like helping the butterfly emerge from the cocoon too easy, but you could do that for yourself.

When healing someone using this kind of power, does the malady get healed only, or does the whole person get renewed?

Johann You do find what you look for but what makes them look for outward signs for the end of the world? It must be a corrupted perception of the world and in that perception the whole truth is not seen, like when we do not see the whole truth about our past lives.

Intolerance. Copy copy copy instead of adaption and a new creation or Lo and behold, I make everything new.

Natalie: My thought was Wrong Perception. Wrong perception that comes from corruption of thought from many sources.

Rob: Inertia the principle that causes us to choose the illusion of always expecting a disaster on the horizon?

Maybe we have collective inertia to always be on the lookout for disaster because for hundreds of past lives looking out for and avoiding disaster allowed us to survive.

Adam One of the great illusions is to see ourselves as victims,

We find what we’re looking for. Everything discussed pushes us toward the illusion that we want to be our reality. When we find something that lines up with the reality we desire, we embrace it.

Sharon: I was thinking maybe it is the Pendulum Principle, where the persons current understanding of the truth is at one of the extremes. This makes the person believe that the current pathway is the correct one to follow, but it is not until they go further to the extreme that they can eventually see the truth and then go back to the centre again where they can more accurately discern the truth.

And also a lot of information has 85% of truth and 15% error which makes people think that the information is all truth, making the information seem probable.

Jerry The principle is they lack true, proper and correct principles

Blayne: The driving principle behind this is that it is what they want to happen. The see what the expect to see and find evidence to support it whether it is true or not.

You find what you look for whether it is true or an illusion. if it is illusion you will latch on to the biggest thought form that fits what you a re looking for. If it is the true you will find that.

Ruth: There have been times where I have been under the spell of some illusion, and after a while I recognized the illusion and what it was, but I still pursued the illusion because it was what I wanted (desired)at the time, even when I knew it wasn’t real. Perhaps the Principle lays in this desire somewhere?

JJ The core principle involved was enunciated by three posters, Johann, Adam and Blayne. The principle is this:

“You find what you are looking for.”

Since the group is doing so well with insights let us go another round before I give my two cents.

Questions.

If we find what we are looking for then why in the world are so many looking for doom, destruction and gloom rather than creation, joy and prosperity?

Have you found yourself being guilty of this misdirection yourself?

What is the key to shifting our attention toward the good, the beautiful and the true?

Is such a shift really possible when every day we read and hear from associates about events and situations that indicate calamity may be around the corner?

What is the difference between finding what you are looking for and finding what you are looking at?

Oct 3, 2011
Seeing What We Want

Again, the group gave an impressive response to my questions. Unfortunately, I do not have time to itemize them and comment but will attempt to paint an overall picture.

As we said earlier, each of us has lived many lives and in the past our lifetimes were a much greater struggle for survival than they are today. I know life is difficult enough today, but in the past we had to worry about losing our heads if we said the wrong thing, losing our possessions through conquest or tyranny, losing our freedom etc. Despite our problems, we really have it good today compared to times past.

In addition to deep-seated feelings from past lives there are other influences.

Religion is a big one and influences many, even a few that aren’t that religious. But those who are strong in a faith take prophecies of doom much more serious.

The problem is that most of the world scriptures talk about some type of end of the world scenario. If one takes the Book of Revelations literally and think that the time of fulfillment is near then doom and gloom will indeed be his lot.

Islam expects the coming of a great savior, the Imam Mahdi, who will appear coinciding with great destruction. Many think the Jewish state must be destroyed first.

A problem which many of the religious do not consider is that numerous writers of religious works were strongly influenced by a negative thought form themselves. When reading the New Testament with an open mind it becomes obvious that they expected some type of end of the world, not now, 2000 years later, but in their day.

Do you see any visionaries in this day making end of the world predictions for the year 4000 and beyond? No one even thinks that far ahead.

Even so, in the first century I can assure you that 2000 years in their future was not even in their minds. Their concept of time was more limited than ours. Most thought like Paul who said: “we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord…” I Thess 4:15

Most of the early Christians thought the end of the world was near and they would live through it to see the coming of Christ in glory.

This mistake has been repeated decade after decade, century after century since then.

Later Christian sects had this same problem. The Mormons, the Adventists, the Jehovah Witnesses and others all thought they would see the end of the world and coming of the Lord in their lifetime. This occurred at the foundation of these sects and this belief continues with their members today.

It is interesting that this religious type gloom and doom is not restricted to believers in God. Many atheists and agnostics have fallen into this trap with a religious type belief in an environmental apocalypse that borders on the fanatical.

Al Gore has scared the uneducated and little kids as much as any old time preacher has with the fires of hell. His illustrations of how global warming will submerge many of our cities and lands underwater and destroy thousands of species is terrifying to those who love Mother Earth.

Fortunately, the data does not back him up but the media falls behind him just as the old time media did with the doom and gloom preachers not that long ago.

Many of these environmentalists see humans as a virus that mother nature wants to destroy to heal itself. Some feel that there is only room for a few million people and all will be destroyed except for a handful of purists. Of course, the true believers think they will qualify to remain here after the polluters are destroyed.

I talked with a member of the Sierra Club a while back and he was expecting an end to the civilized world in the near future. He seemed to think he would happily live in the wild on berries or something and not be affected by it.

This thinking is indeed prevalent. And why? The reason lies deeper than the influence of scriptures, writings and teachers. Those caught up in such things are usually frustrated with the life they are living. They see the situation as it is now as hell and want it turned into a heaven. They are powerless to make earth heaven by their own power (so they think) so they expect God or Mother Nature to do it for them. All the bad things will de destroyed and replaced with the new.

For the heavenly world to make its appearance the present world must be destroyed. Therefore, what do the true believers look for?

They look for signs of destruction for such signs also means that a heavenly new creation will shortly follow.

The principle involved is that we find what we look for and if we eagerly await destruction then that is what we look for and signs of such is also what we see.

We had gone through a small space of time when there were no major threatening planetary alignments or signs in the heavens when Elenin was discovered. Normally the discovery of a fairly insignificant comet would be no big deal but then someone posted alarm and predictions of doom around this followed by statements that NASA was covering up the fact that it was a red dwarf that was doomed to destroy us.

Instead of checking out valid scientific data on this, which was readily available, those who were looking for signs saw this as a sign the end was near. Soon the internet was ablaze with misinformation about this comet.

I found the noted Coast to Coast science advisor, Richard C. Hoagland’s comments on Elenin interesting. He is an educated and intelligent man but has certain mindsets and always finds what he is looking for. For instance, he believes there were ancient civilizations on Mars and the moon and in almost every picture he studies he sees remnants of ancient structures. I look at the same pictures and see structures that are most probably natural formations.

Well, George Noory asked him what he thought of the Elenin predictions. Being an actual scientist he had to admit it was just a couple miles in diameter and was far from being any red dwarf. He could see the chances of it causing any destruction were slim. But when this guy looks at anything long enough he always finds something very odd – because that is what he is looking for.

After studying Elenin he found what he considered as too many oddities to be a normal comet and determined that it was some probe sent here by aliens. It might be here to cause destruction or maybe just to study us and we should find out soon.

Elenin has now came and gone from its closest approach to the earth and there is no sign that it is an alien manufactured device. Hoagland has since moved on to other subjects.

The fact remains that Elenin is a small comet having a miniscule probability of having any effect on us.

Seeing anything else is merely the result of seeing what one looks for.

There’s 50 pictures on this site. Take a look. You will not be disappointed.

Great Pictures from Space HERE

Copyright 2011 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

Keys Writings, Part 8

This entry is part 16 of 34 in the series 2011C

Aug 28, 2011
Global Warming

Let Al Gore Read and Weep Al Gore is now placing Global Warming skeptics in the same category as racists in the old South. He’ll have to read the following articles and weep.

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-1923349\ 71.html

Cern’s 8000 real scientists who don’t have a dog in the global warming fight tell us that cosmic rays will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century. It looks like the amount of effect humans have on climate will have to be revised downward. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/

Aug 30, 2011

36 Keys & More

Larry Woods writes: Help me out. I’m trying to catalog JJ’s teachings about Keys rather than learning them by reading JJ’s book series which walks us through a discovery process in John’s teaching tradition. As far as I can tell JJ mentioned 60 Keys so far, five sets of twelve. Since it has been 14 years since he published the first book and we only got 3 Keys so far (in the main set of 36 pertaining to JJ’s teaching mission) it will take about 154 years to get the remainder. But, with your help I hope to learn them and to contemplate them in this life time. I’m currently re-reading The Immortal series for the third time so I will soon recall the other two Keys of Knowledge. Do any of you know more than the first three? I know many of you, like Ruth and Dan and Duke and Mindy and others have grown extremely facile in searching JJ’s writings. In The Immortal series, John commissions JJ to teach 36 Keys: of Knowledge, of Understanding, and of Eternal Life. I want to see them on a list so I can commit them to memory and contemplate them often. Since his last book, JJ also mentioned and taught about Keys of Discipleship. I list those here. Did he also mention Keys of Judgment? Or was that just one of the Keys of Knowledge? That would be 60 Keys. He also mentioned there are other “sets” of Keys out there on various topics. Please help me fill out these lists.

JJ When I have causally mentioned Keys this does not mean they belong to the 36 Keys. All I have definitely given out so far are four Keys of Knowledge and hints at the Fifth Key at the end of Eternal Words. I have also written about some of the other keys but have not identified them as such. For instance, one might assume that The Molecular Relationship somehow involves a Key of Knowledge.

They Keys given out so far are 1. Decision 2. Judgement 3. Right Perception 4. The Book of Revelation is the Key to the path of the disciple as revealed in The Unveiling. 5. Hint is given at the end of Eternal Words.

