Here are links on JJ’s writings on the Beast. A lot of this is a part of the first draft oh his book, The Unveiling.
Copyright by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE
Here are links on JJ’s writings on the Beast. A lot of this is a part of the first draft oh his book, The Unveiling.
Copyright by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE
May 25, 2014
When seekers learn about the left hand path and the Dark Brothers they instinctively assume that they are not a part of that direction. And why do they assume this?
Because their intentions are good. Not only this but they want all kinds of good things – like world peace, eliminate poverty, equal rights, sharing wealth, do away with weapons of mass destruction, increase the level of education, increase human rights to name a few. Surely this seeker with such good values couldn’t be one the bad guys side, could he?
Don’t be so sure.
If a hundred randomly selected people were to meet a representative of a the Dark Brothers and talk with him over coffee, a good ninety of them would go away thinking the guy was a nice guy with good intentions and ideas. They wouldn’t have a clue as to what his true intentions were or where they would take us.
A small handful would sense that thee was something off in the guy and pay a lot of attention to the exact wording that comes out of his mouth. These would read between the lines and see that something was amiss.
If you meet a supporter of the dark side he is not going to stand out as some sinister figure who wants more crime, prostitution, slavery child abuse etc. Instead he will often come across as squeaky clean.
Take a look at that list of good intentions we made. He would be for all of them.
Let us pick just one – world peace.
The Dark Brothers and all their representatives want world peace and will openly call or it. The problem is that they want it on different terms than the Brotherhood of Light. They want to establish world peace by suppressing, by use of force, all dissent and points of view contrary to their thinking. Their idea of world peace is something like North Korea where there are no challenges to authority because all the people are controlled by fear.
Of course, they will not tell you this but they will tell you how much they are in favor of peace and such talk will sound benevolent to those who ignore their own souls.
The Brotherhood of Light will tell you what they want to accomplish and then proceed to do it. The Dark Brotherhood will pretend they want to do the same thing but then cleverly steer their acolytes toward a different end that was hidden from them.
The main dividing line between the two brotherhoods is the Principle of Freedom. This tells us that we should seek maximum freedom through the use of minimal force.
For more on this principle go here:
Now what creates a inroad for darkness is that it is necessary that those on the right hand path use some force. For instance, the threat of force must be used to prevent murder, rape theft etc. Unfortunately, this gives the Dark Brotherhood an inroad to use more force than necessary while claiming that they are no different than the good guys.
The Dark Brotherhood teaching on the use of force at first will seem reasonable, but then they will, inch by inch, turn it up a notch at a time until a bewildered following will discover that they are no longer free.
On hindsight the wrong use of force, which is in the direction of slavery, seems obvious. For instance, just about all people today see that the Southern States were wrong in using force to keep slaves. But it was different if you were back there. They saw the work the slaves did by force produced good results so this made it a good thing in their eyes.
For instance, maybe a community needed a new school built and several slave owners donated their slaves for labor. After the school was finished the people looked upon the structure and declared it “good” and thought to themselves how good it was that they had slaves to build this for them.
Most people today can look back on this and see the illusion the people were under.
But does the illusion still persist?
It does and only the circumstances have changed.
Today many slave away working hard hours to pay more taxes than they desire or think is just. The government takes the money from this slave labor and builds many government buildings and employs many bureaucrats to work therein and they stand back and say: “This is good. It is a good thing that we tax these people more than they want to pay so we can do all these good works.”
Question Five: If the slave labor doing good works in the first example is wrong then is the slave labor to pay the unwanted taxes for good works today wrong also?
Will a future generation look back on us as we look back on the illusion of the slave owners in the South?
Explain your thinking.
Being the “soul of the universe” just means the current focus of interplay between spirit and matter is on humanity – as it was on the quarks in their time and the atoms in theirs.
I would say being the “soul if the universe” will be an important role from here on out and the focus will stay in us and our role. We will eventually become one with our Monads and Sons of God and our significant role in the fulfillment of the plan is pretty much guaranteed to be center stage.
We are just getting started in our function of the soul of the universe. Our soul energy in our bodies use intelligence to give them their form from the cells to the whole body itself. The organization of the universe by humans hasn’t really began yet as you can tell by looking at the random forms out there organized mainly by gravity, inertia and other forces.
The imagination of man cannot fathom what will take place among the stars and galaxies when human beings throughout the universe assume their rightful place billions of years hence.
March 26, 2014
The Trap of Illusion
I don’t consider myself a slave. I consider myself a free man with responsibilities and obligations, one of which involves paying taxes. I look around at the country I live in, and really don’t begrudge paying my fair share for its upkeep and support.
And neither do I begrudge paying a fair tax to support my country. That was not what I was referring to. I was talking about taxation that goes beyond fair and every person has a line where that may be, including yourself.
Apparently the taxes you now pay is an amount you consider just, so of course this doesn’t make you feel like a slave. But suppose you had to pay a 90% tax and your children were going hungry. Then how would you feel?
Actually, if we include all the hidden taxes the average person in the United States pays more than a 60% tax. Because much of it is hidden we tend to not feel so cheated. In ancient Rome it was common to have a slave run a business and the master took a third of the profits and allowed the slave to keep two thirds. This proved to be a good incentive to keep the slave working hard. Variations of this practice was carried on by some in the Old South. Some slaves actually made pretty good money and dressed quite flamboyantly. Others were not so lucky.
The point is that many pay more in taxes than slaves in times past and, unlike you, they feel they are paying more than their fair share and a good portion of their money is being wasted. This causes numerous people to work for many hours where they could be enjoying themselves instead. If you are contributing in a way that you consider fair then of course you would not feel like a slave, but if you have to give much more money to an all powerful government than you desire or think is fair then you are a slave to a powerful master.
What we have to look at here is not what certain individuals consider fair but what the taxpayers as a whole feel. I’m not in a high federal tax bracket so I would not grumble for myself there but I am just as outraged if my neighbor has to pay an unfair tax as if it were myself. As far as other taxes go I think the payroll tax is too high for what we get, our sales tax too high and property tax is too high. If the money were well spent and efficiently managed I would feel much better about it.
The Swiss have a lot fairer system than we do because the citizens prevent the federal government from getting out of control. The maximum federal tax there is 11.5% and if a married couple make less than $30,000 they pay nothing. The capital gains rate for individuals is zero and they pay about a third of the property tax of the United States. On top of this they have no national debt.
Now if our country were run like Switzerland there would be few who would feel like slaves to the system and people like me would be happy to pay their fair share – because it would actually be fair.
Switzerland, the most Democratic nation on earth, with a history of Democracy for 800 years does definitely not fit into the accused stereotype of an irresponsible people voting themselves free stuff to their ruin. On the other hand, we as a republic are following this path.
I associate slavery with misery.
A slave isn’t necessarily miserable. Many slaves in the Old South, after they were emancipated, said they were happier as a slave than a free person. After the fall of the Soviet Union many didn’t know what to do with their new freedom and were said to be happier in their slave state until they adjusted. That, of course, doesn’t make it right, for maximum freedom of choice is the destiny and right of all humanity.
In addition, many can be happier in a bad situation because they have a good attitude than others in a good situation with a negative attitude.
I would like to know whether you think I’m aligned with the Dark Brotherhood because of my current beliefs in this area.
I think you are one of the most honorable individuals I have met and you do your best to follow the highest you know. The world would be a much better place if there were more like you.
That said, all those who have not passed the Third Initiation are susceptible to the trap of illusion and even people with the best of intentions may find themselves throwing support behind an idea supported by the Dark Brotherhood now and then. Way over 99% of the population support some type of beastly authority for instance.
The key for seekers is to follow the highest they know. When they do this their illusions will eventually be revealed. When revealed the highest they know will move up a step and to stay on the right path they must then take that step.
Only when illusion is dispelled can the disciple make a conscious choice to follow the right or left hand path. Until that time he must follow the highest he knows.
May 28, 2014
Global Warming Logic
Here are some of the highlights of my posts to The Statesman on Tuesday.
The logic of the Left makes absolutely no sense. They want to place our top priority on dealing with the effects of an increase of CO2 while placing other probable disasters that would be much more catastrophic on the back burner.
This is comparable to a crazy guy heading full steam ahead over a cliff while putting all his attention on trying to correct bad radio reception.
For one thing, we have had about eight times the current CO2 in our atmosphere in the past and life continued to thrive. There are a number of threats many times more serious than an increase in the fairly harmless CO2.
Here are some.
(1) The threat of an asteroid. The question is not if but when this will happen. In the past an asteroid wiped out about 90% of life on earth and another hit could destroy the human race. We have more technology to deal with a threat like this than we do climate change, but we are at the mercy of chance if the threat comes.
(2) A solar flare. Again the question is not if but when. In 1859 we were hit by one that knocked out telegraph systems all over America and Europe. If one happened again and knocked out all our electrical systems chaos would be the result and some estimate that this would result in the deaths of the majority of Americans through starvation and mob rule.
For less than $79 billion we could take measures to protect our grid from this event, which is overdue.
(3) A magnetic pulse created by an atomic explosion in our atmosphere. This could be accomplished by even a rogue nation such as North Korea and the results would be similar to a solar flare.
(4) Nuclear missiles headed our way. This can be overcome by missile defense and if Reagan’s plan were carried out without Democrat protests we could be safe right now. Instead Obama has cut funding for missile defense and reduced support for our European allies.
This may be the greatest threat we face but we want to place many times the attention on human caused CO2 emissions instead.
Future generations will look back on our judgment and by comparison the flat earth people of the Middle ages will look pretty good.
What is amusing about comparing my approach and that of the Left to global warming is this.
I am about 10% as concerned over the danger from humanity as they claim to be but about ten times more willing to support projects that will actually reduce CO2 emissions. Go figure.
May 29, 2014
We’ve established that we should only borrow money as a nation for national emergencies. Wouldn’t it be great if our leaders understood this simple idea?
The main source of revenue is our taxes and we are often hit up for tax increases nationally, state and locally.
What kind of situation or demand would justify a tax increase?
Here are some that are often put forward.
(1) Additional benefits for the poor, minorities, disabled, unemployed etc.
(2) More money for education
So, what do you think justifies a tax increase and who should bear the burden?
Check this site out. Enter your last name and it will search through 250,000,000 names in the United States and tell you what percentage of them voted Republican or Democrat.
May 30, 2014
It is interesting that JJ said that Saddam was a big threat to global freedom, but many people see America’s intervention in Iraq as abusive, politically and oil driven. It turns out, Saddam had no nuclear weapons after all. So unless you can foresee the future, you will be inclined to say that the US commit an abuse by invading Iraq and interfering with the freewill, the sovereignty and the maturity of Iraqi people.
Any opinions on this JJ? You did argue for the caterpillar principle and so on.
First, let me compliment you for standing your ground and taking the heat here while continuing to be polite. We have no problem with different opinions if they are presented respectfully. Unfortunately, on many forums, like the Statesman, this does not happen.
Just imagine what would have been the result if either the United States or England had decided to take Hitler out in 1938 just before the start of the war. They would have been subject to enormous criticism and attack. Many would have claimed that Hitler was not a real threat and we were just war mongers interfering with a sovereign state.
This would have been one of the most benevolent actions in the history of the world yet no one would have known. If something does not happen then it does not exist, even as a possibility in the minds of most people. Few would have believed that Hitler was going to unleash such mayhem on the world.
So it is with Saddam Hussein. Because he was stopped in his tracks it appears to many that he wasn’t much of a threat after all.
In truth there was a lot more evidence that Saddam was a threat than there was for Hitler in 1938. He attacked a free country. He invaded Kuwait and forcefully occupied it. Why did he do this? It was a first step for him in acquiring domination of the oil in the Middle East. He was going to continue his aggression until he had the power to control other nations that depended on middle eastern oil. At that point he could have merely bought nuclear weapons from several nations.
Fortunately, he was stopped by George H. W. Bush. That did not stop his desire for conquest, however. After Saddam was captured we learned quite a bit from him, thanks to the expert interrogation of George L. Piro, an FBI agent who was assigned to develop the former dictator’s cooperation. After creating a positive relationship and some trust Piro got quite a bit of information out of him. Saddam did say that he was successfully disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War and he created a great bluff to make the world think he had them. He said that his goal after the first war was to get sanctions removed and once this happened he would rebuild his arsenal and develop nuclear weapons.
He came close to getting the sanctions removed several times and if George W. Bush hadn’t taken him out then it would have only been a matter of time before this happened. France and Germany were already dealing with him on the black market and much of Europe was looking forward to buying his oil again.
Once the sanctions were removed and Saddam had lots of revenue he could have purchased nuclear technology from North Korea, as they had a close relationship.
We have plenty to worry about in the world at present, but I am convinced we would have a lot more to deal with if Saddam was not taken out. I felt this in the core of my being from the time of the first Gulf War and was very disappointed the Bush One did not finish the job and take him out then.