Aug 31, 2011

Infuriating Story

Here’s a story that will get Blayne’s blood boiling and cause alarm for many others over First Amendment rights. I could see Blayne standing up for his rights the same way if he were in the situation of the guy in the video.

http://www.infowars.com/man-faces-life-in-jail-for-recording-police. Be sure and watch the video.

Sept 1, 2011

Lincoln quote on labor

Good to have you back again, John.

I believe your thinking is sound here, John. Capital could not exist without labor for labor produces all that has value represented by capital. Capital either directly represents labor completed or future labor.

Farmer A has $1000 worth of apples and issues 100 certificates equal to $10 worth of apples.

Farmer B has not yet harvested his apples and does the same thing but his certificates are redeemable for $10.00 worth of apples from the future harvest.

Farmer A has created money on a principle similar to the old silver certificates redeemable in the present for silver.

Farmer B has created fiat money roughly similar to the Federal Reserve backed by something not yet in existence.

In both cases neither would have any value if the farmer did contribute his labor to produce a commodity of value.

I did write the financial series you mentioned. You can find the first one here:

http://www.freeread.com/archives/2395

At the end of the article are links to the entire series.

Sept 2, 2011

Funny Story

This story reminds me of something my friends grew up with could gave done.

http://www.kspr.com/news/local/kspr-3000-pair-of-panties-dumped-along-ohio-roadw\ ay-20110901,0,4089405.story

Sept 6, 2011

Europeans Gone Wild

Obamacare supporters rave about Europe’s healthcare programs but this story could indicate that socialized medicine may come closer to driving people crazy than helping them.

Nearly 40 percent of Europeans suffer mental illness

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/04/us-europe-mental-illness-idUSTRE7832JJ\ 20110904

No matter how you look at it I was sure that almost 40% of Europeans couldn’t be mentally ill as we define it but the fact that this figure is thrown around is kind of funny in itself. Kinda makes you think that every other waiter there will have his tongue hanging out slobbering on you while you order.

Sept 7, 2011

One Conspiracy Down

One of the most influential conspiracy theories in our history was that we didn’t really go to the moon. One poll revealed that 20% of the public swallowed this idea.

This theory really illustrates that people find what they are looking for even if what they are looking for is illusion. The arguments they came up with were really convincing to those who didn’t look at the big picture.

Here are some on this link: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

BUT

We now have a satellite around the moon that zooms in to around 15 miles from the surface and has taken pictures of several of the moon landings. The resolution reveals, “paths when they walked on the moon, as well as ruts left by a moon buggy. Experts could even identify the backpacks astronauts pitched out of their lunar landers before they returned to Earth.”

This pretty much nullifies all the “proof” previously presented that we did not go to the moon.

http://news.yahoo.com/astronauts-tracks-trash-seen-moon-photos-171551736.html

I’m for anything that leads to greater space exploration. I am really looking forward to the New Horizons craft to reach Pluto in a few years. It is about halfway there now.

Did you hear about a guy just using Google Mars who appeared to find a building on Mars? Take a look

http://scienceray.com/astronomy/the-most-important-discovery-on-mars-convince-yo\ ur-eyes-video/

Sept 14, 2011

Abe Lincoln Handwriting

I took a look at Abe’s handwriting and there is not enough evidence to declare for certain that he was a walkin. If he was a walkin the incident would have happened a short time before the Lincoln Douglas debates (1858) for it was around this time that his intelligence and focus seemed to be enhanced. The elements of the personality did not change much after that time but his nervous system showed a lot more stress. The war, of course, put a lot of stress on him but if he was a walkin the adjustment could have also added to it.

Near the end of his life his health was suffering from the stress (according to the handwriting) which agrees with some investigators who believe believe he was suffering from some type of serious problem. Historians tell us that before he became president he took a medicine that contained mercury so he probably had mercury poisoning. No wonder the original Abe wanted to leave his body. He had a terrible wife and may have been dying of mercury poisoning that can lead to madness. Whoever was in the body after 1860 did a great job of retaining composure and it is remarkable that he became the one considered to be our greatest president by historians.

Sept 14, 2011

Update on Elenin

Last Saturday (Sept 10th) Comet Elenin passed its first major milestone that was supposed to bring great destruction. On this date it reached its closest approach to the sun.

It should now be clear to all that:

(1) Elenin is not a Brown Dwarf star. It cannot even be seen with the naked eye but only with good binoculars or a telescope. (2) It’s tail is not showering us with a reign of terror falling from the skies nor is such an event even close to likely now or in the future.

The next major date on the schedule is September 26th or 27th. This is the day when we will be lined up again in a straight line with the sun, earth and Elenin. Many are predicting a great earthquake or worse.

Sept 16, 2011

Good Quote

Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.

Winston Churchill

Sept 16, 2011

Re: Understanding Illusion

I think everyone makes attempts at predicting the future at one time or another, including myself. I am much more cautious though than most for I realize how malleable it is.

Sept 19, 2011

Dark Brothers in Shamballa

Ruth asks: If the DB’s dwell in Shamballa, then how do they also dwell in physical bodies on Earth? If the DB’s cannot really physically incarnate, then how do they dwell in bodies on Earth?

JJ First of all, I do not recall reading anywhere in the Bailey writings that the dark brothers live in Shamballa. DK points out that Shamballa is created by a state of consciousness so one would think the Shamballa consciousness is much different than that had by the Dark Brotherhood.

DK does not say the leaders of the dark brothers are in the dense physical. Here is what he said: “The dark forces are ruled on the physical plane by a group of six oriental leaders and six occidental leaders.”

They merely rule the physical, but he does not say they are in the dense physical. They most likely dwell in etheric bodies which is often referred to as the physical by DK.

Sept 20, 2011

Another Prediction

Here is a prediction I lifted from Sterling’s forum. This guy is predicting a supernova this coming Friday so we do not have to wait log to see if he is correct.

JJ

The September equinox, also known as the autumnal equinox in the northern hemisphere, occurs at 09:04 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on September 23, 2011

A man named David B. Cohen MD has predicted that a Supernova will occur in the constellation of Orion, which will open The Seventh Seal.

His website is http://theadamiclanguage.com/index.html

Comments from http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8333

Dr. Cohen is a Cohanim (Jewish Priest) by birth and LDS because his father converted to Mormonism. He is very knowledgeable about symbols and dates. Because of his Jewish background, he has a very unique take on things. I read his book about the importance of symbols in Judaism and he has some good explanations. He may not be right about everything, but he’s a very bright man. And we can learn some things from him. It’s up to us to make our own decisions about what is correct and what isn’t, but from reading his book, I feel he is just trying to show us the deeper significance of some of these dates and signs. It’s very interesting. I don’t get the feeling at all that he thinks he’s a prophet….just a good observer.

see also

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8333

http://woodyoubelieveit.blogspot.com/2009/01/cohen-fireside-second-coming.html

Sept 21, 2011

Cancer cure!!!!!! Sodium Bicarbonate?

The advantage of baking soda is that it is one of the most alkaline products you can injest. I take about a half teaspoon on a glass of water daily just to keep my body in balance.

Some say that Arm and Hammer has aluminum in it so i recommend you by yours in a health food store or online at: http://www.vitacost.com/Bobs-Red-Mill-Aluminum-Free-Baking-Soda

I found another product that is one of the best things I have discovered for a while. It is a wine aerator. You can check it out here:

http://www.amazon.com/Vinturi-6700-Essential-Wine-Aerator/dp/B000UPOJ5W/ref=sr_1\ _1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316589504&sr=8-1

You might be able to find these cheaper on ebay. I bought mine at Costco for about $27.00.

Now this is sold as a method of making wine taste better but I have found that it makes water taste better also. Many think spring water is the healthiest because it is in motion and the motion oxygenates it. Well this device oxygenates anything you pass through it making regular water turn into spring water.

Larry W: This aerator looks interesting. But what makes it any better than the CHEAP aerator at your kitchen tap?

JJ You also get some aeration when you pour wine in a glass but this gizmo really does the job. Read the reviews on Amazon.

The tap, I am sure, does gives some aeration but many do not drink tap water any more because of chlorine, fluorine and other contaminates added. I drink a water that I purify myself as mentioned earlier. This gizmo is particularly good to use for water that has just been sitting in a jug.

I tested the PH of water after adding every substance in our kitchen and baking soda was the only one that significantly turned the PH toward alkaline. Even so, I agree with Blayne that apple cider vinegar is a very healthy drink and you can’t go wrong with it.

As for how much of anything one should take here is what I do. For general health I just take what feels right to my body. If it is for some specific treatment then take the recommended amount, but still tune in to your body to make sure there is not a negative reaction.

Sept 21, 2011

Sabbath Day

Concerning Israel and the Sabbath Silver Lining wrote: Elevators in Israel, as you know, open at every floor on Sabbath days so users need not press the button, because that would be work. But if you press the door open button at the same time as your floor number button and hold them both for five seconds, then the elevator does not make any intermediate stops (YouTube elevator hack). Applying this to elevators in Sabbath mode could save you a lot of elevator time in a Tel Aviv hotel.

JJ Sounds like the same type of Sabbath tricks they used in the time of Jesus. For instance you couldn’t wear your heavier sandals because that would mean walking would be more work. You were only allowed to walk so many steps on the Sabbath. You couldn’t walk through a wheat field because you may knock off a few kernels and that would constitute the work of harvesting grain on the Sabbath.

Isn’t it great to be able to rely on your own judgment rather than decrees from the beast that filters down through all belief systems?

Sept 21, 2011

Earth is Hell

“It is interesting that the scriptures indicate that this earth is hell.”

LWK I am curious which scripture(s) you had in mind when you wrote that? That is indeed an interesting subject.

JJ Actually, I was thinking of the LDS scriptures when I wrote that but there is evidence in the Bible also.

The strongest evidence is found in this scripture:

“These (the inhabitants of the telestial kingdom) are they who are thrust down to hell. These are they who receive NOT of his fulness…” D&C 76:84&86

And where is the telestial kingdom? The Mormon temple ceremony answers:

“Brethren and sisters, this represents the Telestial Kingdom, or the world in which we now live. (earth where people are thrust down to hell)

I wrote this in Mormonism and Reincarnation:

“And the sea gave up the dead which were in it.” What is the sea? The scripture explains: “The waters (the sea) which thou sawest where the whore sitteth are the peoples, and multitudes, and nations and tongues.” Rev 17:15. We are told that “Death (Physical death II Nephi 9:11) and Hell (the spiritually dead in hell. II Nephi 9:12) delivered up the dead which were in them.” Thus we see that on the last day ALL the spiritually dead including those still living on the earth (The sea) and all the Spirit world (Death and Hell) will be judged, and those who cannot abide the judgment must suffer a “second death” and be cast into the lake of fire (or another round of numerous lives of sorrow).

When Nephi was interpreting the filthy water in his vision he said it was “hell”. His brothers then asked: “Doth this thing mean the torment of the body in the days of probation, or doth it mean the final state of the soul after the death of the temporal body, or doth it speak of the things which are temporal? And it came to pass that I said unto them that it was a representation of things BOTH TEMPORAL AND SPIRITUAL.” I Nephi 15:31-32 Here we have it in plain English. Hell is both temporal and spiritual. Men can suffer for their sins both in and out of the body, and since this temporal existence is part of “hell” how are men going to be sent there after they die if they are not born again?

“There cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God; wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for that which is filthy.” I Nephi 15:34. Nephi tells us that that place which is prepared is hell, of which the filthy water in the vision was a symbol of, and such symbol “was a representation of things both temporal and spiritual”. Therefore those who suffer the temporal hell are sent back to the “temporal” earth.

There is more evidence of this from the Bible.

Jesus said: “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 10:28

The physical body does not follow us after death. The only place the body could be destroyed in hell is by destroying it on this earth.

In Revelations we are told that the New Jerusalem descended on the earth. After this happened it is written: “For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.” Rev 22:15

It appears that those who go to hell in the future are still on the earth, but just outside the location of the New Jerusalem.

Most of the people on the earth evolved from this planet and as they went through infancy they were not sensitive to the suffering of others because they did not have enough experience go have empathy. Some came from other planets and in our young earth they were indeed out of place. Let us suppose you were raised with wolves. You may have thought you were a wolf yourself and had difficulty in raising above their consciousness, but at the same time it would seem that you didn’t belong there with the pack. The pack itself were not criminals. They were just being who they were at the time.

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

 

 

Anwar al-Awlaki Discussion

This entry is part 15 of 34 in the series 2011C

Blayne: Looks like we have some full circle from freedom to despotism

Secret panel can put Americans on “kill list’

Read another article HERE

Duke:
Personally, I don’t think “American citizenship” should be a bullet-proof shield that a terrorist should be able to hide behind. I think the key factor is that good judgment be exercised in any such decisions. Members of the US military take an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States against “all enemies, foreign and domestic”, and I think an overseas American-turned-terrorist falls within that… ah… scope.

I don’t know any behind-the-scene specifics about al Awlaki so I can’t reliably say whether targeting him was good judgment or poor judgment. But note that since taking office, formerly anti-war Obama has authorized precisely the kind of military action that he was previsously quite critical of. His critics of course call it hypocricy, but I disagree. I think Obama simply now has much more information about the threats we face than he did back when he was a senator, to the point where he is now taking actions that would normally be against to his nature.

Dan Yeah, any “citizen” that incites/instigates terrorist plots against his own people/country, can pretty much expect to no longer be considered a citizen of that country (unless he’s a complete idiot 🙂

Murder is murder, foreign or domestic 🙂 if he was a good (bad) ‘target’ if a foreignor, citizenship doesn’t really change that assessment. A rabid dog will kill you, doesn’t matter that yesterday he was your favorite housepet.

Blayne’s Dialog:
Sh Personally, I don’t think “American citizenship” should be a bullet-proof shield that a terrorist should be able to hide behind.

Blayne Its not but it requires a fair trial and a guilty conviction to execute an American citizen.

Sh I think the key factor is that good judgment be exercised in any such decisions.

Blayne The thing your missing is there is no accountability as to whether there is good judgment here without a fair trial. This is America the president has no authority to order the death of an American citizen without a fair trial.

SH Members of the US military take an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States against “all enemies, foreign and domestic”, and I think an overseas American-turned-terrorist falls within that… ah… scope.

Blayne If the man is on the battlefield taking up arms against the military that is one thing, but to order an assassination of a citizen without trial present the evidence is un-American and anti freedom. If he is a terrorist prove it in a trial. This sets a very bad precedent. There is no accountability here. This is no better then Hitler and Stalin ordering the execution of thier citizens without trial it goes against everything America is based on.

(Duke Correction: This statement obviously was not very well thought out; Hitler perpetrated the holocaust during wartime.)

SH I don’t know any behind-the-scene specifics about al Awlaki so I can’t reliably say whether targeting him was good judgment or poor judgment.

Blayne That is the whole point of having a trial. We don’t know and every citizen is entitled to a fair trial so the evidence can be assesed as to his guilt. Just assuming he has information justifying the killing without any verification or accountability simply makes him a dictator pure and simple.

Sh But note that since taking office, formerly anti-war Obama has authorized precisely the kind of military action that he was previsously quite critical of. His critics of course call it hypocricy, but I disagree. I think Obama simply now has much more information about the threats we face than he did back when he was a senator, to the point where he is now taking actions that would normally be against to his nature.

Blayne That is why we have checks and balances to find out. He has bypassed the checks and balances put in place to assure he is acting appropriately. He has illegally taken us into Libya without congressional approval and is now murdering citizens without trial by secret decree with no accountability. This is a serious threat to our freedoms! Congress is also culpable too as they did nothing about it. Its amazing that anyone would consider justifying any of this to any degree.

Duke’s Response:
Blayne: …it requires a fair trial and a guilty conviction to execute an American citizen.

SH: Under normal circumstances, yes. The present circumstances are not normal. The late Anwar al-Awlaki and his group are at war with the United States. How do you propose to apprehend him so that he can be given a fair trail? And if it is not possible to apprehend him, what’s the next best thing a president can do, assuming the threat is real, and assuming his duty is to protect the citizens of the United Stages?

I’m not a lawyer, but what if there is a law on the books that says, once a person has joined a terrorist group dedicated to killing Americans, he no longer enjoys the rights of US citizenship. Would that make a difference to you?

Blayne: The thing your missing is there is no accountability as to whether there is good judgment here without a fair trial. This is America the president has no authority to order the death of an American citizen without a fair trial.

SH: Neither of us are privy to classified information so neither of us can judge whether the circumstances warranted the drone strike or not. So it goes back to whether we trust our elected officials. Would it have made a difference to you if the strike had been authorized by George W. Bush instead of Barack Hussein Obama?

Blayne: If the man is on the battlefield taking up arms against the military that is one thing, but to order an assassination of a citizen without trial present the evidence is un-American and anti freedom. If he is a terrorist prove it in a trial. This sets a very bad precedent. There is no accountability here. This is no better then Hitler and Stalin ordering the execution of thier citizens without trial it goes against everything America is based on.

SH: No better than Hitler and Stalin? Let’s take a look at that:

1) The strike to kill an overseas American terrorist at war with the United States was authorized by a democratically elected president.

2) This particular president happens to be generally anti-war; he is certainly not a mass murderer of the same class as Hitler and Stalin. He has neither a history nor a policy of genocide.

3) Obama authorized the killing of one outlaw terrorist citizen, not millions of innocents, and did so to protect the citizens of his country, rather than to oppress them.

4) Obama can be openly challenged and criticized, and the other two branches of our government can bring action against him, including impeachment. Or we can simply vote him out. Not so with Hitler and Stalin.

5) This is wartime, we don’t have the luxury of due process of law for all citizens who join with the enemy and are bent on our destruction. Neither did Lincoln in his day. Hitler and Stalin primarily conducted their genocides during peacetime.

6) Obama did not try to hide or cover up the strike after the fact.

Blayne, I really think you’re going over to the emotional side a bit too far in saying this is “no better than Hitler and Stalin”.

Blayne: That is the whole point of having a trial. We don’t know and every citizen is entitled to a fair trial so the evidence can be assesed as to his guilt. Just assuming he has information justifying the killing without any verification or accountability simply makes him a dictator pure and simple.

SH: In this case, waiting until the bad guy can be apprehended and brought to trial is impractical and irresponsible if the threat is credible. And Obama is not a dictator; I can argue that in more detail if you really think he is. It is unreasonable to expect any President to reveal classified information in order to verify wartime decisions with the American public. How successful do you think the Normandy landings would have been if there had been public debate about them in advance?

Blayne:
That is why we have checks and balances to find out. He has bypassed the checks and balances put in place to assure he is acting appropriately. He has illegally taken us into Libya without congressional approval and is now murdering citizens without trial by secret decree with no accountability. This is a serious threat to our freedoms! Congress is also culpable too as they did nothing about it. Its amazing that anyone would consider justifying any of this to any degree.

SH: Obama can be impeached, suit can be brought against him, people can take to the streets and demonstrate if they’re outraged. None of these things could happen if Obama was a Hitler or Stalin or dictator, as you have stated.

In my opinion Obama is doing the right thing to promote the spread of democracy in the Libya, even if he did not get congressional approval in advance. There is a very good chance the Republicans would have voted against him just because of party politics. Perhaps Obama felt that it was more important to do the right thing than to follow the right procedure. Democracy in the Islamic world may well be this planet’s best hope for avoiding a nuclear terrorist attack, and for eventual peace between the nations.