DK on socialism, capitalism and education
JJ places a fairly high credibility on AAB/DK. But quotes like the ones you gave point out to me a fairly common mentality of the time, one susceptible to the fallacies of the day, and not one inspired from a higher level. Just my view. I don’t place nearly as much value on the AAB/DB writings myself.
Even though he is a master he is not infallible. The Beaver Principle applies here. Even though the beaver is in a lower kingdom than ourselves he can still build a better beaver dam than a human can.
DK is far removed from human affairs, especially the business world. The principles he teaches in support of freedom apply well but sometimes he is way over idealistic about how supply and demand should be handled – and this is because is is not involved in the fire of human day to day living as we are.
I’ll comment more on this shortly.
May 31, 2014
Soryn quotes DK;
The control of labour by capital or the control of capital by labour must also go.”
The control of labor by capital: for instance, money driven corporations with no social awareness whatsoever.
I have never encountered a corporation with no social awareness. Can you name one for me? I’ve called on many thousands of business and corporations in my sales career and I never came across one without some social awareness. Most of them are very concerned about their community.
Actually, I think DK spoke correctly here but worded it in such a way that many wrong and damaging interpretations could apply. Some could use this teaching as an excuse to use force to implement this ideal and that would be contrary to his teachings about freedom.
If the Molecular Business were universally adopted then this statement would come true, but it would be accomplished through free will and not the use of force – which DK was against.
The control of capital by labour: freedom for science, art, education and spirit from dictators or from the private interest of big businesses and corporate powers that seek to commercialize everything.
That is a stretch to get all that out of DK’s statement. For instance, for science, education and art to prosper in today’s world capital is needed. Without it, not much research or education would get accomplished.
We cannot just snap our fingers and use force to accomplish DK’s idea but it will take some time to evolve through free will. In saying this I am not saying you believe in such force.
Let us examine the statement. He says two things must go:
(1) The control of labour by capital
Here is the negative part of the situation created by those in power over labor as related in my treatise on the Molecular Business:
Since the beginning of business history the basic mode of operation has been the same: the man with the bucks has power to initiate a commercial endeavor. If he has a degree of common sense he succeeds and makes it profitable. In the process he hires a number of employees to work for him. Because he is the initiator he has full life-and-death power over their jobs, of which there is always a scarcity. Because of the scarcity of employment the initiator (or “boss” as we will call him) assumes a position of tremendous power over the lives of these subordinates. Any hint that they may be terminated fills them with foreboding fear and distress. Thus the boss assumes life-and-death power (concerning career) over his subjects just as a king, or dictator, has life and death power over his people.
The boss, therefore, establishes for himself a little kingdom, and for eight to ten hours a day he rules with supreme authority. Only after the workday ends do the subjects regain their freedom to run their lives, hobbies or additional work as they see fit.
As a kingdom grows, so grows the bureaucracy of the king. Alone he cannot control (or govern) the lives of all his subjects, so he selects others who agree with his philosophy and gives them power to be governors, or overlords, over the lives of the people. The people have no voice in the selection of these overlords but are chosen completely by the decree of the king. Each overlord has the same power as the king over the subjects, but controls a smaller group. The overlord is subject to the king just as the people are subject to him and he maintains his power as long as he pleases the king and stays within the guidelines of His Eminence’s philosophy. Thus, the overlords are not free, for they are also subjects, but they do have the advantage of power of dominion.
Correspondingly, we can easily see that as a business grows, it becomes a microcosmic kingdom. The boss cannot control the whole enterprise so he selects a bureaucracy of overlords. These overlords (executives, vice presidents, supervisors, foremen) direct the working lives of the employees and have the same power over their lives as the Number One Boss, except over a smaller number. The employees have no voice in the selection of these overlords but are chosen completely by the decree of the boss. The overlord is subject to the boss just as the employees are subject to him, and he maintains his power as long as he pleases the boss and stays within the guidelines of His Eminence’s philosophy. Thus, the overlords are not free, for they are also subjects, but they do have the advantage of power of dominion.
(2) The control of capital by labour must also go.”
And how does labor control capital? It does this through the unions and other means of making demands. I believe that what DK was looking for was the end of the unhealthy condition where the worker feels like a slave under his boss and company. Then because of dissatisfaction he seeks to control his destiny through unions and demands. Both sides of this coin hurt productivity, hinder happiness and peace of mind.
The coming cooperative society patterned after the molecular business will make these problems unnecessary for in this system the employees will own the company and have a say on wages received and how the company is run. The election principle will do away with the feeling that you are being suffocated by an unjust boss and ownership will do away with the need for unions.
Soryn quotes DK again:
“The new world order will not impose a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations. The sovereign rights of each nation will be recognised and its peculiar genius, individual trends and racial qualities will be permitted full expression. In one particular only should there be an attempt to produce unity, and that will be in the field of education.
Notice he says “an attempt to produce unity I education. He does not mention the use of Big Brother type of force. Here is what he did say about unity from the same book – Externalization of the Hierarch
“Cooperative unity differs from an enforced unity in that the subjective spirit and the objective form are functioning towards one recognised end.”
Cooperative unity through free will is the goal. This is not something to be had with most governments today.
Soryn quotes D K again:
There must eventually be a closer tie-up between the educational system, the legal system and the government, but it will all be directed to an effort to work out the best ideals of the thinkers of the day.”
Public education: free from the arbitrariness of private interest or from government abuse. Affordable for everyone, with no discrimination in the advantage of the rich and powerful.
He doesn’t say that private interest will be out of the equation. A private system can be as much or more cooperative than a public one. He’s also speaking of a future when there will be greater freedom and democracy. In a free world there will be nothing to stop the creation of a private educational system if desired. The point is that when a system is demonstrated that works well then others copy it and a cooperative union is the natural result.
Soryn quoting DK
“The new world order will recognise that the produce of the world, the natural resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all. There will be no nations under the category “haves” and others under the opposite category. A fair and properly organised distribution of the wheat, the oil and the mineral wealth of the world will be developed, based upon the needs of each nation, upon its own internal resources and the requirements of its people. All this will be worked out in relation to the whole.”
Like those corporations and rich countries that exploit the resources and the labor of the 3rd world countries (via force and raw violations of the human rights).
He is talking about a system that will evolve in the future, perhaps hundreds of years in the making. Part of that evolution involves corporations helping third world countries by employing their masses so eventually they become wealthier and independent. There is no easy way to go from poverty to abundance in the world at this time, but it is slowly happening.
The above quote is one of the worst statements he has made and can be used to promote communism by force as Benjamin Crème does. DK is either just plain wrong or used bad wording to express his views.
Let us suppose that we adopt the idea that the “resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all.”
If we take this literally then we need to invade the oil rich middle eastern countries and force them to share their oil and riches.
I think that what he was getting at is that as the nations become more free and prosperous that they will develop a natural inclination to share. People will share with people and nations with nations through free will.
In your quote he said, “The new world order WILL NOT IMPOSE a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations.”
Soryn quoting DK
“National material assets and the needed commodities will all be provided for under an entirely new system. – Private enterprise will still exist, but will be regulated; the great public utilities, the major material resources and the sources of planetary wealth – iron, steel, oil and wheat, for instance – will be owned in the first place by a governing, controlling international group; they will, however, be prepared for international consumption by national groups chosen by the people and under international direction.”
Again, this is poor wording or he is just plain wrong. For one thing it disagrees with the quote I just gave. Let me give it again:
“The new world order WILL NOT IMPOSE a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations.”
In the quote you gave it sounds like the guy with a few acres raising some potatoes and wheat couldn’t do what he wants with the produce but would have to turn it over to an international organization for redistribution. If so, he would have no incentive to work as happens in communist countries like the old Soviet union.
That is crazy talk whether it comes from a master, angel or devil. It sounds like he is advocating a similar doctrine to Hitler and he despised Hitler and all he stood for. He is usually very encouraging of freedom. It makes me wonder if Alice A. Bailey got the transmission right on this.
If he envisioned a sharing through free will of the people and nations, fine I support that, but his wording could be interpreted in other directions where freedom is compromised.
Your comments have been in so many directions that I cannot possibly comment on all of them. Let us try and cover one subject at a time instead of the shotgun approach.
Another example: the majority in the US decided that the idea of Obamacare is best so they voted Obama. Do you have anything against this decision taken by the majority? I sure don’t. … Bottom line is: the majority must be respected.
Where do you get the idea that an elected president follows the will of the people??? Every president does a number of things that anger the majority. There has never been a proven majority in favor of Obamacare and if many lies had not been fostered on us a great majority would have opposed it from the beginning. There are still a lot of people uninformed about it.
As it is, the latest news from the Obama supporting Washington Post tells us that the majority, 55% presently disapprove of Obamacare. I personally think the number is higher than that. LINK
If we had a system where the people have the final say, as they have in Switzerland, Obamacare would have never passed. It is a nightmare in progress.
Where do you get the idea that an elected president follows the will of the people???
I didn’t say that.
It sure sounds that way. Here are your actual words:
“Another example: the majority in the US decided that the idea of Obamacare is best so they voted Obama. Do you have anything against this decision taken by the majority? I sure don’t. You like it or not the majority decided FOR universal health care (and maybe for a good reason,”
It really sounds like you are saying that because the majority voted for Obama we voted for universal health care.
In voting for most of us it comes down to these choices for president.
(1) A candidate that rarely represents the voter’s will.
(2) A candidate who will sometimes represent his will.
It seemed reasonable to think that people voting for Obama also voted for Obamacare, as it was one of his main “selling points”.
There was somewhat true in 2008 but not so much in 2012. The main reason Obama won a second term was because he very successfully portrayed Romney as a mean, evil SOB that didn’t care a whit about the little guy. For many it was the choice between the corrupt guy they knew and the one who would be even worse.
I have never encountered a corporation with no social awareness. Can you name one for me?
Well, that’s because you only look at what’s happening in the US.
You make a link that shows abuses made mostly by governments and people but no corporation is singled out as the bad guy. Let me repeat again:
Can you name one corporation for me that has no record of social awareness?
June 1, 2014
More on Floating Cities
Curiosity on JJ’s ethnicity
JJ, just a small curiosity.
I get this vibe from you that you are biased towards business, commerce, material abundance, individual freedom, capitalism and libertarian-ism. You also seem to side strongly with the right and oppose the left all the times. Dewey seems to be a Jewish name, so I would make a wild guess and say that you are probably 99% Jew. Am I right?
You’re picking up the wrong vibe on the Jewish blood. None that I know of. Most of my ancestors are from England. My consciousness is far removed from the typical religious or materialistic Jew. I have devoted my life to the spiritual path, often at the sacrifice of material things.
It is only the Left Hand Path that I am opposed to and that is the side that decides against the Principle of Freedom. With freedom comes free enterprise and abundance – and that is only a good thing from a higher point of view. Also workable social programs will emerge in a free atmosphere compared to those that do not work when forced upon us.
Creme’s comment that the ‘world is full of disciples’ is wrong. The world has only a handful of active disciples on the physical plane. The world has legions of aspirants and a small number of probationary disciples, but very few accepted disciples.
That quote is actually from Alice Bailey and DK. 😀
Though is seems to be a description of what Creme is doing now.
DK said in one of his books that there were only a little 300 disciples on the whole planet so Keith is correct in his perception that the world is not “full” of them, at least as we understand the term.
Let me ask you something. If you were to vote for the ideas and the system proposed here by DK, based on your understanding of how economy and human coexisting work, would you vote Yes or No?
DK did not clarify exactly what the system was to be except to indicate the people and nations of the future will be more cooperative, more sharing and more benevolent and I vote yes in proceeding that direction.
There seems to be a point that you really misunderstand and that is this. All systems and enterprises and customs relating to the life of humanity do not function perfectly and many flaws are revealed on the road to relative perfection. This includes the gift of freedom as compared to a state of being controlled by the authority of the Beast – or outside source.
On hindsight we can see many flaws in the Old Soviet union where there was very little free market (mostly the black market) and the people were severely controlled.
After its fall and the people had a lot more freedom and some complained. Even though most liked the freedom others concentrated on the flaws revealed. People had to take more personal responsibility and if they did not then they seemed to suffer even more than before. Chaos seemed to reign for a while but after the people adjusted few now would want to return to the old system. The extra freedom revealed flaws that needed to be addressed but that didn’t mean freedom was evil.
Whenever you compare two systems you will almost always find that the one with the most freedom to act will be the one that is most successful and beneficial to the people.
This applies to endeavors to create abundance, choose your mate, your fiends, choose what you want to join, how much you want to participate in any legal interest, choose who to represent you, choose where you want to live and what kind of residence, chose the food you eat and what supplements you take, chose your doctor, healthcare plan etc.
Some would agree with all that except he free market. They think this must be controlled by force. In this attitude they are making a huge mistake.
Would you want someone stepping in after you fell in love and telling you that you must never see your true love again?
Of course not. Yet some would tell a person in love with his business, which provides much happiness to his customers that he has to change it into something he soon will not even recognize.
Maybe this same authority tells him that relationships has too many risks. Sometimes people even kill each other. Marriage is bad, therefore, for your own good, I am saving you, even if it is against your will.
Sounds ridiculous but this is what many try to do with free enterprise. Because everything does not turn out to be sunshine and roses some want to take away all (or a lot of) freedom in free enterprise.
The key piece of knowledge is this. In an atmosphere of freedom there will ALWAYS be more progress toward the desired goal than in an atmosphere of control by a self appointed elite.
Either a person believes in the Principle of Freedom or he does not. If he does then he can be of use to the Brotherhood of Light. If he does not then he will be of very limited value for they do all in their power to bring the desired results through the power of maximum free will.
June 2, 2014
Either a person believes in the Principle of Freedom or he does not. If he does then he can be of use to the Brotherhood of Light. If he does not then he will be of very limited value for they do all in their power to bring the desired results through the power of maximum free will.
So in the lack of a definite response from you concerning capitalism, I will assume that you recognize the obvious flaws of capitalism, contrary to what you previously believed.
Where do you get the idea I am changing my mind on capitalism or free enterprise? I believed in free enterprise yesterday and do today.
And what response do you want? No system is perfect but for our present consciousness it is the best we have. It certainly has proven more beneficial than communism and gives European countries the prosperity they have.
I think maybe Larry Woods had a good point in using a consistent name. Free enterprise encapsulates the Principle of Freedom as it applies to making our economic machinery work. Some crony capitalism is not so free, where the government decides the winners and losers. Free enterprise is more representative of those who can manage their business without undue interference or contributions from governments.
Just because we are not perfect human beings does not mean free enterprise is evil as you insinuate. It would make just as much sense to say that windmills are evil because they kill some birds.
Now, let’s get to your principle of freedom.
This is another case where you fail to see the forest because of the trees, because you fail to see how this principle is dependent upon other principles.
As I said, the maximum individual freedom exalted by capitalism and libertarianism will quickly shift toward maximum material individual freedom, which is exactly what is happening today
And freedom to pursue material things like a new car is a bad thing in your mind? Wow.
where you get a small minority of insanely rich people, that have tons of individual material freedom
And how does someone who works hard, creates jobs and produces products people like hurt you or me? I’d guess that any hurt to you is in your imagination because Bill Gates getting wildly rich has not hurt me or anyone I know in the least.
On the other hand, governments increasing our taxes or making a dumb regulation can instantly affect our lives for the worse.
but the freedom of the majority is severely affected
What have you been smoking? How does Bill Gates getting wildly rich take away from the freedom of the majority? The technology he developed has enhanced the freedom of the majority.
and the exalted individual freedom of that minority
Bill Gate’s wealth has given him some extra freedom. And my knowledge that I have gained has given me a lot of extra freedom also. Those who gain extra freedom through effort do not diminish the freedom of others. Just because I have some extra spiritual freedom takes away nothing from you and neither does Bill Gates with his material freedom.
is corrupted by separation and materialism.
Some rich are corrupted but so are many of the poor. What else is new? Humans are not perfect.
Bill Gates is giving away billions of dollars to help the less fortunate. It sounds like he is trying to be a good guy.
Applying the principle of freedom does not always entail pacifism. This is where you are confused.
I’m not confused on this at all.
On the one hand, you agreed with FORCE, in the case of removing certain dictators – Saddam
Yes, Saddam invaded another country and tried to exterminate the Kurds, without provocation and needed to be removed to unsure maximum freedom for the whole.
but on the other hand you demand PACIFISM when it comes to SEVERE and DEMONSTRATED corporate abuses on 3rd world countries.
I do not know of any corporation that has invaded a country and enslaved them. Show me such a thing and I’ll definitely support a change of leadership by any means possible.
Paying low wages in the third world where such wages still improve the quality of the people’s lives is not a bad thing for it gives the people more freedom That is why they take the jobs.
As a matter of fact, the US invading Saddam was a clear violation of both your principle of freedom and caterpillar principle.
Wrong wrong wrong. It enhances freedom to remove a dictator who invades other countries to enslave them and seeks to exterminate a people, just as removing Hitler enhanced freedom. If you don’t think removing a Hitler type of aggressor enhances freedom then you have a problem.
Second, because the US imposed their political ideal – democracy – to Iraq, thus violating their freewill and the caterpillar principle.
You can’t really impose freedom or democracy. You can only offer a people a chance at it which we did. Whether or not they are successful is now up to them.
You do not seem to understand the Caterpillar Principle. The principle is you do not interfere with a circumstance where the life is moving forward on it’s own struggle. Suppose some stupid kid took the cocoon and buried it in some dirt where it had no chance to survive? If I saw such a thing I would remove he dirt to help it where it could not help itself, but then leave it to grow through its natural struggle.
Similarly we had to help the Jews during World War II because they were in a circumstance where they could not liberate themselves. We also had to help the Kurds to save them from extermination from Saddam.
While, my idea of enforcing human rights respects BOTH principles:
How about the right to operate your business as one sees fit? That is a pretty huge human right you seem to oppose.
First, the imbalance created by the big businesses (that rule America and the civilized world) are a sure threat to world peace, justice and FREEDOM.
Are you living in the Twilight Zone or what? Where are these businesses that are so threatening? No business is forcing me to pay them anything. None of them are taxing me, regulating me or making me buy anything I do not want. All they do is offer me products and services I can take or leave. None of them force anyone to work for them. Why you think this threatens world peace is an amazing thought.
It is the leaders of governments who threaten world peace. An argument can be made that the bankers sometimes assist but they are intertwined with governments and heavily regulated.
So enforcing human rights acts purely on the basis of the principle of freewill.
It depends on the situation. Most human rights abuses are caused by the governments of the planet and it is those entities that you need to target.
Just because you accuse a business of human rights violations does not make it so. I haven’t seen you give one clear cut example yet. You throw out all kinds of nebulous stuff but never come up with one good example to support your accusations. Platitudes and talking points are not convincing.
Bottom line: I recognize that we have an issue. That issue is world imbalance created by big businesses that threaten the stability of both developed and developing nations and ultimately the peace and freedom of the world. What should we do? Let’s start with those human rights that everybody accepts but nobody respects, shall we?
I do not see any major human rights denied because of free enterprise but see many that are greatly enhanced. On the other hand, there are many human rights violations caused by governments. We could start by doing something to give females in the Middle Eastern countries basic human rights and to be free from female mutilation. Then in some places Christians are being persecuted or exterminated because they will not convert. I do not know of any business that comes close to a human rights violation like these.
The dark brothers are having a good laugh at you for supporting GW Bush invading Iraq.
You have strange logic indeed. You think the Dark Brothers are happy when a tyrant they support is overthrown but are gleeful when a private enterprise employs people in a Third world giving them an opportunity for a better life. Your reasoning is upside down just like Benjamin Crème who you seem to idolize.
I just demonstrated you in plain simple logic and factual evidence that Bush committed an abuse of power. He even regrets it himself as stated below!
Cutting and pasting does not make your case which is extremely weak with an appeal to the low information crowd.
He disrespected the UN security council, and quickly started the war preventing the ongoing diplomatic approach that was preferred by the UN security council (Saddam already did what the UN asked of him in 1990-1991). US then proceeded to impose their political ideal to Iraq by MILITARY FORCE (while they made use of Saddam before when they supported him invading Iran and ignored his usage of chemical weapons).
You obviously haven’t studied the history but are merely repeating talking points. Instead of dealing with the actual principles of freedom you are creating a diversion into a topic that we have already spent a book’s work of discussion about. If you really want to find the truth of the matter go to the archives and read the many thousands of words covering this subject. We have covered this so much most are weary of I and do not want to go all over the arguments again. I’ll just sum it up with these words:
According to UN Resolution 687 authority was granted to resume the war in Iraq at any time.
The fact is that the first war with Iraq began because it attacked Kuwait with the intention of further expansion. The world community justly responded to stop this Nazi-type aggression and made war against Saddam and drove him out of Kuwait. After this the war was not declared over but a cease fire was arranged through U.N. resolution 687. The deal that Saddam signed on to in order to enact a cease fire and save his skin was that he would destroy all his weapons of mass destruction and not build any more. He also agreed to honor the civil rights of his people.
The deal was that if Saddam did not live up to his agreement (WMD and civil rights) then the cease-fire could end and the war would resume. No time limit was placed on this.
Bush and Blair enforced resolution 687 as well as the new one (resolution 1441) that was unanimously passed November 2003. Bush is accused of initiating a new war. It is not a new war, but an old one that was legally resumed. Bush and Blair merely enforced UN resolutions that others dragged their feet on because of their own oil contracts with the tyrant, Saddam Hussein. After 1441 Bush did not need a new resolution saying basically the same thing all over again.
By supporting Bush’s intervention in Iraq you advocate for a violation of the principle of freedom
I haven’t seen such upside down thinking since reading Benjamin Crème.
You think that removing a tyrant who seeks to exterminate a people (Kurds) is contrary to freedom yet a company giving people jobs is against freedom. You are a piece of work.
June 3, 2014
The Blur Factor
Even though there have been some excellent comments it is useless to drag on this conversation on the Gulf Wars any further. We covered this ad nauseum years ago to the point where members complained and now we are doing it again. Sorim has his mind made up and we are not going to change him.
This argument illustrates just how difficult it is for many seekers to see and understand the Principle of Freedom. Both sides are intelligent but see things in a totally different light. Part of it lies in degrees of discernment but that is not all. Another big part concerns the values held by the individuals in this and other debates. I’m not just talking about this group but people throughout the world.
Group one places a high value on group and/or individual freedom believing that being able to pursue goals with a minimal hindrance and control will bring the greatest possible happiness and prosperity.
Group two believes that too much freedom is reckless and leads to abuse and must be regulated and controlled for the greater good. If it so happens that the greater good does not materialize then they do not retreat but want more controls.
The interesting thing is that both groups will say they support the idea of freedom. It is easy to see why group one believes this but how does group two justify believing this?
It amounts to basically this. Too much freedom brings abuse, which they see as interfering with the greater good and reducing freedom in the end. Therefore, freedom must be regulated and controlled so we can have even more freedom. That may sound strange, but it is basically their mindset.
Here is where the blur factor comes in. Group one does support some control for obvious reasons. They support laws that suppress the actions of the thief, the murderer, rapist and the general harmful lawbreakers.
Group two will take these controls with which all agree and say, “A certain amount of control is a good thing and actually enhances freedom. We propose a few more that will be for our own good.”
The problem with group two is when they get their additional controls they are never satisfied but always want more and if they are unchecked tyranny will be the end result.
The difference between the two approaches is group one will specify the controls they want and that will be it. Very seldom do more controls need to be added.
Group two cannot specify how much they want to control us for our own good for they do not even know themselves. They merely watch for unseemly results they see from human nature and when it occurs their solution will be more control. The problem is that even when they manage to secure their controls humans will still misbehave and then still more controls will be needed. When group two gets involved in this vicious cycle and is not checked the freedom of the masses becomes suffocated until the time comes that they can’t even celebrate a touchdown because Big Brother will not approve.
The Principle of Freedom is what separates the two brotherhoods. The Brotherhood of Light supports progress in the arena of maximum human freedom and the Dark Brotherhood see humans as too stupid to have such freedom and that they need to be controlled and told what to do for their own good. The leaders are highly motivated because they see themselves as deserving power over the many but will have the freedom that they will deny to others.
The freedom they think they are obtaining is an illusion because they are slaves to their own selfish desires which will eventually become their undoing.
June 4, 2014
Re: The Blur Factor
My reply to Keith had so many typos I deleted it and am herewith posting a corrected copy.
As long as we continue to view all ideas as coming from either the left or the right, we are never going to evaluate the merits of the ideas themselves.
We must also consider that there is a difference between the right and left hand path and the political left and right.
The main difference between the two paths is the Principle of Freedom, and we do not want to synthesis the two paths here at all. Do we want a combination of 50% maximum slavery with 50% maximum freedom or do we want 100% maximum freedom?
I, for one, want 100% maximum freedom and will struggle for this as long as I have breath.
Actually a permanent synthesis is close to impossible, as the two sides will always struggle until one prevails so you will end up with the people in a state of freedom or slavery.
The political Right is appropriately named because it supports the Principle of Freedom from the spiritual Right more than does the Left but has far from a perfect record. When dogma is at stake they will often be on the side of the Beast and the political Left will be on the side of freedom. As far as sex, drugs and rock and roll, the political Left has the Right beat in the freedom area. In areas where religion does not have a strong influence the political right usually has an edge in the freedom department.