You accuse Obama of “murdering citizens”, and I believe that he “killed a US-born terrorist”. Remember, arresting the bad guy and bringing him to trial simply was not a reasonable option in this case.

Let me ask you this: Would you be happier if al Awlaki was able to carry out his plans, with his US citizenship granting him the immunity necessary for him to do so?

Larry W Re:
Secret panel can put Americans on “kill list’

I agree with SH on this one. Once Awlaki joined himself with a group who take up arms against American soldiers, his citizenship is toast. If he gets killed in a fire fight with those enemies with whom he joined that’s ok with me. If he had been arrested in America, then we could investigate respecting normal protections. But he got killed out on a battlefield. Our soldiers cannot be expected to sort out such matters in the field.

I might take this opportunity to comment on one other related item too. The terrorist prisoners from Guantanamo. For those taken on the field of battle, they should not have any right to the protection of civilian courts but must face only military jurisdiction. For those apprehended in non-battlefield situations, they might possible qualify for civilian court jurisdiction. The one-size-fits-all solution applied to them which granted them all the protections of American citizens disturbs me. By the way. Military courts under the UCMJ and under International requirements are quite respectful, in many way even more respectful than civilian courts. But military courts recognize status as combatants and the obligations of combatants. For example, combatants are not allowed to hide by blending in with the civilian population. This form of using innocent human shields is a war crime. The Guantanamo detainees who committed acts of war should have all faced International law of war.

Duke:
The idea I had in mind, but the right words really didn’t come to me at the time, is that Hitler and Stalin largely conducted their genocides on people they were able to take into custody and could have put on trial if they so chose. In the al Awlaki case, as I’ve said before, taking him into custody was not a reasonable option.

Blayne:
Where is the proof convicting this man of all the accusations? Why are you just taking some secret panel or the presidents word for it?

> I’m not a lawyer, but what if there is a law on the books that says, once a person has joined a terrorist group dedicated to killing Americans, he no longer enjoys the rights of US citizenship. Would that make a difference to you? >

If there were such a law it would violate the constitution. But of course this is a hypothetical and does not apply. Show me the law that allows the President to target and assassinate anyone much less an American citizen? Again where is the proof the man is what he is accused of? There is no accountability. Apparently you think it is ok for some secret panel or the president to kill an American citizen with no accountability.

> Blayne: The thing your missing is there is no accountability as to whether there is good judgment here without a fair trial. This is America the president has no authority to order the death of an American citizen without a fair trial. > > SH: Neither of us are privy to classified information so neither of us can judge whether the circumstances warranted the drone strike or not. So it goes back to whether we trust our elected officials. Would it have made a difference to you if the strike had been authorized by George W. Bush instead of Barack Hussein Obama? >

Again where is the accountability? Where is the authority for the president to target and assassinate American citizens? There is none. And no I am not a partisan So it does not matter. GWB has done plenty of illegal things as president he has never been held accountable for. of course this set the precedent for Obama. However it shows me you are partisan. If it was GWB I doubt you would be defending this at all.

> Blayne: If the man is on the battlefield taking up arms against the military that is one thing, but to order an assassination of a citizen without trial present the evidence is un-American and anti freedom. If he is a terrorist prove it in a trial. This sets a very bad precedent. There is no accountability here. This is no better then Hitler and Stalin ordering the execution of thier citizens without trial it goes against everything America is based on. > > SH: No better than Hitler and Stalin? Let’s take a look at that: > > 1) The strike to kill an overseas American terrorist at war with the United States was authorized by a democratically elected president. >

Again where is the authority for the president to authorize the targeted assassination of an American citizen with no proof and no trial?

> 2) This particular president happens to be generally anti-war; he is certainly not a mass murderer of the same class as Hitler and Stalin. He has neither a history nor a policy of genocide. >

I never said he was in the same class as Hitler or Stalin as far as Genocide is concerned however as for being anti-war he has expanded both wars and started another illegal war that pretty much shoots any notion that he is anti war.. The fact remains Secret panels authorizing assassinations of citizens without trial is no different then what Hitler and Stalin did in that regard. Just because he has not massacred millions of his own citizens does not make this act any less dictatorial or pernicious.

> 3) Obama authorized the killing of one outlaw terrorist citizen, not millions of innocents, and did so to protect the citizens of his country, rather than to oppress them. >

Again prove this guy was an outlaw terrorist. And show the authority of the president to authorize assassinations without trial? Just taking thier word for it sets a very bad precedent.

> 4) Obama can be openly challenged and criticized, and the other two branches of our government can bring action against him, including impeachment. Or we can simply vote him out. Not so with Hitler and Stalin. >

He has been by some congressmen for this action and others however the majority refuse to act. Just because congress does not do thier job does not make his actions oklegit. Congress has been failing to do thier job for decades and that is why he can get away with this stuff.

> 5) This is wartime, we don’t have the luxury of due process of law for all citizens who join with the enemy and are bent on our destruction. Neither did Lincoln in his day. Hitler and Stalin primarily conducted their genocides during peacetime. >

Really when was war declared? This guy was not caught on the battlefield taking up arms as an enemy combatant and killed. He was declared a threat in secret and assassinated period. That is unlawful and against everything America stands for.

> 6) Obama did not try to hide or cover up the strike after the fact. >

Yeah because he knows he can get away with it because congress fails to do thier duty and the majority of citizens don’t understand the principles of freedom.

> Blayne, I really think you’re going over to the emotional side a bit too far in saying this is “no better than Hitler and Stalin”. >

Let me get this straight. You are willing to accept some secret decree that this guys is guilty without any evidence no trial and no accountability. I ask where is the evidence and the trail proving this guy is what they claim and convicting him, and where is the authority to assassinate an Americana citizen without trial and I am the one being emotional… Sorry but I have to chuckle on that one…

> Blayne: That is the whole point of having a trial. We don’t know and every citizen is entitled to a fair trial so the evidence can be assesed as to his guilt. Just assuming he has information justifying the killing without any verification or accountability simply makes him a dictator pure and simple. > > SH: In this case, waiting until the bad guy can be apprehended and brought to trial is impractical and irresponsible if the threat is credible. And Obama is not a dictator; I can argue that in more detail if you really think he is. It is unreasonable to expect any President to reveal classified information in order to verify wartime decisions with the American public. How successful do you think the Normandy landings would have been if there had been public debate about them in advance? >

Like I said this guys was not caught taking up arms on the battlefield he was targeted and specifically assassinated based on thier word and nothing else. The fact that people cannot see the danger in such a precedent is very troubling.

> Blayne: That is why we have checks and balances to find out. He has bypassed the checks and balances put in place to assure he is acting appropriately. He has illegally taken us into Libya without congressional approval and is now murdering citizens without trial by secret decree with no accountability. This is a serious threat to our freedoms! Congress is also culpable too as they did nothing about it. Its amazing that anyone would consider justifying any of this to any degree. > > SH: Obama can be impeached, suit can be brought against him, people can take to the streets and demonstrate if they’re outraged. None of these things could happen if Obama was a Hitler or Stalin or dictator, as you have stated. >

Of course they can happen even to dictator, Just Ask the Former Egyptian dictator and Libyan dictator. Just because our society has not reached the level of Hitlers or Stalins does not justify any dictatorial act like ordering assassinations of American Citizens and is all the more reason to be vigilant when we see such acts so that we never reach that point of a Hitler or Stalin.

> In my opinion Obama is doing the right thing to promote the spread of democracy in the Libya, even if he did not get congressional approval in advance. There is a very good chance the Republicans would have voted against him just because of party politics. Perhaps Obama felt that it was more important to do the right thing than to follow the right procedure. Democracy in the Islamic world may well be this planet’s best hope for avoiding a nuclear terrorist attack, and for eventual peace between the nations. >

Pakistan is has Nukes and they are ruled by a dictator why haven’t we attacked them? Same with North Korea. The myth of the nuclear terrorist attack still prevails. First of all there are no nukes small enough for terrorists to smuggle into the country. The infamous suitcase nukes require aggressive maintenances if they even exist and lost thier viability decades ago again “if” they exist.

Your opinion that the president did the right thing is based on emotion period for you have no idea if anything said is true you are simply blindly trusting him and trying to justify the complete lack of evidence and accountability on his decision.

The American system was specifically set up so as not allow blind trust in a leaders but with checks and balances to hold leaders accountable. If the majority of people accept this sort of lack of accountability and precedent what will they accept next? This is what leads to totalitarianism eventually.

> You accuse Obama of “murdering citizens”, and I believe that he “killed a US-born terrorist”. Remember, arresting the bad guy and bringing him to trial simply was not a reasonable option in this case. >

So why do we have courts? Why not just allow the police to take criminals straight to jail or execute them since they must be guilty of an officer says so? After all do you not trust the police?

Where is the evidence arresting this man and bringing him to trial is not reasonable option? You have nothing but an emotional albeit irrational belief here.

> Let me ask you this: Would you be happier if al Awlaki was able to carry out his plans, with his US citizenship granting him the immunity necessary for him to do so? >

You are making a false argument. First of all you have no evidence of any plan. Second Citizenship does not grant any citizen immunity from committing any crime. There is ample punishment for many crimes however citizens must be tried and convicted of accused crimes first. The fact that people are so willing to set this aside so easily is very troubling.

Again it boils down to evidence accountability and authority. No evidence was ever presented of this mans crimes. There is no accountability of this secret panel and the president has no authority to order the assassination of an American citizen much less anyone else.

John walker was an American citizen caught on the battlefield taking up arms and even admitted he was fighting with the Taliban and the courts ruled he was entitled to a fair trial as a citizen. He ended up taking a plea deal. Jose Padilla was another American citizen who was being held as an enemy combatant and was granted a trial by the courts. The courts have so far consistently ruled American citizens have the right to a fair trial despite the military commissions act. So it looks like the Administration will now just bypass the courts and kill whomever the want on thier word alone…Sigh!