So, yes a synthesis of the two political views would be good, but a synthesis of the right and left hand path would mean a victory for the Dark Brotherhood.
“I am a point of light within a greater Light.
I am a strand of loving energy within the stream of love divine.
I am a point of sacrificial Fire, focussed within the fiery Will of God.
And thus I stand.
I am a way by which men may achieve.
I am a source of strength, enabling them to stand.
I am a beam of light, shining upon their way.
And thus I stand.
And standing thus revolve
And tread this way the ways of men,
And know the ways of God.
And thus I stand.”
Those who seek the right hand path must stand and stand firmly.
Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE
June 5, 2014
Another Radio Show
I was on the air again with Dr Lorraine Hurley Wednesday morning. Here are the links if you want to listen.
June 6, 2014
Looks like they are finally doing a long overdo study on fasting. Check it out.
June 7, 2014
Introduction to the Molecular Relationship
Stephen has been putting together a couple web pages as kind of an introduction to the Molecular Relationship. He’s been running everything by me for approval and doing his best to put together materials that will help the new seeker.
Take a look at his pages and let us know if you think thee are things that should be covered that isn’t or improvements that would help.
June 8, 2014
More on Global Warming
It is difficult to arrange my thoughts within the 200 word limit but here they are for the next Statesman Letter.
The thinking of global warming alarmism is comparable to a crazy guy heading full steam ahead over a cliff while putting all his attention on trying to correct bad radio reception.
There are a number of threats many times more serious than an increase in the plant fertilizer – CO2.
Here are some.
(1) The threat of an asteroid. The question is not if but when this will happen. In the past an asteroid wiped out about 90% of life on earth and another hit could destroy the human race.
(2) A solar flare. The question is not if, but when. In 1859 we were hit by one that knocked out telegraph systems all over America and Europe. We are totally unprepared for another event like this which would create chaos and destruction.
(3) A magnetic pulse created by an atomic explosion in our atmosphere by a rogue nation would produce similar results.
(4) Nuclear missiles headed our way. This can be overcome by a missile defense envisioned by Reagan.
Future generations will look back on our judgment and by comparison the flat earth people of the Middle Ages will look pretty good.
J.J. every item on your real threat list is likely to happen. The only question is in what order?
Statistically the asteroid would be number four in order. We are not likely to have a major threat from one for thousands of years though one could show up next week. We just had a close flyby of one large enough to destroy New York City.
A nuclear attack is not a sure thing but a solar flare is and we are overdue for another one. We could avoid disaster by burying our cables underground – a thing which some other nations have done.
“The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.” http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Wrong. Most researchers believe the Medieval Warm Period was warmer. In addition we had a period of about 1000 years with a midpoint in 1100 BC which was much warmer.
Take a look at this chart:
“Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
I’ve responded to this numerous times but it must have went over your head. The 97% answered a couple very nebulous questions – so much so that I would answer with the 97% and cannot understand why even 3% of the scientists answered to the contrary. The 97% merely agree that humans have some influence on the climate but there are no specifics on how much that influence is. Within the 97% the guesses (and they are guesses) range from 1% to 120%. You ought to read the convoluted reasoning as to how humans could be responsible for 120% of global warming.
“Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/climate-change-and-variability
First of all you are referencing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which places emphasis on ocean studies. You also need to check data from UAH, RSS, GISS and HadCRUT and then compare then to get a good feel of the overall picture.
So, if global warming is due mainly to humans activities then what has caused the non global warming, or the pause, in the last 18 years? Have humans ceased doing anything?
And how about the global cooling from 1940-1978? Did humans cause that also?
Overall we had global cooling from 1940-1978, global warming from 1979-1998 and then a pause from 1998 to the present. Did humans cause all these or just the warming from 1979-1998? Some basic common sense is needed here and many scientists lack this trait.
And if humans did not exist would climate change just cease to be? Using the logic of many of the alarmists that is the conclusion one would have to reach, which is ridiculous. Before humans arrived there were occasions where there was greater climate change in a week than the past 100 years.
You just can’t take in all that the beast of authority doles out to you or you will be deceived every time. You must look at the facts and put the together for yourself relying on your inner authority for the final conclusion. That is the path to be delivered from the mark of the beast in the forehead.
June 9, 2014
Faster Than Light?
Physicists at the CERN laboratory in Geneva announced in September that
they had detected a neutrino traveling faster than the speed of light, a
finding that violated Einstein’s venerable theory of special relativity.
They retested the speed of the neutrinos and concluded they were not traveling faster than light after all. Overall Einstein was pretty accurate though even he admitted he made mistakes. He rejected the Big Bang at first and later accepted it calling his steady state theory his biggest mistake though his cosmological constant that seemed to be a mistake is being examined again to explain dark energy.
Failed Global Warming Predictions
I’m tabulating some failed predictions from global warming scientists and supporters.
In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. This did not happen. It would be difficult to find a dozen such refugees caused by global warming.
They have attempted to erase that prediction from the web but are now claiming that it will be further into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.
Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012 (Made Jan 8, 2007)
Prediction made in 2007: Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013
But in 2013, Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent from 2012 levels. Data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft showed that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic miles during the same time last year.
Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow. It was 14 years ago now when UK climate scientists argued that global warming would make snowfall a “a very rare and exciting event”.
May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”
They were off about 400%
“Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”
Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972
“I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”
ABC, The Miracle Planet, April 22, 1990
“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
Here’s a clincher:
95% of the climate models made by the scientists the left trusts so much are wrong.
Would you trust a wild eyed religious guru if his predictions were wrong 95% of the time? if not, why trust wild eyed Al Gore and his supporting band of U.N. scientists?
Conclusion: this teaches us to not trust the authorities of the world just because they say a thing is true. Look into it for yourself and then decide.
The New Key
Giving Glory to God is what Jesus always did.
You have mentioned the Key word which is “Glory.” Now the real question is what is the principle behind it and how does it work?
This is as far as I want to go in giving hints before the gathering. In the meantime the group can attempt to solve the key, and we’ll see who comes closest to the truth. We’ll talk about it shortly after the gathering.
I mentioned the word glory first and Ruth was responding to my post. Do you even read my posts?
I read all the posts that are on topic.
Your comments, I’m sure, were helpful but just quoting a scripture with the word glory in was not enough, especially when you ended your post guessing the key word was “surrender.” If you had said “glory” you would have clinched it. You did a good job of surrounding they key word in your post though.
Ruth was the first to specify glory in her own words as the main point of her post. She didn’t quite come out and say the key word was glory but that word was the main point of her post when talking about the key so I gave a little slack there.
A bigger accomplishment than merely mentioning the key word is discovering the principle and how it works – and that is still open.
June 10, 2014
Did you just say that NASA is wrong and you are right?
It’s not just me who has an issue with NASA switching from concentrating on space to global warming. 50 former NASA astronauts and scientists had enough and wrote a letter protesting NASA’s dive into propaganda.
None of the current NASA employees had the guts to sign it because they were worried about losing their jobs.
Global warming activism at NASA comes mostly from James Hansen, a leftist and ideologue. Back in the Seventies he tried to start a campaign against global cooling but then switched to global warming when it became politically expedient. So, I guess NASA was wrong even from your view when Hansen warned of global cooling.
You misread. The text says “proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years”. Your graph only shows a sudden rise in temperatures only for our current period of time. The medieval warm period had a much more slower heat increase rate. What caused this sudden increase? Maybe humans?
Even interpreting this literally it is still wrong. In this current time frame – that is the last 18 years – warming has pretty much flatlined. 2013 was cooler than 1998 so you can’t say that in the present time warming is proceeding an unprecedented rate.
From 1880 to 2012 the planet warmed a mere .85 degrees C which is not alarming at all and has made the earth greener and more productive. LINK We do not have complete records of the Medieval Warm Period but it is quite possible they had a similar rise in that length of time. It is guessing to say otherwise. Geologists tell us that the earth has had some quick temperature changes in the past.
Human caused CO2 has undoubtedly caused some warming, but the effect has probably been less than 20% of the whole.
The 97% merely agree that humans have some influence
Did you just say again that NASA lied? The text reads “97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities”. I’ll go with NASA on this one too.
I wouldn’t use the word lie, but I would use the word “distort.” They present the idea that 97% of the scientists surveyed support the idea that warming is “due to human activities.” (And the survey was not done by NASA) They present it as an all or nothing thing which is absolutely false. The question is not whether humans are a warming factor. Instead, the question is HOW MUCH? If humans did not exist there would still be warming and cooling and this survey makes it sound like all warming is 100% due to humans.
Just about all scientists agree that CO2 is a warming factor but disagree on how much. The guesses range from less than 1% to 120%.
The reason, of course, they were not specific in their survey is that almost all scientists believe that human released CO2 does have a warming effect so if the answer can only be yes or no they will admit that humans do have an effect. I also claim they have an effect so I am with the 97%
I have shown you that concerning the war in Iraq you where fabricating historical data to be in accordance with your view.
Your fantasies are getting out of hand here.
Re: The New Key
Please reread my post. I used the word glory myself and not just quoting the word.
Okay, I missed that on the second reading where I skimmed it, but you ended by guessing that the key word was “surrender” so how can I give you credit for coming up with the key word of “glory” when “surrender” was the conclusion?
Just like the mention of the word “decision” or “judgment” would not warrant identifying the first and second key words unless it was specific, neither would the mention of glory quite do the job.
The point is not over this one-time incidence but over 14-15 years of neglect and abuse and overlooking my contributions. It is a habit and a tendency and a pattern and certainly not warranted.
I’m sorry you feel that way but if I were to compliment each good post made here then the majority of my posts would be reduced to the personality level consisting of so many compliments that many would find it a big distraction.
Some of my best posts (in my opinion) receive no comments or compliments. The disciple must just forge ahead and do his best and not be at all affected if he does not receive the recognition he thinks his work deserves. I would have quit long ago if that were my attitude.
You make some very good posts as well as do many others. Larry Woods made a good one today in response to Sorin and I probably wouldn’t have taken the time to acknowledge it hadn’t come to mind just now.
If one wants to be content on this or any other forum he should feel that the material is of interest to him and when he or she participates it should just be thrown out there and whatever the response or non response turns out to that should be accepted without hurt feelings. Too many expectations are breeding grounds for unhappiness.
I invite you to continue with us as many of your posts are very good, including the one where you mentioned the key word of glory. You were getting very close.
June 11, 2014
You totally missed Tyson’s point JJ because, like you accuse of Tyson, you have the agenda of the global warming “skeptic.” Tyson did not deny that Venus being closer to the sun doesn’t contribute to its increased heat. Tyson was implying that a large portion of the increased heat is due to the CO2 content, which is absolutely true.
Here are Tyson’s actual words.
“The surface is hotter than a broiling oven, hot enough to melt lead.
“Why? You might think it’s because Venus is 30% closer to the Sun than the Earth is, but that’s not the reason.”
It sure sounds like he is discounting the fact that Venus being closer to the sun is part of the reason Venus is hotter. And he didn’t say that CO2 was a “portion” of the reason for the extra heat. He left the unscientific viewers with the impression that it was the total reason. And I think he made this distortion in an attempt to scare us into thinking the earth may become like Venus if we do not fall in line with Climate Change Agenda.
Like I said he would have been correct if he had said. “that’s not the total reason.”
The truth here is so obvious, I’m surprised you are trying to argue with it.
Venus is farther from the sun than Mercury, so how could Venus be slightly hotter? Perhaps it has something to do with, oh I don’t know, lots of the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere?
You need to argue with what I say, not with what I do not say. Of course there is a greenhouse effect on Venus. There is also the effect of the high pressure of the atmosphere being 90 times that of earth which also creates some heat. My point was that Mercury is closer to the sun and has a surface of about 800 degrees, which is very hot and the heat is only due to the sun illustrating that being closer to the sun does cause a planet to take in extra heat. This point should be beyond any argument yet Tyson made it sound like Venus being closer to the sun than the Earth made no difference in temperature.
But if we go upward about 30 miles we would arrive at an atmospheric density similar to that of the Earth, and get this. The temperature is no longer boiling hot but actually a lot like of our planet.
How can this be when the atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. Looks like we have the opposite of a greenhouse effect with CO2 there experiencing more earthlike conditions.
Are you being serious right now JJ? Have you ever been up a mountain and have gotten that sensation of pressure in your ears? That’s because the atmosphere gets less dense as you go higher up. Everyone knows this. The same is true on Venus, so therefore even if the atmosphere is still 96.5% CO2, there is still much less of it and therefore much less greenhouse effect.
You missed my point completely. Of course all atmospheres get thinner as you go higher. That was what I was saying yet you are using it as a point of argument. That is very strange.
When you ascend on Venus until you get to the same atmospheric pressure as the Earth’s surface atmosphere the amount of CO2 is still 2400 times more in quantity than on the earth, yet the temperature is fairly cool like earth. So we have an example of an area (Venus’ upper atmosphere) where CO2 in an atmospheric pressure as on earth is fairly cool even though the concentration of CO2 is 2400 times as much as exists here. You’d think that with the extra solar radiation and the high concentration of CO2 that it would be a lot warmer, but it’s not. This indicates that scientists may be giving too much weight to the greenhouse effect of CO2.
Brat’s Amazing Victory
Here is an interesting piece of data concerning the election upset:
“Cantor’s office spent more money renting out steak houses for campaign events than Brat’s office spent during the entire election cycle, according to FEC campaign finance data.”
I’d say that if Cantor unsuccessfully spends $5 million to defeat an unknown candidate who only spends $100,000 that he needs to go.
June 13, 2014
The Fifth Key
We’ve just had a couple stabs at the principle behind the Key since I acknowledged the Key word is “Glory.”
Here are three members going the right direction:
I see two aspects to the word “Glory”. One is, giving credit where credit’s due. The other is, a sending up of energy.
The Principle would have to be something along the lines of “Acknowledgement”..
Giving Glory to God is what Jesus always did.
These are all effects of the principle but not the principle itself.
The name of the Key is
“The Principle of Glory.”
There is a principle that brings glory. What is it?
Wind No More
Looks like the environmentalists will soon be protesting wind power as it is causing a huge disturbance in the animal kingdom.
Then solar power is also frying some birds that fly to close so if they get their way we’ll eventually be left with our own body eat as the only desirable source of energy.
No I’m afraid not JJ. There are no environmentalists that are protesting wind or solar power.
I was speaking of the future, but it is already happening and will just get worse.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the most famous environmentalists in the country and the other Kennedys are not far behind, but have protested and enacted lawsuits to prevent the contraction of wind turbines way out in the waters of Nantucket Sound because they will destroy the pristine view even though you need binoculars to see them from land.
Here are three other links of environmentalists protesting wind power.
Here are three links concerning protests of solar power. The last one takes place way over in China.
Nathan: “You are not referencing mainstream environmentalists.”
Wow, you are really a moving target You said nothing about mainstream environmentalists, but said: “There are no environmentalists that are protesting wind or solar power.”
On the other hand, you cannot get any more mainstream than Robert F. Kennedy Jr, one of the most famous environmentalists in history suing to stop production of wind power..
If you Google it you can find dozens of stories of environmentalists unhappy or protesting with aspects of wind and solar. I gave seven and that should have done the trick. One link was bad. Here it is again LINK
Nathan: “The only exception was with the one in China which protested a factory of solar panels, not solar power itself.”
That is like saying that people are not unhappy with oil itself, but the byproducts of oil. The manufacturing of solar panels is part of the whole package. No one protests energy itself, but many are upset at the processes that bring it to us including wind and solar.
June 14, 2014
Re: Wind No More
I answered Nathan’s letter last night but it seems to have disappeared into the ethers. I’ll briefly answer it again.
Nathan claims that I am painting all environmentalists with a broad brush saying that all, including RFK, are against wind and solar.
Nothing could be further from the truth and not sure where he is finding this in anything I have said.
He gives an incomplete quote from Kennedy. Let me repeat what I actually said.
“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the most famous environmentalists in the country and the other Kennedys are not far behind, but have protested and enacted lawsuits to prevent the contraction of wind turbines way out in the waters of Nantucket Sound because they will destroy the pristine view even though you need binoculars to see them from land.”
Now did I say there he is against all wind? No. He is against wind in his own backyard while claiming to support it. He compares putting the wind farm out at sea so far that you need binoculars to se it as the same thing as putting a wind farm in Yellowstone. That is a ridiculous hypocritical comparison. Wind farms at sea create a lot less distraction than many I have seen in California as I have driven though those distractions from nature.
It is an ironclad truth that some (not all) environmentalists are protesting some wind and solar production. This is not because they claim to be against wind and solar in principle but they are increasingly finding details with which they disagree that make it difficult to produce energy from these sources.
(1) They are growing concerned about, pollution during the manufacturing process
(2) They are concerned about wind and solar disturbing the environment, insects, birds, animals etc at planned locations.
(3) Windmills killing birds that fly into them and solar plants frying birds that fly into the hot zone.
(4) As we increase production, wind and solar becomes an eyesore on the natural environment. This causes an increase of concern not only to the environmentalists, but the general public.
My point which Nathan did not seem to understand is that environmentalists concern over the impact of wind and solar will only increase as the years go by. Even if breakthroughs are made in the technology and it appears that we can have unlimited energy from them I suspect that this will not make them happy and they will increasingly find reasons why more wind and solar cannot be installed just as they did with nuclear and hydro – the two cleanest, as far as release of CO2 goes.
I don’t know why that one link did not work. Here is the actual address. It works when I cut and paste.
June 15, 2014
So did the Jew laggards lose the game in the previous universe, and now the game is harder for them in this universe, to learn from, of course.
In each round you lose some and you win some depending on where we put our attention. In the last solar system (according to DK) those who are now incarnated as Jews concentrated too much on the material aspect and not the spiritual and had come to earth at this time to learn additional spiritual lessons.
In many ways life is easier for them because they have, as a race, a lot of material savvy under their belts. That is why they have always been good at accumulating money and possessions – until their neighbors become jealous. Because they are old souls many of them have excelled at whatever they attempted because they have more experience than most other humans.
Re: The Fifth Key
The group has posted some good insights related to the Fifth Key but no one has enunciated the principle.. When you discover it you will see that it is really quite simple and makes a lot of sense and explains a lot.
I don’t want to reveal it here before the gathering but I will give these additional hints in questions.
If one expects to receive glory what must he not do, and what must he do? What must he receive from his associates and why?
Are we a talking about Glory as Praise or Glory as Light?
We are not talking about brightness or shining light and neither does praise always produce glory. Obama has received tons of praise from the media but will go down in history with very little glory.
We are talking about recognition of true achievement.
The group keeps naming good qualities that the person receiving glory should have. Yes, good qualities are important to good achievements but has little or nothing to do with how the principle works. A person can be trustworthy, honest, kind, loving etc and complete screw up the Principle of Glory because he does not understand it and has the wrong focus.
Larry Woods is dancing around the edges of the principle but no one
has stated it. It is like it is neatly tucked away in a box and
everyone is looking outside the box. Larry’s post looked at the edges
of the box.
Good comments from all but we are looking for the principle not definitions. We are not looking for the leaves of the tree but that which gives the tree life. Think. What is the principle that determines whether man, angel or God receives glory for his work? It is very simple but no teacher I know of has taught it in fulness.
I do not want to give out a lot more here as I do not want to acknowledge what the principle is until the gathering. So far only the edges of the box has been approached.
John Crane brought us closer to looking into the box in one of his posts. I can’t give many more hints without telling the group the key outright. Think again. What needs to happen before a person receives glory and what would be the sentence that encapsulates the principle?
June 18, 2014
Re: The Fifth Key
The group says some good things but no one has moved any closer to the principle since John Crane posted.
Here is a huge hint for you that illustrates the principle.
When he noticed how the guests were trying to secure the places of honour, he spoke to them in a parable : ‘When you are asked by someone to a wedding-feast, do not sit down in the place of honour. It may be that some person more distinguished than yourself has been invited ; and the host will come and say to you, “Give this man your seat.” Then you will look foolish as you begin to take the lowest place. No, when you receive an invitation, go and sit down in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he will say, “Come up higher, my friend.” Then all your fellow-guests will see the respect in which you are held. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled; and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.’ Luke 14:7-11 New English
Someone is opening the box and coming very close. I’m not going to say much more in the way of hints till after the gathering. I will give one more tonight. I will say this. The principle is hiding in plain site in the parable.
This must be it, start at the bottom and work your way up. The same applies for each new incarnation. Then the achievements are plainly seen for what they are, in time, and the respect that comes with them. Again this forms a chain moving ever higher.
Great discernment, Johann. That is not the principle of Glory but worthy of further contemplation.
That is the irony here. Individuals are looking for the truth in various directions and hence are finding truth; so even if you are not the first to discover the Principle of Glory you are likely to find something interesting.
Because you are looking.
Seek not for glory, follow the highest you can perceive, and glory will find you.
That’s not the Principle of Glory, but a great statement of truth. It could be in the famous quotations section someday.
June 19, 2014
The Key is hidden in plain site in these scriptures.
John 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
John 8:50 And I seek not mine own glory:
John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
But we can’t guess the key before you have given it out at the Gathering……….?
Two or three words fit in here, but I am sure someone else might find the exact key word…….so I will add these in, because it is something along these lines…..
Sure you can guess it. That’s what the group is trying to do. If someone gets it I may not fully acknowledge it until after the gathering, but no one has got it yet though one has come close. You already have the key word which is glory. The challenge now is to explain the principle in a way that shows you understand it. In the past day the group has been saying some good things, but drifting away from the box.
June 20, 2014
Thanks for your effort in attempting to grasp the understanding of the Principle of Glory. The group continues to make good observations but has come no closer despite the powerful hints. Some wonder how in the world can the principle be lying there in plain sight in several scriptures and hints and not be able to see them.
It’s a little like the story of Columbus and the egg.
After discovering the New World, a dinner was held in his honor. Afterwards they were talking and one of the guests stated something like this:
“Columbus, what you did was really no big deal. Since you have sailed to the new world, many others have done the same thing. What makes you think you have done anything great since others are now doing the same thing you did.”
To this challenge, Columbus took an egg off his plate and handed it to the heckler and said: “Take this egg my friend and see if you can make it stand on its end.”
The man looked at the egg and said: “It’s impossible.”
But Columbus urged him on: “You’re wrong. It is possible. Go ahead and try.”
The man tried several times and each time the egg rolled over on its side. After he failed several others tried it with the same results. Finally the frustrated audience handed the egg back to Columbus and said: “We do not think that such a feat is possible, but if you really believe that it can be done please show us how.”
Columbus then took the egg back and smashed it on its bottom end on the table. The bottom of the egg was crushed into flatness and the group stared at the egg doing the impossible – standing on its end. Then Columbus taught them an important lesson. “Now I’ve shown you how to do it, the easiest thing in the world is to follow.”
He was right. A minute before no one could make an egg stand on its end. A minute afterwards everyone could.
Similarly, there are many great principles hidden in the words of the masters and the prophets and we do not see them. I have had various scriptures memorized for maybe 30 years and then just driving down the road with my mind blank the scripture comes into my mind bearing a new meaning that I had never seen before. When this happens I almost feel like slapping myself for after such an event the meaning seems so obvious.
Even so it is with the Principle of Glory. The principle is very simple, more simple than some of the explanations that have been given here. It will seem obvious after I give it out. I’ll give it out to the group here shortly after the gathering.
One last hint.
Do not look for definitions or concern yourself with what glory is. We all have the general idea. Look for the principle that creates glory.
Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE
June 23, 2014
The Fifth Key
We had a great gathering with a lot of fresh faces. The Principle of Glory is now out there. For those who were not at the gathering here is an additional hint.
Who is it that can give glory and what is the only way it can be created?
June 25, 2014
The Fifth Key Revealed
Looks like the group is chewing at the bit trying to get that key. At least the project has greased your thinking gears.
Up to the gathering Judy came the closest. I gave the hint that someone that day had partly entered the box but no one seemed to pay attention to Judy’s words.
Here is the latest hint:
Who is it that can give glory and what is the only way it can be created?
To this Assaf gave the closest answer:
“The ones who see the accomplished creation can give glory to the one who accomplished it, to the creator, whoever it may be.”
That is pretty close to the principle. What Assaf saw here is that the Principle of Glory may have nothing to do with God, but one who creates (God, angel or man) and the one who recognizes the glory of the creation.
Here is the principle of Glory:
One cannot give glory to himself, but depends upon others besides himself for any recognition he receives.
The group kept making the mistake of saying that only God can create glory, but this is not true. God could have created the whole universe and if there were no living being in it who appreciated the creation there would have been no glory. Not even God could pat himself on the back and given Himself glory. If he were alone there would be no evidence that the creation would be seen as a thing of value by another living being.
Let us say that Stephen King gave a speech saying, “I am one of the greatest writers who has ever been born and you’d better appreciate that.”
Would that enhance his glory as a writer?
It would take away from it. People in the audience would think, “What a jerk!”
On the other hand, if a respected person introduced King and said, “Here is Stephen King, one of the greatest writers ever born, and he deserves our appreciation.” What would be the response? The audience would agree and his glory would be enhanced.
The story of Moses not giving glory to God illustrates that God himself cannot give glory to himself and depends upon others to do it. In the work that God and Moses were doing together God depended on Moses giving him credit where credit was due. Moses smote the rock and took credit for the water coming forth and violated the principle which is sacred, especially among the higher lives. God calls himself a jealous God because even He depends on others for glory and does not want others to deceptively take credit when the credit is due to Him.