Blayne: Except this guy was not on a battlefield taking up arms.He was specifically targeted and assassinated for allegedly being an Al-Qaeda leader etc. He wasn’t even declared an enemy combatant as far as I can tell. So where is the evidence he was any of these things and where is the authority for the President to order assassinations? Again evidence accountability and authority are all lacking setting a very bad precedent here.

Duke:
Blayne, you’re insisting on things that are simply not practical under the circumstances (publicized proof before taking action, capture & trial instead of drone strike). I don’t have the time to go through a point-by-point again, and I’m fairly confident you wouldn’t agree with me anyway.

If you believe the killing of an alleged terrorist who was a US citizen is such a terrible crime, what are you doing about it?

DaJudge
One quick comment: On America we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty as judged by a jury or our peers. For a corpus delecti there must be a crime, ie harm or violation of right AND damage. “Our” “government” has just proved it is an evil gang of thugs and murderers.

Blayne:
Quoting Duke: Blayne, you’re insisting on things that are simply not practical under the circumstances (publicized proof before taking action, capture & trial instead of drone strike).

Nonsense they do not have to publicize anything first, if he is a suspected terrorist they can arrest him and bring thier evidence to trial pure and simple. There is nothing impractical about that. Drone strike executions should not be replacing trial by jury.

This man was not caught on a battlefield taking up arms against the US. We were simply “told” he was a terrorist and targeted for execution. This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.

> > If you believe the killing of an alleged terrorist who was a US citizen is such a terrible crime, what are you doing about it? > > sh

So you are saying you believe it is ok to kill someone on allegations alone with no proof? As for what am I doing about it? I am trying to educate people who should know better that as Americans we are not supposed to be killing our own citizens much less anyone else without a fair trial as they are innocent until proven guilty.

Duke Response:
Quoting Blayne: Nonsense they do not have to publicize anything first, if he is a suspected terrorist they can arrest him and bring thier evidence to trial pure and simple. There is nothing impractical about that. Drone strike executions should not be replacing trial by jury

It simply is not practical to insert a sufficient force at the right time and place to arrest him if he’s in a foreign country and has a network protecting him.

Quoting Blayne: This man was not caught on a battlefield taking up arms against the US. We were simply “told” he was a terrorist and targeted for execution. This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.

Deadly enemies of the US shouldn’t be off limits because of their citizenship. Capture wasn’t feasible, so that only leaves one option if he’s bad enough that he should be stopped before he can orchestrate a deadly attack on the US.

Quoting Blayne: So you are saying you believe it is ok to kill someone on allegations alone with no proof? As for what am I doing about it? I am trying to educate people who should know better that as Americans we are not supposed to be killing our own citizens much less anyone else without a fair trial as they are innocent until proven guilty.

No proof has been provided to you, but that does not mean there is no proof, nor does it mean there isn’t strong evidence even if it fell short of absolute proof.

Sometimes it’s stupid to wait until you have irrefutable proof, or to not act to prevent an attack before it happens. And sometimes the only options available are likely to piss off people who think guilt cannot be ascribed under any circumstances without proof in a court of law.

Elizabeth Joyce:

Did anybody see the movie “the Day Of The Jackel” or “The Spy Who Came In From The Cold?”

This event is not unprecedented – it just got the “gossip” of publicity.

Blayne: Yes Elizabeth that is what I meant. This is a first in American history where a president announces publicly an assassination of an American without any due process and acts like it is perfectly normal.

Blayne: Quoting Duke: It simply is not practical to insert a sufficient force at the right time and place to arrest him if he’s in a foreign country and has a network protecting him. >

So wait him out what is the rush?

> > > > This man was not caught on a battlefield taking up arms against the US. We were simply “told” he was a terrorist and targeted for execution. This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America. > > Deadly enemies of the US shouldn’t be off limits because of their citizenship. Capture wasn’t feasible, so that only leaves one option if he’s bad enough that he should be stopped before he can orchestrate a deadly attack on the US. >

And who do you know he is a deadly enemy? You do not seem to realize you are advocating the execution of an American citizen without trial without evidence on the presidents word alone. What part of that being wrong on every level do you not understand?

> > So you are saying you believe it is ok to kill someone on allegations alone with no proof? As for what am I doing about it? I am trying to educate people who should know better that as Americans we are not supposed to be killing our own citizens much less anyone else without a fair trial as they are innocent until proven guilty. > > No proof has been provided to you, but that does not mean there is no proof, nor does it mean there isn’t strong evidence even if it fell short of absolute proof. >

No proof has been provided to anyone period! That is why our tradition of jurisprudence provides for no citizen being punished UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. What part of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY do you not understand?

You are advocating that the president has authority to murder people on his word alone. Where does he get such authority? it certianly is not written into any document lawfully defining his authority. Apparently you have no sense of Justice in accepting such unlawful executions. Once again it boils down to Authority accountability and evidence.

> Sometimes it’s stupid to wait until you have irrefutable proof, or to not act to prevent an attack before it happens. And sometimes the only options available are likely to piss off people who think guilt cannot be ascribed under any circumstances without proof in a court of law. >

Proof? There is not even any evidence much less proof. I guess some people will never understand until it happens to them or thier loved ones. So are you talking about the proof that Iraq had WMD’s? Or how about the proof that Bin Laden was the master mind of 9/11 and the supposed Hijackers were all Saudi Arabian yet we attacked Afghanistan? If you do not see the need for proof here in the wake of the governments track record of lying and or lack of proof I don’t know what to tell you.

The only time a court is not necassary is when someone is taking up arms on the battlefield. This man was not he was simply labelled a terrorist with a plot and summarily executed with no evidence even presented. Your whole argument is based on pure assumption this man was a threat and not only do you not have any proof you do not have a single shred of evidence and no way of verifying the presidents word precisely because he has bypassed over 200 years of American jurisprudence designed to give American citizens as fair a trial as possible.

That fact that any American would accept this is just amazing and sad…

Elizabeth Joyce:
Back in the time when the Secret Service was truly secret.

It has been common and unfortunately necessary at times to kill those who are a danger to nations, society, as well as themselves. In a sense, sadly, it has been “normal” in the spy arena , but never publicized.

LWK > This is a first in American history where > a president announces publicly an assassination > of an American without any due process and acts > like it is perfectly normal.

In WWII there were some American citizens of German descent who went to Germany and fought against America. We killed them just like any other enemy without any particular attention to some “due process” an American citizen is supposed to have.

Maybe I am missing something important, but I personally don’t see any reasoning that says that an American who goes and publicly becomes an enemry of the United States and participates in violent acts against the United States has any rights as an American citizen anymore. I doubt the Founders intended any such thing.

I am no supporter of this President, but I had no problem with the killing of this guy, American citizen or not. If an American goes to war against America then I say he is fair game and kill him if you can. No trial, no due process, no rights. Not as far as I am concerned.

JJ:
George Washington executed problem soldiers for much less than this guy we executed. His biographies reveal some actions and discipline that would raise eyebrows today. Here is one account:

During the winter of 1780-1781, George Washington’s troops at Valley Forge, Morristown and Pompton had suffered bitter cold, hunger and inadequate clothing. Also, the soldiers had not received their back pay. The success of the Pennsylvania troops at Morristown who had mutinied in order to bring attention to their condition, encouraged the New Jersey troops at Federal Hill in Pompton to take action to help resolve their grievances. Hoping to demand justice from an apathetic Congress, they mutinied on January 20, 1781.

When George Washington learned of the rebellion, he ordered General Howe to quell it. Sergeants David Gilmore and John Tuttle were executed by a firing squad of 12 mutineers at dawn on January 27, 1781 for their part in the weeklong rebellion. George Grant was given a last minute reprieve from the same fate.

http://www.pomptonlakeshistory.com/events/pompton_mutiny.htm

Blayne: > In WWII there were some American citizens of German descent who went to Germany and fought against America. We killed them just like any other enemy without any particular attention to some “due process” an American citizen is supposed to have. > People keep bringing this up and it does not apply. This guy has not gone to war. He is accused of being a terrorist that’s it. he was not taking up arms on a battlefield, he was not killed in a strike on some enemy strong hold and just happened to be there he was specifically targeted for assassination based on an unsubstantiated accusation period.

> Maybe I am missing something important, but I personally don’t see any reasoning that says that an American who goes and publicly becomes an enemry of the United States and participates in violent acts against the United States has any rights as an American citizen anymore. I doubt the Founders intended any such thing. >

Surprisingly you are missing something very important. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. He has participated in no violent acts that we know of. His only crime worthy of death apparantly has been to be ACCUSED of being a terrorist and summarily killed on that alone.

> I am no supporter of this President, but I had no problem with the killing of this guy, American citizen or not. If an American goes to war against America then I say he is fair game and kill him if you can. No trial, no due process, no rights. Not as far as I am concerned. > So I guess its ok for the president to designate anyone he wants as a terrorist and then execute them without trial no accountability authority or evidence… Amazing… Sigh!

Blayne:
Let me get this straight do you think this justifies executing citizens on the presidents word he is a terrorist threat with no accountability authority or evidence?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

This has nothing to do with the situation we are talking about. There was no constitution then and this was military justice against open rebellion during wartime. Even today soldiers sign a contract allowing military justice including execution during war time in some circumstances etc.

Also today they arrest soldiers who do this and try them instead of executing them without trial when technically in some circumstances they could. Like that soldier ho lobbed a grenade into a ten in Kuwait during the first gulf war.

Why this would be brought up at all to try and justify unlawful execution of an American citizen is beyond me.

This guy is not a soldier no evidence has been presented he has taken up arms against the US. His only supposed crime is he is ACCUSED of being a terrorist and killed on accusation alone with no evidence being presented to any lawful court of justice.