In the parable of the best seats the guest tried to take glory to himself by taking the most honored seat. But he had no power to take the glory to himself. The host ordered him to take the lowest seat and placed someone else there.
John 7:18 “He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true.”
This very clearly illustrates the principle that you cannot be glorified by seeking it for yourself, but must be glorified by another. Jesus realized that he was to give glory to God and in return God would glorify him. Neither Jesus or the Father could glorify themselves.
If we want glory and recognition we cannot demand it for ourselves but must wait for others to give it. If you do what you consider to be a great work and no one says anything then there is no glory. You cannot rectify the situation by demanding to be recognized. The only solution is to enhance the work until someone does recognize it and gives glory. After glory is given by one then others usually follow.
Sorry, but this so-called principle is plain common sense, and has nothing profound in it.
Then obviously you do not understand it with its implications. The highest of us all, the Christ, saw the profoundness of the principle and often talked about it.
If anything, it is so broad in definition (glory = external/public recognition)
You are not enunciating the Principle of Glory so obviously you do not understand it. The principle has little to do with the definition of glory as you just related.
that it actually encourages cult leaders and other delusional folks to think they are actually receiving glory because they are worshiped by ignorant people…
The principle has nothing to do with cult leaders and only worship as far as God is concerned. You are really confused here.
This looks more like the principle of idolatry than the principle of glory.
So if you think someone does a good job and you tell them so you are them practicing idolatry? Strange reasoning indeed. I guess you are not an idolater then for I do not see much praise coming from you for anything to anyone.
There are people that received no external recognition but they are maybe more glorious than anyone else out there, anonymous people that sacrificed themselves for truth and justice.
This statement tells us you do not understand the principle which you just called “plain common sense.” There is no glory without recognition. Glory is created from the consciousness of intelligent lives. As I said, if God created the universe and there was no one in it to praise or appreciate the work then he would have no glory. You cannot glorify yourself. Thinking that a work deserves glory does not glory make. Many have sacrificed themselves for a cause and received no glory because no good was produced by the sacrifice.
June 26, 2014
Re: The Fifth Key Revealed
So, a molecule is activated only when someone gives glory to others in that molecule? Is that what this principle means?
Glory has nothing to do with the activation of a molecule. It is activated by the members achieving unity through soul contact, and being accepted by the Christ. The violation of the Principle of Glory could hinder group soul contact though.
Thomas Kinkade never received glory for the great artwork he has done as most people put his artwork down…maybe he received glory from a few that
liked his work but most people hated his artwork and would not give him glory…what do you say to this,
I do not recall anyone here saying anything negative about your artwork.
All of us, whether high or low, must do the same thing with our work. We must do our best at creation and then present it to the people and let them decide. If they give us glory we will feel everything was worthwhile. If they say negative things or ignore the work then the creator must reassess his work and either work to improve or change direction.
Believe me… I have done many things for which I have received no glory and if I did not just accept the response and move on the effect on me would have been negative. Sometimes an attempt at a work that receives little recognition in one life is preparation for great recognition in a future life.
What if someone was working behind the scenes and helped create stuff for Steve Jobs that he later used for the computer but he never gave him any credit and took the credit for him self. This unknown person received no glory for helping to initiate the computer.
If you’re working at the creative level at Apple you are probably making over $200,000 a year. That is pretty hefty recognition for your contribution. A company does not pay that kind of money unless it recognizes a person’s talent.
A new product coming on the market is usually the result of the hundreds if not thousands of cooperating minds and rarely does the company list them all. If it is a fair company the management will do it’s best to acknowledge the contribution of its various employees.
Now if Steve Jobs had lied and stated he created an improvement when someone else was behind it then he would have been violating the Principle of Glory. When something like this happens in a company there are usually people who do know the truth and acknowledge the work.
Even if someone else takes credit for a work the creator still receives glory when people praise the creation because the creator will know that they are praising something he initiated.
I must be missing something,
The way the story reads to me, Moses was not intentionally deceptive…
No one said that Moses was intentionally deceptive, but when he gave the impression that the power was his then he was thoughtlessly deceptive.
but rather committed a social faux pas by not taking the time to explain that God deserved the credit.
It wasn’t that he was expected to give a sermon on it. God expected Moses to not take credit. After all Moses said,
“Listen to me, you rebels. Must we get water out of this rock for you? Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out in abundance and they all drank, men and beasts.”
If Moses had merely said something like “God will create water for us” he would have kept out of trouble. Instead God saw a violation of the Principle of Glory, which Moses understood, and “the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ‘You did not trust me so far as to uphold my holiness in the sight of the Israelites; therefore you shall not lead this assembly into the land which I promised to give them.’” Numbers 20:10-13 NEV
I also don’t see where God let him know he’d screwed up and gave him a chance to apologize and correct his mistake either; maybe he did and Moses refused, but I kinda doubt it.
He made it plain that Moses screwed up in the above verse. Moses did not lose his reward but the Principle of Glory is so sacred to the higher lives that God did not want to take the chance of Moses assuming unearned glory to himself again and thus falling into darkness. For the rest of his life Moses got to practice the Principle of Glory but suffered the effect by not entering the promised land.
As it was, Moses received great recognition:
And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face. Deut 34:10
As disciples to enter the promised land of full soul contact we must consistently practice the Principle of Glory for as soon as we assume unearned glory a cloud of darkness descends which is difficult to lift.
Must admit I’m not really impressed with this God that Moses was busting his butt to serve and then Moses uses the wrong wording and God holds it against him for the rest of his life.
Suppose you wrote a book that you were really proud of and you gave the book to a trusted friend to share with a group. Then you find out the friend makes the claim that he wrote the book and takes credit for it’s contents. You may not write the friend off forever, but you would be offended and not trust him again until he has proven himself over a period of time.
We are in the image of God and if we want to understand God we must understand ourselves and when our glory is taken by another we become angry. So do the higher lives on their own level.
Before the Principle of Glory is understood in its fullness the inclination is to think it is small minded to desire appropriate glory be given, but it is not small minded at all for without the implementation of this principle creation would come to a halt and the glory or God would cease to be.
So does God really need his pats on the back, and does he really get that indignant when he doesn’t get them?
All life forms in the universe need this, even God. Truth is the core principle guiding higher lives and the Principle of Glory can only be violated with deception. To uphold truth, the Principle of Glory must apply. There is much more to it than desiring a pat on the back. If that is all one sees he does not understand the principle.
Should we be like that too, and punish the people in our lives who fail to give us the glory we feel we deserve?
You are not seeing this correctly. That is not the problem. The problem is not receiving glory for what we feel we deserve but what we do actually deserve.
If I think a book I write is a masterpiece and you think it is a piece of junk and say so then you have not violated the Principle of Glory just because I think the book is good. I would accept that and allow you your opinion, as I should. But if you read the book and think, “This is great, I wish I would have thought of this,” and then proceed to present the book, or its original ideas, as if you wrote it yourself, then you are stealing my glory and I would be upset and would not trust you for some time.
Yes I understand that credit should be properly given, but how pissed off should we be, and for how long should we hold our grudges, if we feel slighted?
I have had people steal my ideas numerous times and do not feel a grudge but do not trust the person in this area until he can prove he is willing to follow the Principle of Glory.
No one likes to be stolen from and the stealing of intellectual or spiritual property is seen as a much greater violation than the stealing of a physical commodity. Artists, for instance, are very upset when someone plagiarizes their songs or writings. This is why we have copyright laws which uphold the Principle of Glory.
God still needs help in uplifting his lower self.
The Principle of Glory applies to higher and lower selves. Upholding truth is universal and applies to all planes of existence.
Greg Anderson’s Account of a Past Life Regression at the Gathering
June 22, 2014
Past Life Regression
By Greg Anderson
As part of the Gathering of Lights 2014 JJ Dewey did a past life regression exercise with the group. He began by having each in the group relax and then placed us in a deeper state of conscious hypnosis. He took us to our most recent past life. As I tried to view and understand what I was looking at, I saw a deep blue view before me. I thought it might be the sky, but there was little recognition or confirmation of what it was I was seeing
I next had a very brief view of a city in rural America much like what I imagined in pioneer days or seen in western movies. Inside I was straining to clarify the picture, but it would not budge. I felt hopeless in trying to see. To my surprise, JJ then went further and had us as a group; go deeper in thought and to see our next life. At his suggestion I was there. I could sense and see where I was. I was hiding in a wooded area a small distance from a military fort, and I knew instantly that I was a spy. I was looking upon the troop movements of the British army. I was thrilled. I had actually seen something. The feeling was profound. The visions was clear.
At about this time JJ chose to bring us out of the deep meditative thought and we were then brought back to the present. JJ then went around the room and questioned each as to what they experienced and saw. I shared with him, and the group, what I relayed above. After JJ visited with each person regarding their experience, he came back to me and asked me to come forward. He sat a single chair in the midst of the group, and had me sit down. JJ took me back to the deep meditative state and the life two times before.
I found myself back in the forested area looking upon the movement of the British troops. I knew instantly why I was there. I would record what I saw and then in code I would send the information to Washington and the Continental Army. I then saw that I was spotted by a patrol, chased down and captured. JJ asked me if I knew George Washington. This brought forth a flood of memories. I shared with the group that I indeed did know George Washington. I knew him very well. We lived in proximity of each other.
He asked me what I knew of the character of George Washington. My memories knew him to be honorable and a good man. JJ asked me if he was perceived as such by others in the area. The memories came forth and I shared that there were those within the area that were loyal to the crown and did not trust Washington. JJ asked me about my conversations with Washington. I remembered that they were of the finest conversations; much of what we discussed rang true to my soul. I had developed a trustworthy relationship with Washington. As the time came and war broke out, I was asked by Washington to be a part of a special group that was to gather information regarding the enemy and their movement. JJ asked me “What then.” My memories went back to my capture. I was questioned and beaten for two days as to Washington’s movements and plans. I did not respond. I did not yield, for I knew I held in my hands the lives of many friends.
On the morning of the third day I was dragged before a wall to be shot. I arose slowly as my broken body would allow in an act of last defiance. At this point tremendous fear flooded back to my memory. I began to weep as I continued relaying what I remembered. There were six muskets aimed at me. I looked into the eyes of each of my executioners, and then closed my eyes. JJ asked me what happened after I left my body.
Where did I go? I remembered a great peace that came over me. I was brought before an entity. I only remember the form and the intense light. A review of my life took place. JJ asked me how many people were there at the review. My memory could only recall two. JJ asked me what they looked like, but I could not gather any further clarity other than a form with great light. JJ then asked me what was the conversation between me and the entities. The memories came forth that in the review of my life that I had been sent to learn and manifest courage in the face of adversity. I remember being very disappointed that I was not able to help in the further cause of independence. I did however have satisfaction and peace regarding my purpose in this round.
JJ asked me what I knew of the outcome of the time regarding the war for independence. After searching for the right words to answer his question, it basically was that I knew that the probable outcome would be successful. JJ then asked “What then?” I remember planning with these entities my next round and what was need for my development, but also in furthering the cause of light. JJ asked me if I had ever been with these two other beings in carnation? The overwhelming feeling was yes! Who they are or were, I cannot clarify in my memories.
JJ then asked me to go ahead to a time between lives. He asked if it was a reunion with friends. I did not recall that. I remember the desire I had in my heart to be in the presence of those I considered to be Gods. I remember finding great love and solace in being with them for a time. JJ asked me if I had any birthmarks. I shared with him I did, and JJ indicated that they often indicate trauma from past lives.
At this point JJ brought me back to the present consciousness. At this point I was conscious in the present, but I was also still seeing this past life. Members of the group asked some questions which I tried to answer. The gathering was closed, we said our good byes to those who were not going to dinner with us, and left for the restaurant. However, as I was traveling with my wife and companions to the restaurant, a very profound experience then took place, with an extraordinary exchange between me and persons from that era, whom I had associated with regarding some instruction for the remaining time I had on earth.
I won’t share in this forum the remainder of those events, but it reaffirmed to me the doctrine of eternal lives and the principle of re-incarnation. I am indeed very grateful to Artie and JJ for the gathering and the time and efforts that were spent to help make me a better person. I feel very fortunate to have made many new friends, whom I can honestly say that I love. There is a familiarity with them that goes beyond this past weekend’s activities. To some this may seem like nonsense. To me it was very real, and I think those in the group that experienced it with me can attest to the extraordinary spirit that was with us.
June 27, 2014
Re: The Fifth Key Revealed
“Many have sacrificed themselves for a cause and received no glory because no good was produced by the sacrifice”
What about those that sacrificed themselves but there was nobody around to observe the good produced? Maybe they received the unseen glory of God.
Such people could not glory themselves but any sacrifice that accomplishes something good is seen and appreciated by someone, either in this world or the next, and thus the person receives recognition and glory.
Your principle is:
“One cannot give glory to himself, but depends upon others besides himself for any recognition he receives.”
My question is how does this principle help you discern between false and true glory?
For instance, you see glory for Bush when he started the war in Iraq, but I see false glory and accuse him of murder.
False glory is that which is forced upon people as has happened with tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Un etc. Here people have to praise their leader or go to jail, or be killed. Praise given in that situation is not real praise but truly false glory.
If praise is given freely then it is not false glory but sincere praise. Now, there are many situations in life where the decision to praise, be apathetic or condemn is a judgment call. Moses was not praised by everyone and I’m sure there were a number who though he was guilty of lots of sin including murder. His own brother and sister judged him to be unworthy because he killed an Egyptian, but Jehovah affirmed (gave glory) that he was the man for the job.
Most everyone who receives glory for something that is a judgment call does not receive accolades from all. Some people even hate the Beatles but since a high percentage give them glory they will go down in history in a positive way. The fact that some hate the Beatles does not take away from the glory given by those who like them.
Even so with Bush. The fact that you do not approve does not take away from the sincere glory of those who praise him for certain actions.
Some time from now the world may see Bush in a much different light than they do now just as we now see Truman in a much better light than those did who lived under his administration.
The main point of the Principle of Glory is not to get everyone to agree or disagree that a certain action is good but that glory comes from sincere praise and recognition from somewhere else besides the creator of the action or work. The one responsible for the work should get the recognition (good or bad) and not another. Glory should not be stolen.
Believe me if Bush had found lots of WMD people on both sides of the aisle would have been lining up to share the glory. When glory is achieved people come out of the woodwork to take or share credit when no credit is deserved.
I use the principle “Judge a man by his actions”, and consider the evidence out there.
That is what everyone tries to do, not just you, but different opinions are formed and for every action some give glory and some do not.
Whether or not an action or a teaching is good or bad is a judgment call and the closer it is to the will of God the more glory the person will eventually have. Jesus only had 200 people to give him glory after the resurrection while the world condemned him, but now billions give him glory. Even though a small number still do not give him glory he is probably the most glorified person in our history.
It is definitely true that Bush was responsible for taking us into the war with Iraq and deserves the recognition, pro and con, for that action. It is also true that John Lennon wrote the song Imagine and deserves to be recognized for that. By following the Principle of Glory the ones who are responsible for an action get the glory or the condemnation. If someone plagiarized Lennon’s work then he would be violating the Principle of Glory.
Secondly, how does your principle add more to the standard definition of glory?
It doesn’t. Why would you ask a question that has nothing to do with the Principle of Glory? People already know what glory, praise and recognition is. We do not have to add to it. Obviously you are not looking for the principle.
The meaning of glory already presupposes the idea of recognition by others. That’s the simple meaning of the term. It’s common sense.
All principles are simple and appeal to the common sense. The key to understand the principle has nothing to do with understanding the definition that everyone already knows but in realizing that you cannot give glory to yourself or obtaining it by demand or theft. It must be voluntarily given by others. Even God would have no glory without us voluntarily giving it to him.
How can you tell between a good job and a bad job if only the good job should receive glory? Your glory principle ignores this point…
No it doesn’t. Through deception a person can obtain temporary glory for a bad job but when the final results are seen the job can be more correctly assessed. For instance, Obama started out in a blaze of glory which is quickly diminishing because of poor results. Bush is now more popular than Obama according to Gallup.
After we leave this world the true quality of a person’s work will be much more accurately seen and there the right people will receive just glory.
I am not saying that your definition is wrong, what I am saying is that it adds no new understanding to the concept of glory.
I do not believe I have defined it because everyone knows what praise and glory is. You are missing the principle. When you see it vistas of understanding will open before you as it has for many who see a glimpse of the keys of decision and judgment – two other key words of which everyone knows the definition.
I will post the audio on it soon. Maybe that will help.
Both you and JJ get so upset sometimes, which is surprising for honest seekers of truth.
It does not mean that I am upset just because I disagree with you. If we used that criteria it would mean you are upset all the time. You have no power to upset me.
Sorin quoting JJ
Glory should not be stolen. […]
The issue is not that people steal glory because they don’t know what your principle of glory is, they know what glory is.
You need to argue with what I say not with what I do not say. Of course that is not “the issue.”
They steal it because they are jealous and want the glory of the truly glorious one.
Agreed. And your point is?
Your principle doesn’t help much in convincing people not to steal glory.
That is not the main benefit of understanding the principle, though such understanding does make one more sensitive to all the ways it can be stolen. When one realizes how important this principle is to higher lives then seekers will take it to heart with more intent and be more assiduous in not violating it. I know that such understanding had that effect on me.
However, the main benefit is in seeing how glory is obtained and then taking the correct path to receive it.
Obviously, most people do not understand the principle as the majority go the wrong direction numerous times in attempting to receive recognition and glory.
The principle of karma is a much more effective principle in preventing people from stealing glory.
The Principle of Karma is the root of all other principles so the understanding of this naturally leads to more correct behavior. BUT the more we understand branch principles related to karma (cause and effect) the better we can control the outcome of this and future lives. If one attempts to create his own glory it will have the effect of reducing glory. This is karma in action.
True glory should be given to God, not to himself, because creativity is a gift from God not a self concoction.
So if one practices all his life to master the violin are you saying the guy should get absolutely no recognition for the great effort that creates a performance that people enjoy? God himself in the scriptures gives glory to those who perform well and it is a correct principle for humans to do this also.
It’s kind of a false dichotomy. You don’t need a principle for this to happen, it happens automatically…
All principles work automatically. What else is new?
Well, maybe because your principle is not really a principle, and only repeats the definition of glory?
This has obviously gone over your head. The people in the Keys had weeks to guess the principle and over and over I told them that the definition of glory was not the principle. Now I have told you this in my recent posts and you still do not get it. After many attempts no one here got the principle so it is obviously not so obvious as you seem to think.
There is an insight here that has never been presented to the world before and as evidence of that you can use Google all you want and not find it. You can find lots of definitions of the word glory but you cannot find anyone teaching the principle and it’s implications – of which there is more to come.
Everything you say is fair, but it’s nothing new or illuminating.
Okay, find someone else teaching the principle. You may find others teaching ingredients but not the whole principle, which has gone over your head, and when you argue with me you keep going back to the definition of glory rather than talking about the principle and it’s implications.
Nothing any teacher says is entirely new but sometimes new insights are given. Even many of the teachings of Jesus had been given before but not with the insight and emphasis in which he presented them.
You’re logically inconsistent. How is “Glory should not be stolen” NOT part of the main benefit of the principle which is “seeing how glory is obtained and then taking the correct path to receive it”?
You have little power to prevent people from plagiarizing or stealing glory from you, but you do have full power over your behavior which will determine the steps you take to receive glory.
For instance, in the seating parable I cited. The guy had full power to pick his seat and he chose the highest in an attempt to glorify himself.
That’s based on the law of karma not on the principle of glory.
All principles are related to karma, but you need to examine more than the word “karma:” to understand them. You are really being nit picky here lately. What is getting into you? You were not like this until you realized you disagreed with me politically and now you act like I am an enemy who can say nothing right. You are acting very out of character compared to the way you used to be. I think you should dispassionately examine your bias here.
Here are ten other principles out of many I have covered.
1 Male-Female Energies
3 Law of Correspondences
4 Energy Follows Thought
6 The Name of Christ
7 The Ring-Pass-Not
8 Good and Evil
9 The Ancient Law of Evil Sharing
10 Law of Dominating Good
These are all related to karma, but a surface understanding of karma will not explain any of them, just like it will not explain the Principle of Glory which you are attacking merely because I have presented it. It appears that from here on out that anything I present that is new will be attacked in the same way with your new approach to my teachings – with no effort to see the significance.
No. Karma for instance has to be known to be actively used, otherwise its usage is passive.
There are people who suffer or benefit from the results of karma every day, not because they understand it but because it is automatic. After all, it is merely the result of cause and effect. When a cause is set in motion the effect is automatic whether the cause is known or unknown.
While your principle of glory “One cannot give glory to himself, but depends upon others besides himself for any recognition he receives.” states something widely accepted by everybody
If this is so widely understood them why did no one, including yourself, get the principle after weeks of time and dozens of hints? It is because that most have not realized that even God cannot give glory to himself but must get it from others. Where have you ever read before that God is powerless to manifest his own glory? You haven’t. Obviously I am not just stating the obvious. If it were so obvious someone in the group would have seen it after the dozens of hints I gave.
On the other hand, after a principle is explained it always seems quite simple though the real meaning is still going over your head, as you do not want to see it.
June 29, 2014
Re: Past Life Regression
Awhile back you mentioned something about hypnotizing someone in order to have their “higher self” diagnose their illness.
1) What “higher self” would you contact via this method; solar angel, guardian angel, higher mental, etc?
If I said higher self I may not have been technically correct. Deep hypnosis can access all the computing power in your subconscious and often this access can give the patient a pretty accurate diagnosis. In doing this sometimes a link will be established with a higher part of oneself, in turn linked to the solar angel, and some information will filter down, but not always.
2) You have mentioned that hypnotic experiences are fraught with illusion from various sources. Is there a way to “invoke” this particular “higher self” such that you have less chance of contacting a less reliable, “lower” self or the hypnotized person’s desire to please, and etc.?
There are many grades of hypnosis and the first thing to do to avoid illusion is to get the subject in a deep state. Information retrieved from a light state is not as reliable as that retrieved from a deep state unless the person is very sensitive. Even in a deep state the subject may be relating some misinformation. An experienced hypnotist can usually tell how reliable a subject is and there are things he can do to help with accuracy.
Greg seemed to be quite accurate. Some of the signs were the depth of the feelings retrieved and the amount of details given. If we had more time he could have come up with a lot more information.
3) Is it possible to do this via self-hypnosis? If so, will you suggest a technique/method/script for doing so.
4) Is “self hypnosis” really possible?
Most self hypnosis puts you in a light hypnotic state compared with regular hypnosis, hence to accomplish the same thing you need to give yourself suggestions or visualizations many times. The best way to do this is to make a recording of an affirmation and play it over and over. You can also enter the hypnotic state by using a recording of a hypnotist’s voice, but I would recommend one be present if you want to go deep. Once you go so deep you do not recall anything that transpired unless directed to.
With rare exceptions the only way to go deep through self hypnosis is to get a hypnotist to put you under and then direct you to have the power to put yourself under and safely bring yourself out of it.
5) Assuming #4 is “yes”, then will repeated self-hypnosis be as potentially detrimental as hypnosis (by another) and cause one to become more susceptible to hypnosis (hypnotic suggestion) from other sources?
Regular self hypnosis would do little to make you more susceptible, but if a hypnotist directs you to have the power then it could over time.
Except on rare occasions I use guided mediation which puts subjects in a light harmless state where they can bring themselves out at any time. This is deep enough to always get some in a group back to past lives. Going deep a couple times should be fairly harmless, but I wouldn’t recommend doing it often as it does increase one’s susceptibility to suggestion.
if Greg had not had that past life experience at the Gathering, would those two past life people still have been able to contact him later on at some stage to tell him more?
Probably not though he may have had impressions through dreams or reflection.
Was it just a coincidence, or did you specifically pick Greg out of the group at the Gathering to stimulate more contact with those working behind the veil.
In each group regression I pick someone who I think is sensitive to go deeper. We usually get something interesting retrieved.
I know you have said in the past that our past lives are not that important to focus us because we need to work in the now and with who we are in this life, and sometimes past life information can cause a glamor for that person if they think that they were an important person in one of their lives etc.
Or do the people at the Gathering who you take back into past life regression need to know who they were in that life and how they are connected to you?
I do not believe I said past lives are not important. After all, they make us what we are today. What I did say is that it is not important to let the world know who you are, especially if you think you were someone famous. There is a lot of glamour and control around this as many gurus claim they need to be believed because they were a great sage in a past life.
All knowledge can be useful and if one can retrieve a past life it will broaden his perspective. The knowledge of the retrieved past life should be for personal use and not as a tool to show the world how great you are.
Here’s a treatment for gallstones which worked like a miracle for my wife.
Liver And Gallbladder Cleanse
Re: The Fifth Key Revealed
I understand that criticizing can be annoying, but I am a bit disappointed when your response is an invitation to piss off. Obviously some will disagree with you, but it’s not the end of the world.
I do not believe I have told anyone to piss off in my life. Where are you getting this? You need to complain about what I do and say not with what I do hot do and say.
You have undergone a drastic change in approach of late, as if a switch has gone off in your mind, and you must now look at everything I say with a jaundice eye and disagree even before it is clear that you have anything to disagree with. After all, I haven’t even presented the audio yet on the Fifth Key.. I think the switch went off in you after we discussed the Iraq war.