Larry W
I have not read any news report on this. But if what you say is true, then they had no right to execute him. If, on the other hand, he was supporting a known gang of terrorists and got killed while they raided the terrorist gang, then I’m ok with that, the guy chose the wrong friends. So I don’t know about this particular situation. But I totally agree with your logic here, Blayne, based upon the facts as you present them. But I also totally agree with Larry K’s logic here too, based upon the facts as he presents them. I know that you would have no problem if that guy got shot while standing with terrorists in a fire fight. So we are all totally together on principles. It’s the facts that are fuzzy.

Blayne: Exactly Larry! That is the point we have no way of knowing there is no accountability here. I have no problem with defending our selves in the manners you mentioned. What concerns me is as far as I can tell this guy was specifically targeted for execution unless I missed something. IOW the drone strike was ordered specifically to take him out based on accusations alone.

Some are leaping to the conclusion the guy is guilty WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. They seem content on one mans word and throwing out the principle of justice that men are innocent until proven guilty.

How does anyone know if this was justified? We have no way of knowing since this has bypassed every principle of justice and is just plain un-American.

This would be the same as a police officer killing a guy and saying he new the guy was going to murder his neighbor and some saying oh ok the guy was going to murder his neighbor so the killing was ok. No accountability period!

Duke:wrote: > This guy is not a soldier no evidence has been presented he has taken up arms against the US. His only supposed crime is he is ACCUSED of being a terrorist and killed on accusation alone with no evidence being presented to any lawful court of justice.

It seems that judicial procedure and following the letter of the law carries a great deal of weight for you.

The letter of the law has not caught up with the present situation. Laws sometimes fail to anticipate situations that arise, particularly if they are largely without precedent. In such circumstances, we have three fall-backs: Judgement, checks and balances, and democracy.

We hope that our leadership (the president and his advisors) exercises good judgment when there is no rule-book written in advance that covers the situation, like the case of being at war with a nationless organization capable of inflicting disproportionately high casualties on the US thanks to technology.

We have a legislative branch and a judicial branch that can take steps to oppose the actions of the president.

We are a democracy, so we can vote, demonstrate in the streets, write letters, blog, criticize, whatever. Sufficient public outcry will have an effect.

The nature of fighting the world’s premier terrorist network, often operating from countries in which we have little or no presence, precludes such niceties as sending the cops to arrest suspects. The need to maintain operational secrecy means that “proof” is not going to be given to the satisfaction of critics and conspiracy theorists. The enemy’s footsoldiers (the ones who pull the triggers or detonate the suicide bombs) may well be lower-value targets than their leadership. And, time is of the essence if one or more plots are under development or in motion.

At some point it comes down to whether we trust our elected civilian leadership and the intelligence community that is its source of inside information. I do not believe the president and the intelligence community are infallible, but I also believe they know far more than you or I, and that they are trying to do the right thing in carrying out their duty to protect the US. Personally, I’m glad they are not hamstrung by an allegiance to the letter of the law which would allow an American-born terrorist leader to operate with immunity as long as he’s in a country where we can’t send the cops to his house.

Blayne: > It seems that judicial procedure and following the letter of the law carries a great deal of weight for you.

What carries a great deal of weight with me is the principle of freedom and justice that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

Here is the facts

The man has not taken up arms. There is no evidence presented he is plotting. There is no evidence presented there is any immediate threat. There are only accusations with no accountability and an execution based on accusations alone.

Based on the known facts there was no justification to murder him immediately as there was no threat. This would be like a cop shooting your family member and then saying he knew the person was plotting to murder your neighbor. And you saying oh ok I trust your word that killing him was justified….

And seriously do you believe murdering this guy stopped any threat? Like others could not carry out what ever the plot was? Now days you’d think there was a terrorist behind every rock but all the government good guys have stopped every plot. That is ridiculous if terrorists wanted to put us into the stone age it would be a simple matter to take out our power grids with just a few small teams.

The terrorist bogeymen have been the excuse to trample our rights for a decade now and now the president is ordering hits on American citizens with drone strikes on nothing but accusations… Sigh it is amazing we are even having this conversation…

> > The letter of the law has not caught up with the present situation. Laws sometimes fail to anticipate situations that arise, particularly if they are largely without precedent. In such circumstances, we have three fall-backs: Judgement, checks and balances, and democracy. >

You are incorrect this situation has ignored the principle of justice that one is innocent until proven guilty. You have to keep inventing a false scenario to try and justify your emotional belief that this was right. There are no circumstances in this situation that required this action as I have illustrated several times now in my responses. None of the circumstances you describe to try to justify this have occurred in this case.

> We hope that our leadership (the president and his advisors) exercises good judgment when there is no rule-book written in advance that covers the situation, like the case of being at war with a nationless organization capable of inflicting disproportionately high casualties on the US thanks to technology. >

Again you create a false argument based on illusion. There is a rule book for this situation it was ignored. The situation you describe and try to assign to this situation is an illusion. We do not need to hope the leadership has good judgement we have a system of checks and balances that if followed tell us one way or another. When those are ignored and bypassed then we are just flying blind. Putting blind trust in any leader is putting trust in the beast.

> We have a legislative branch and a judicial branch that can take steps to oppose the actions of the president. >

If they do not then they are in collusion with these unlawful actions

> We are a democracy, so we can vote, demonstrate in the streets, write letters, blog, criticize, whatever. Sufficient public outcry will have an effect. >

We are not a democracy we are an oligarchy. Voting has not changed anything significant but made things steadily worse. But the public has to actually make the outcry. However of they do not understand the principles of freedom and justice then they just allow themselves to become slave and thier rights trampled.

> The nature of fighting the world’s premier terrorist network, often operating from countries in which we have little or no presence, precludes such niceties as sending the cops to arrest suspects. The need to maintain operational secrecy means that “proof” is not going to be given to the satisfaction of critics and conspiracy theorists. The enemy’s footsoldiers (the ones who pull the triggers or detonate the suicide bombs) may well be lower-value targets than their leadership. And, time is of the essence if one or more plots are under development or in motion. >

Another false argument, you have not addressed a thing I have said. You just keep repeating the same things over and over that I have already put to bed that do not apply to this situation

> At some point it comes down to whether we trust our elected civilian leadership and the intelligence community that is its source of inside information. I do not believe the president and the intelligence community are infallible, but I also believe they know far more than you or I, and that they are trying to do the right thing in carrying out their duty to protect the US. Personally, I’m glad they are not hamstrung by an allegiance to the letter of the law which would allow an American-born terrorist leader to operate with immunity as long as he’s in a country where we can’t send the cops to his house. > > sh

That’s the problem you “believe” blindly because there is no way to verify that belief as they have ignored the principles of freedom and justice and the checks and balances in our system to ensure they are heeded as much as possible. You have further gone to great lengths to create illusionary scenarios to justify your blind belief. Such blind trust is indeed very troubling.

JJ
Blayne: Let me get this straight do you think this justifies executing citizens on the presidents word he is a terrorist threat with no accountability authority or evidence?

JJ No. That’s not what I said. I posted that example from George Washington’s execution without trial to illustrate that much worse has been done by our heroes. The men Washington executed appears to have been less of a threat than Anwar al-Awlaki is to us.

I agree with you that the law needs to be followed. It does look liked he could be tried for treason as he apparently is advocating a violent overthrow of the United States openly on his web site. Treason has carried the death penalty in the past.

If this guy is a threat that needs taken out then Obama should work within the law to accomplish this. If there is no way to bring him in then perhaps he could be tried in absentia or have his citizenship revoked and treated accordingly.

So, do you agree with George Washington’s executions I cited? If not then what should he have done?

Blayne; Glad to hear it. George Washingtons situation was completely different. There was no constitution and these guys were mutinying.and had a military unit at thier disposal and openly were opposing thier contract as soldiers. I do not necessarily agree with How Washington handled it but he may have had no other choice with a military unit threatening physical revolt. Still if they were able to be captured they should not have been executed without trial.

Duke: hawkiye@…> wrote: >… you have not addressed a thing I have said. You just keep repeating the same things over and over that I have already put to bed that do not apply to this situation

Well that’s not the way I see it, but I’d rather not argue about arguing.

Obviously I don’t have much hope of changing your mind, nor you of changing mine.

I don’t see much point in continuing. Do you?

Dan; I encourage everyone to re-read the the original article Blayne posted thoroughly (and as objectively as possible :-), there seem to be a lot of misconceptions, assumptions and outright LEAPS being made that simply are NOT supported by any information in the original article itself.

http://news.yahoo.com/secret-panel-put-americans-kill-list-041603267.html

LWK hawkiye@…> wrote:

> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. He has participated in no > violent acts that we know of.

However there is a abundant evidence that he was part of the hierarchy at Al Qaida. He may have not been the one actually planting the bombs, or whatever, but he was in the hierarchy directing and motivating individuals to kill Americans. Let’s say an American went to Germany in WWII and became a part of their upper echelon directing the violent acts of the Germany military. Would he be a legitimate target? Of course he would. It doesn’t matter whether he personally pulled the trigger or just helped those who did.

Like I said,I don’t think the U.S. government violated any real principles or the constitution in killing this guy. As an American citizen you don’t have a right to be part of and supporting and motivating an organization that is killing Americans without being subject to violent retribution, without a trial and without any “due process.”

The only “due process” he deserved was the one he got.

Blayne: Really??? Where pray tell is all this abundant evidence? As far as I can tell there is nothing more then accusations and the president has appointed himself judge jury and executioner and you approve.

Blayne:
As long as you refuse to face the facts of course thier is no point in continuing to plow the same barren ground. The facts are; nothing you have brought up to justify this action applies to this case. There is no evidence no accountability and no authority to justify the killing without a trial. You can create all the false scenarios you like and that does not change these simple facts.

Duke:
An attempt at explaining the likely situation (when we do not have all the facts) is not “creating a false scenario”. You dismiss with a broad wave of the hand without showing what was false in the scenario. That sort of emotional jump is dominating the discussion. But this becomes a secondary argument, that is, arguing about having an argument. So it is non-productive.

Larry Woods

At this point, I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them. As far as I can tell they (all elected officials and their bureaucrats) have sold us out at every turn to Special Interests. Down through the years they turned control of our money supply over to private bankers who proved over and over that they abuse us and enrich themselves at our expense. They’ve sold all public works on sweetheart deals to their cronies. They over taxed us and over regulated us to the point that my small building business was literally sending half of all that came in the front door off to government at various levels. Their taxes and regulations and the accounting and work to keep up with it made it impossible for me to keep my business. The economy they wrecked blew me out of business. Remember George McGovern? He went bankrupt after he retired from the Senate and tried to run a bed and breakfast business with his wife. He blamed his failure on over regulation and on over taxation. Would that he could have learned those lessons before he left office! And he wanted to be our President! They “bailed out” their millionaire cronies but they let me fail. They repeatedly create relationships with other governments and then turn their backs on them which has caused no end of ill will against America. Recently they shoved socialism down our throats in their health care bill that they didn’t even read despite the fact that all the polls showed 60 to 65 percent of Americans did not want it. They created an FDA that works toward anything that makes money for Special Interests and pays lots of taxes but does not allow good medicine. Result, hundreds of thousands of dead cancer victims who are really FDA victims. We have means to cure almost all of them but the FDA won’t allow it. [If you need the cure info, just let me know. Also, most any of the Keysters here can give you that info. As John told JJ in The Immortal series, there are at least four cures out there.]

I could go on and on here, Duke. What makes you think they “are trying to do the right thing”? Also as you said, their intelligence is unreliable plus they deceive us about what they think they know anyway. Actually I believe their intelligence is skewed in many ways.

I can prove by simple logic that they lie. Watch this. If you had power to connect the personal paycheck of Senators and Congressmen to a balanced budget, THE VERY NEXT BUDGET PASSED WOULD BE BALANCED. Do you believe it? You should. They claim it’s impossible and messy and whatever. But the minute their paycheck gets attached to it YOU KNOW they would conquer the problem real quick. You know this is absolute truth. Yet they continually explain they are doing everything in their power to balance the budget. So why was it anyone trusts them to do the right thing?

They are pathological liars. They are in bed with Special Interests for the purpose of taking from us and giving to the Special Interests. They are Democrats, they are Republicans. They have sold us out. They will continue until we learn how to hold them accountable.

They will continue until We the People learn how to hold them accountable. Meanwhile, I do not trust them to make decisions about killing people without due process. Nor do I trust any of their other decisions. But we are stuck with them for now. Despite all this mess, we are far better off than we were just a few hundred years ago.

In the meantime, I seek ways to actually change things for the better, to get them to answer to the majority more often. I think JJ’s book will open some meaningful dialog on this. I also think my MACH1 political plan will help. I’m reading up just now about product branding and Social networking and other ways to get MACH1 before the public so we can start garnering wins for the majority similar to the famous Real Estate tax law brought to California by the people who were sick and tired of funding their state on the backs of little old ladies who had to sell their homes just at a time when they faced their last few years on planet Earth. If the state needs money, they can find it somewhere else! I think they called that Proposition 13. It is a good law. Basically in California, you pay the same tax every year that you own the house. It never changes. It gets locked in when you first buy your house. So explosive growth does not bump out retired folks and other good folks by forcing them to sell their homes. A good law.

A similar majority win was the license tab fees in Washington state which I already discussed here before. I want MACH1 to provide the game plan so many people can pick up the ball around America and make touch-downs for the majority. I want to empower the majority and simultaneously point out the politicians who blatantly go against majority will. WE FINALLY HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!

Ultimately, after we get good momentum, we go after Read the Damn Bill. Posting every bill for 30 days on the Internet before they are allowed to vote on it will fulfill Obama’s broken promise about a transparent government. But the Special Interest politicians will fight it with everything they’ve got. It will be the hardest won political battle since the Revolutionary War. But it will change the political landscape like a continent wide 9.0 earthquake.

Anyway, Duke, I know your principles are sound. But the facts in this case are hidden so we just do not know if Obama made a responsible decision or not. The fact that the facts remain hidden gives us a pretty strong clue. I could go into much detail about how the states and the federal government are hiding much. About how they bypass due process more and more. One obscure but very telling point is that they no longer require politicians to carry a real bond. The state bonds elected officials now so they don’t have to put up with all those messy restrictions. One more layer of due process out the window. They are going backwards eroding the protections we put in place to protect ourselves from them. Long ago they took away any responsibility they once carried. If their decisions screw you over it turns out it was their mistake, you have no recourse. This is true with judges and with every other layer of government. Another example, they almost never bother any more getting actual warrants for search or seizure. They just get “certificate of warrant” which need not be signed by an elected judge. In effect, they no longer need to show probable cause. Then they can confiscate your stuff under Ill-gotten-gains laws and never return them and they don’t even have to charge you with a crime. This includes properties, autos, airplanes, whatever. There are a million stories circulating on the net with tons of witnesses and victims.

When I was young my heart swelled with pride when I saw a cop or a fireman. Now I see symbols of those who abused my niece because she simply asked for a warrant before she let them in. I see those who abused my brother by throwing hundreds of dollars of vitamins in a sink full of water so they would spoil because a neighbor thought they might have seen a marijuana plant in the window. This was at a time when marijuana was equivalent to a speeding ticket in Washington state. They also totally destroyed lots of stuff like cutting up his mattresses and throwing everything on the floors. For those of you who thought the Gestapo was defeated in WWII, you’re wrong. I like Jefferson’s approach to all of this. Our job is not to empower our government more, but to bind their hands from mischief. I could go on for hours like this but what’s the point? Just stating the problem over and over won’t help. But MACH1 and Read the Damn Bill can help and JJ’s insights can help. So that is where I put my thoughts and energies now. Using the platform that my music brings, The Brotherhood of Light Muse, I support these political measures so at least my energy does not just go away with the wind.

Duke:
I don’t believe our leadership is all evil, nor all good. Few people and organizations are entirely one or the other, so that leaves open the possibility that their motives are good in this case.

If you google “Al Awlaki”, you’ll see that he apparently was a very competent bad guy, considered largely responsible for the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda becoming its most active branch and generating several recent attacks on the US. But there is no “proof” in a form that would satisfy a determined skeptic.

Blayne:
On the contrary I have addressed each of your scenarios in detail several times now and have brushed nothing aside. You admit there is no evidence and then claim your pure speculation is not false…

It is not emotional and it is not secondary. It is primary that all the things in place to avoid killing and punishing people without any evidence or a chance to defend themselves have been ignored.

Your acceptance of it based on your own speculation is what is an emotional attachment. I am looking at the known facts you are purely speculating. yet I am being emotional?

Will you deny that you have no way of knowing what happened? Will you deny that no one outside of the President and a few of his henchmen know what happened? Will you deny that we have things in pace to avoid such things and they were completely ignored? etc etc.

Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me?

Blayne:
Good post larry!

Duke I am not praising Larry’s post here because it agrees with me so I can get one up on you. I am praising it because it is truth.

You have fallen for a trick the government has been using for decades to justify their subversion of the principles of freedom.

The demonize someone then kill them. Like the Waco incident. They Said Koresh was a child molester and had illegal weapons. Then they laid siege to them and attacked but claimed they were shot at first etc. It came out later no illegal weapons were found and there is no evidence he was a child molester. Also evidence was shown that the government fired first. People knew it was BS but then they made it look like they were defending themselves etc Their are thousands of cases like this that did not get the notoriety of Waco.

Here they just did the deed and demonized the man after the fact and even admit they targeted him for assassination. this is a significant step further away from the principles of freedom and justice. At least with Koresh they tried to act like they were defending themselves. Now they just order a hit and claim he was a terrorist.

Even if this guy really was a terrorist we cannot allow this sort of thing to continue. Can you not see the potential for abuse here? And with the governments proven track record of lying cover ups and false flag operations this is is particularly troubling.

Duke:
hawkiye@…> wrote: > > > On the contrary I have addressed each of your scenarios in detail several times now and have brushed nothing aside. You admit there is no evidence and then claim your pure speculation is not false…

You have not addressed the impracticality of capturing an Al Qaeda leader in Yemen. You have not addressed the possible time-critical aspect of stopping him. You have not addressed the issue of enemy leadershp being a higher-value target than footsoldiers. You have not addressed the need for operational secrecy in counter-terrorist operations. You have not addressed the fact that your position would probably have Al Awlaki operating at will indefinitely, safe behind his American citizenship.

> It is not emotional and it is not secondary. It is primary that all the things in place to avoid killing and punishing people without any evidence or a chance to defend themselves have been ignored.

Round and round we go. I’m all for following the law and proper procedure, but this is a highly unusual situation. Apparently it has only come up once in the ten years since 9/11.

> Your acceptance of it based on your own speculation is what is an emotional attachment. I am looking at the known facts you are purely speculating.yet I am being emotional?

I am focusing on the specific realities of the situation, instead of at the emotional outrage at the attack on a treasonous American citizen (who obviously spits on his citizenship), not to mention the emotional disdain you’ve hinted at that someone could actually see things different from you.

> Will you deny that you have no way of knowing what happened? Will you deny that no one outside of the President and a few of his henchmen know what happened?

Thank you for acknowledging that neither of us know what happened. That makes your speculation no better than mine.

> Will you deny that we have things in pace to avoid such things and they were completely ignored? etc etc.

This situation is different from your ideal scenario where the bad guy can be arrested and brought to trial, and time is not an issue.

> Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me?

Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was not justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anytyhing but a false scenario? Enlighten me?

Blayne:
So if I put a up website that made you look like a terrorist and the government killed you based on that it is k with you? After all there is no proof that would satisfy a determined sceptic? Nothing like blind faith…

Come on Duke you know better then that…

Duke:
If you really think Al Awlaki’s association with Al Qaeda is a ficticious long-term elaborate internet hoax, then there is a very large disconnect between your perception and mine.

I’m starting to think that if the government told you the evidence they had against Al Awlaki, you would have already made up your mind to reject it in advance.

Blayne:
I have addressed it several times. But one more time for you. Your speculation and assumption there is a real threat is not grounds to kill an American Citizens. Therefore there is no expediency in capturing this guy. You are basing this scenario on speculation with no evidence to support it what so ever so it is not a valid argument. Also as I have said do you really believe that even if this guy was who THEY CLAIMED he was that killing him somehow removed the threat and others would not continue to carry it out?

> > It is not emotional and it is not secondary. It is primary that all the things in place to avoid killing and punishing people without any evidence or a chance to defend themselves have been ignored. > > Round and round we go. I’m all for following the law and proper procedure, but this is a highly unusual situation. Apparently it has only come up once in the ten years since 9/11. >

You do not believe in following the law you are trying to justify circumventing it. No its not unusual again you are basing your conclusions on assumptions with no evidence ever presented anywhere period. So your argument is not valid. Every time we go around on this you continue to speak as if it is a forgone conclusion that his guy is what he is accused of. It is not that is the point of trial.

In America we do not kill people based on assumption speculation and accusations. Your continued dodging of this fact speaks to your emotional attachment to the issue. I don’t care what your beliefs are about our leaders. I and every other America should not have to depend on yours or anyone’s “belief” for our safety from our own government. We should be able to depend on a fair hearing of all the evidence and a fair chance to defend ourselves. That has slowly been eroded away and this is a huge spike in the coffin of such fairness freedom and justice.

> > Your acceptance of it based on your own speculation is what is an emotional attachment. I am looking at the known facts you are purely speculating.yet I am being emotional? > > I am focusing on the specific realities of the situation, instead of at the emotional outrage at the attack on a treasonous American citizen (who obviously spits on his citizenship), not to mention the emotional disdain you’ve hinted at that someone could actually see things different from you. > No you are not focusing on any reality of the situation. You are not sticking to know facts. You have projected your own huge assumptions into the situation creating a false scenario and then used it to try and justify you emotional belief. >

You keep bringing up that you think I am being emotional yet I am the one sticking to known facts while you speculate and project your feelings into the situation. You need to take a good hard look in the mirror my friend.

I have nothing against you personally my friend. We have met and I think you are a good guy. My astonishment is that any American could not see the danger in allowing the president to order a hit on an American citizen based on unsubstantiated accusations.

> > Will you deny that you have no way of knowing what happened? Will you deny that no one outside of the President and a few of his henchmen know what happened? > > Thank you for acknowledging that neither of us know what happened. That makes your speculation no better than mine. >

What is it I am speculating on? I have stuck to the known facts name something I have speculated on

> > Will you deny that we have things in pace to avoid such things and they were completely ignored? etc etc. >

> This situation is different from your ideal scenario where the bad guy can be arrested and brought to trial, and time is not an issue. >

You keep saying this but there is no evidene much less proof to support it. The situation is only different in your fantasy scenarios. Therefore there is no evidence there is any time factor. You whole argument is based on a fantasy Duke period and is defeated right there.

> > Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me? > > Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was not justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anytyhing but a false scenario? Enlighten me? >

Absolutely I will deny it. It is not speculation to say someone should not be killed without a fair trial and the evidence presented etc. it is a fact! Also there is no need to disprove something that has not been established as fact in the first place by any reasonable means of establishing a fact. That is the whole point of innocent until proven guilty. You can’t prove a negative it is up to the accuser to prove guilt not the accused to prove innocence.

That would be like me saying you are guilty of theft now prove you are not. You would say I you don’t need to prove I am not because you have not proven I stole something.

Blayne:
Oh there is no doubt there is a huge disconnect between you and me on this one. I never said I think the government did a fictitious web site. I was just making a point on the need to verify evidence. If you think because something is on the internet it must be true then I have some everglades land in Florida I’s like to make you a deal one… 😉

> I’m starting to think that if the government told you the evidence they had against Al Awlaki, you would have already made up your mind to reject it in advance. >

Why would you think that? Seems you are projecting your emotions on to me now…

My whole point has been that before we allow the government to order hits on Americans willy nilly the evidence needs to be presented FIRST accordance with law. If we just take the governments word for it that everything was on the up and up then we are nothing but slaves to dictatorial powers.

Blayne:
Quoting Blayne ” Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me?”

Quoting Duke “Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was not justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me?”

Blayne I thought this deserved more attention. Duke claims I am speculating why this killing was NOT justified.

Fact: this man is “accused” of being a terrorist and plotting against the US.

Fact: No evidence is presented in any lawful manner to support the accusation.

Fact: The president has no authority to Kill Americans on Accusation alone nor does any other American government officer or otherwise.

Fact: The man was not killed on a battlefield taking up arms against the US.

Fact: He was not killed as collateral damage on a strike on some enemy enclave.

So Duke my question is how are these facts speculation?

Speculation: He is a terrorist and or Al Qaeda leader

Speculation: Time was of the essence or he would harm Americans

Speculation: He was guilty and deserved it.

Hopefully that clarifies what is fact and what is Speculation.

Duke:
If nothing else, I think we’ve proven that there’s no point in my repeating myself yet again. Someone has to get off the merry-go-round at some point. You may have the last ride my friend.

Judy:
Quoting Blayne In America we do not kill people based on assumption speculation and accusations. Judy Americans kill people who we have declared war on. We have declared war on terrorists and our intelligence has evidence placing him in ka-hootz with the terrorists (our enemy in the war on terror). If we are at war with ducks it would not be wise to walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and put a big red target on yourself that says, “I am a duck”, and stand in the middle of a bunch of ducks while they are shooting at them. If the guy was not a duck then he should have quit acting like a duck and dressing like a duck during duck season. Blame him for being stupid instead of blaming the Americans…all we did was declare war on ducks.

Blayne:
We have not declared war since WWII

Our intelligence told us there were WMD’s in Iraq to, there weren’t. They also told us the North Vietnamese attacked us in the Gulf of Tonkin. They now even admit that was lie the attack never happened they did it to justify the war. By the way we never declared war on them or Korea or Iraq or even Afghanistan or even some terrorist organization.

Assuming an American citizen is guilty on UNSUBSTANTIATED accusations and killing them is completely un-American and unlawful and defies every principle of justice!

You are you basing your conclusions on NOTHING BUT SPECULATIONS! You have no way of knowing if any of the accusations against this man are true because none of the principles of freedom and justice were followed. No authority no accountability and no evidence!

At best they had authority to put out an arrest warrant and wait for an opportunity to apprehend him and bring thier evidence to trial.

Anyone who accepts this is endorsing the ability of the president to put out a hit an an American citizen on nothing more then unsubstantiated accusations.

Ruth:
I had a look at this man’s photo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-awlaki-killed-yemen

For what it’s worth, from viewing this above picture and this man’s eyes I feel that he is a very sad man and that he is also a very scared man. His aura or face is a lot softer than say a terrorist like Osama Bin Laden. I get the feeling he was forced into doing what he had to do in his life, and that if not for his Father and connections, then he would have taken an entirely different path in his life than the one he had to have and live. (But of course, I could be way off base here.)

I think that he knew he was going to die, either by the Americans or the Terrorists and that is why he had such sadness in his heart because his choice to live was going to be an early death either way?

Perhaps the 7 year old boy within him loved America, but then when he moved back home, he grew up in that institutionalized mind set of hating Americans?

It seems that quite a few people who develop into or are terrorists are sent to America so that they become seen as Americans and learn as much as they can about Americans or have dual citizenship. If you want to get at your enemy or beat your enemy then you have to dress up like your enemy and learn as much about their lifestyle etc as possible.

Here is an interesting thing:

“Al-Awlaki was called an Islamic fundamentalist, and accused of encouraging terrorism.[41][49][53][54] He developed animosity towards the U.S. and became a proponent of Takfiri and Jihadi thinking, while retaining Islamism, according to one research paper.[55] While imprisoned in Yemen, al-Awlaki became influenced by the works of Sayyid Qutb, an originator of the contemporary “anti-Western Jihadist movement”.[56] He would read 150–200 pages a day of Qutb’s works.

He described himself as “so immersed with the author I would feel Sayyid was with me in my cell speaking to me directly”.[56]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

He may have been possessed by Sayyid Qutb? Which would account for this statement made about him on Wiki:

“Douglas Murray, executive director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a right-wing think tank that studies British radicalization, says his followers “will routinely describe Awlaki as a vital and highly respected scholar, [while he] is actually an al-Qaida-affiliate nut case”.[11]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

It would definitely influence his mind set by studying so intensely the Qutb’s works.

So he might have like two different personalities. He could have swung between the two extremes of the pendulum between his love for God and his incorporated beliefs and hatred for Americans which was influenced by Sayyid.

Blayne, I believe you like Ron Paul from what I remember reading from your past posts?

Do you feel that your thinking could have been influenced by Ron Paul’s accusations at all in this matter?

“Paul, a Texas congressman known for libertarian views, says the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki on Yemeni soil amounts to an “assassination.” Paul warned the American people not to casually accept such violence against U.S. citizens, even those with strong ties to terrorism.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44730771/ns/politics/

Robert:
The Bastard was a GOD DAMN TERRORIST, he deserved what he got.

Blayne:
Thanks for bolstering my point Robert. All you that have disagreed with me now realize you are in agreement with good ole Robert here so take that… LOL!

 

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here