The switch has not happened because I was reasonable in the past and now, all of a sudden, everything I say is completely unreasonable. That makes no sense at all and no one else is seeing such a change in me.
You provided some good answers to my questions, hopefully your answers will be useful to some other people as well.
Actually even though you seem to have made a big switch in attitude your challenges are useful for they bring our more detailed explanations.
It is because that most have not realized that even God cannot give glory to himself but must get it from others.
On the other hand, if God suffused himself in all creation, isn’t God giving glory to himself?
A person can pat himself on the back but that doesn’t do much until someone else acknowledges that it is deserved. We have a local crazed guy who has run for president several times. He pats himself on the back thinking he is the best man for the job, but it doesn’t do much good until he can get others to vote for him.
To receive glory God had to nurture distinct individual lives. When we all realize our oneness and go to the great rest of pralaya then there will be go glory or light and dark, but rest and absorption to prepare for the greater glories to come.
Gathering Audio Explaining the Principle of Glory
June 30, 2014
The Gathering 2014
Yes, since we are talking about the Principle of Glory we should give Steve Evans recognition for coming the closest to enunciating the principle. This was the first gathering for Steve and Jenny and a number of others who were a delight to meet.
July 1, 2014
Re: The Gathering 2014
Why did you say in the audio that you gave out the 12th key earlier, just in case something happened to you in the future?
Are you worried that things are not progressing as fast as they should be, because of the failure to get enough home study groups or study groups off the ground around the World to prepare for molecules and the gathering?
The future is not 100% predictable and i am getting older so I figure I should get as much as I can out there in case something unpredictable happens.
The work has not progressed as much as I had hoped but we still have a ways to go to meet the time for the beginning of the gathering in earnest which I have always said should be around 2025-2030.
Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE
July 4, 2014
The Principle of Glory
The following presentation at the 2014 Gathering by JJ Dewey on the Principle of Glory was transcribed by Dan Howell
Well, but that’s not what the scripture says. God said to Moses, because you did not give me Glory, you will not enter the Promised Land. So, according to God’s own words it wasn’t a trumped up thing, it was really the reason. According to the way the scripture is written.
And because Glory lies behind everything. It lies behind all progress, all creation, all incentive, all everything.
Without Glory nothing, virtually, would be created or nothing would happen or nothing would get organized.
Because . . . we all do it because of the Principle of Glory. We all do it because we want recognition, because we want a feeling of achievement, and this is one of the reasons god created everything.
If you’re all alone, where’s the Glory? God had no Glory when he was alone. No Glory at all, he had to create us in order to have Glory.
He had to create in order to achieve this . . . because Glory is the root of all creation . . . when you think about it.
So, what is the Principle behind it?
Glory is basically recognition of ability or achievement. When you get recognition for something, you get Glory. In varying degrees. When people give Glory to God, what do they do? They praise him.
[regarding parable of the feast in Luke 14:7-11] And he says in the same way, he says, he taught that we should be humble and not assume that we have more glory than we have coming. Or not try to grab glory to ourselves.
Here’s the Principle: You cannot glorify yourself, but must be glorified by others. In other words, that guy that came in to the festival, he thought, Ah if I sit in the place of glory I can glorify myself. And he sits there, but you can’t glorify yourself.
So, the guy with the power to give the Glory says No, you don’t belong there you go back here. So, he was unable to glorify himself.
[regarding John 7:18-19, John 8:50, John 17:4-5, John 17:22] So, He talks about this transfer of Glory. That Jesus’ Glory was dependent on the Will of the Father. He had no power to give glory to himself, but he was dependent upon the Father giving him Glory. And the disciples were dependent on Jesus giving them glory. They had no power to get glory for themselves.
So, there was God, all alone, with no one to give him Glory. In order for the Glory of God to be manifest, he had to have more than one available. So, he created us for his own Glory. And that was part of the motivation. And why do we do any work? Well, we want a little bit of recognition.
A lot of people think it is bad to go seek recognition. If you do it the wrong way it is bad, if you do it in a selfish way. But if you do it in the right way where everybody gets their share of the Glory . . . Then, you are on the path to Glory yourself.
Let’s suppose you are all alone. So, let’s say you are the best speller in the whole United States. And you are all alone and nobody knows about it. Well, are you gonna go learn any new words? No. You think, well, I’m the best and its not doing anything for me so, I’m not gonna learn any new words. But, if say there is a national spelling bee – Oh, I can go get some recognition there.
So, then you get to studying more, learning more words, and you go into the competition and if you win you get glory not because you proclaim yourself to be the best, but you have convinced others to give you recognition.
Let’s suppose I was Stephen King, standing right here before you. A lot of people think Stephen King is the greatest horror writer of all time and some people think he was one of the greatest writers period of all time.
Now, lets suppose I was Stephen King and I’m speaking before you about my writings and I say, I’m Stephen King and I’m the best damn writer you’re ever gonna come across. I am the BEST! There’s nobody out there better than me. What would you think?
Right, he’s taking glory to himself, and even though you’ve read his books, you think, Boy, what a jerk!
So, whenever you try to take glory to yourself, you do the opposite, you take away from it, your own glory. The only way to achieve glory, is to recognized by others. You cannot take glory to yourself, it must be given to you by others. And a lot of people don’t understand this principle. A lot of very highly evolved people don’t. Moses didn’t even understand it and he was one of the greatest souls of all time.
God told Moses, he says, Behold, I am a jealous god. Why did he say that? Because, the Glory that he had, he didn’t want to give it to anybody else.
He [God] wanted other people to achieve their own glory. Now, remember the story about Satan and the Christ coming to God offering to redeem mankind. And Jesus says to him, I will be the saviour but I will give you all the glory but Lucifer comes to God and says I will redeem all mankind but I will take glory to myself and I want your power so that I can have the glory. And god says, no, I don’t give my power to anybody. I won’t just give you my power carte blanche.
It’s like a chain. One person recognized the person above him in the chain and that person recognizes the person above him, and sends Glory up the chain from the lowest life to the highest life in the Universe. And what happens when the chain is broken, is the path of Glory becomes broken.
And it’s broken at humanity right now as we do not understand how to pass the glory up. Most of humanity are doing everything they can to take glory to themselves.
Let’s say – and this happens quite often – somebody fairly unknown comes up with an idea and somebody with power comes across the idea and says, Oh, I like this, I’m gonna take this for myself. And so he takes it for himself and doesn’t give the guy credit, but presents it as if he came up with the idea himself. This is where the principle of glory is violated. And what the person does is, he puts a wall between himself and his soul. So Light from his Soul is diminished when this happens.
Any type of deception puts a wall between you and your soul. So, its important that every word that comes out of our mouth is true. And why do we trust God? Or a representative of God? Because we believe that every word that comes out of his mouth is true!
Now, there are a lot of people around that say, Well, even God lies. Well, if he does, and if he lies every now and then – like every fifth time – then how do you know that this isn’t the fifth time, even if you get a vision from God? How do you know it’s true then?
We have faith in God because his word is true and if we want to be like God, we have to make sure our word is true.
Now, in the scriptures it says it is the glory of God to conceal a thing. In other words, all of God’s words are true, but he doesn’t tell us everything that he knows. There’s a lot of mysteries that he hasn’t revealed to us. And it’s part of the Glory of God that a lot of these things are concealed. Because he can reveal them at the right moment when he sees an opportunity to increase his glory.
And so it is important that we copy god in this way. You don’t have to spill your guts on everything. If some female asks you if her thighs are too big, you just . . . be careful. [laughing] Change the subject, just don’t lie. [laughing] You look just wonderful the way you are in my eyes. Or whatever. But, it’s important that every word that comes out of your mouth is literally true. As much as it can. And every promise that you make, you keep.
And if you do that, you’ll be on the path of liberation. There’s nothing that will take you on the path of liberation more than having your word be true.
And this is what has caused the downfall of many great men in history. Even people sent on a mission with a great spiritual value, have fallen down in this particular area. And have not been true to their word. And have felt it was important to lie to cover things up.
I’ll tell you one very important reason why the Principle of Glory needs to apply – because if it’s not applied then there’s deception.
So, let’s say that somebody else claims to have written The Immortal and that I stole it from him. Well, he’s taken Glory to himself – he’s deceiving. He’s saying something that is just not true.
Moses said, Behold, I will deliver you water, and he smites the rock. That was an outright lie. If Moses just would have told the truth, he would’ve said, The power of God will deliver you water and smite the rock. If he would’ve said that, he would’ve been telling the truth. Moses told a lie. So, when the Principle of Glory is violated a lie is told, and Glory is only revealed in Truth – True Glory.
Now, there’s false glory. Like say, if somebody like Stalin or Hitler or somebody like that, or Saddam Hussein – they have everybody under their control and everybody has to give them glory or else they’re head gets cut off, right? Or they get shot, or thrown in prison. But is that real Glory?
No, it’s a lie. These tyrants are having people lie to get a false sense of Glory. They want Glory so bad they’re willing to torture and kill people in order to get . . . to try to steal, true Glory.
But, you can’t steal Glory. In people’s hearts, they know the tyrant is a bad guy and in people’s hearts they’re not giving him glory. And as soon as they can speak freely, all the Glory is gone. Which really isn’t Glory. Because forced Glory is not Glory. When Glory is given in a circumstance where untrue words are spoken, then it’s not glory.
In circumstances where there is not true Glory, there is deception. And deception is the main thing that holds you back from progression. So, one of the reasons the Principle of Glory is so important is that it takes away deception.
You can give Glory either way, you just can’t give Glory to yourself. You can give glory to those higher, you can give Glory to those lower.
If you’re a teacher and you’re teaching Spanish and you have a star student that’s really learned the language good, you can say, Well Jim over here, he’s really doing good, I give him a lot of praise. The whole class looks at him and thinks, Oh, teacher’s pet, uh? [laughter] Whatever, but anyway he stands out as the one that’s learning more than anyone else.
But if Jim gets up and says, Hey, I know Spanish better than anyone else in the class, teacher ought to give me a little recognition! What’s everybody going to think? Even if deserves it, they’re gonna think, Jerk! [laughter], we aren’t giving HIM any glory because he’s seeking it for himself.
Even if it was TRUE that he was a good student. If he gets up and DEMANDS attention – and this happens every once in awhile. I get a letter saying, You don’t give me the recognition I deserve! I want some recognition from you! I want some more respect!
I don’t go around thinking, Well, who can I show recognition and respect to today, I mean that’s not what I do, I just give out the stuff and if people want to take it and do something with it, fine and if you want to reject it, that’s fine. And sometimes I will give praise out if somebody really shines and other times, people say some really good stuff and I just don’t have time to comment on the good stuff they say, so it gets overlooked somewhat.
When you look at motivation, few people that are on the right path are motivated by the Glory alone. But, it’s a side benefit of going forward. And when you go forward in service, and you forget about the self, then Glory will follow. But Glory is just a natural evolution of doing the right thing. And eventually it will come.
Okay, let’s suppose that a teacher has a student and he teaches him something but the teacher doesn’t want, for some purpose, doesn’t want the information to come back. Well, maybe like in Nazi Germany he may have somebody, an underground thing, and he says, If this gets back that I’m teaching this, then I’ll be lynched. So, don’t tell anyone where this came from.
In that case, the student may get some glory and he may say, Well, I can’t tell you where this came from. In that case, he’s not taking Glory unjustly in any case. But, all the teachings that I have that are true – yeah there may be some error in my teachings just like with anyone – but all my teachings which are true come from above, so I give all the Glory to Life above me for what I receive.
But the thing is, to not take Glory to yourself that does belong to somebody else, and that’s something I have always tried to abide by.
Now, you get Glory the most when you don’t go after it. It’s like happiness. If you want to be happy, you don’t think, Well, I going to to do ABC today and that’s going to make me happy. It doesn’t work that way. You just do what’s natural, and you do the right thing, and pretty soon, happiness will just be an after effect. Or a benefit of the whole thing.
And the same thing with Glory, you don’t think, Well, I’m gonna get lots of Glory, I’m gonna go out and I’m going to do this work and everybody is going to love me. That’s not the motive, that’s not the thing that motivates you but what motivates you is doing the right thing, doing service, doing things that people will appreciate, and then you just know that it will come back to you.
And when it does come back to you, it will often come back to you at unexpected moments.
The right approach is to just be the servant, if you’re the servant then Glory will come back to you. This is why the Principle of Glory is so important, is if Glory doesn’t come back in its rightful place, then something is amiss. Something is amiss in the chain. Because we have the chain from the lowest to the highest life and Glory flows up and down this chain. And if its broken, this produces a ripple in the force so to speak, or the glory doesn’t flow smoothly.
And mankind is a big problem for the Gods as they look down upon us because we don’t understand the Principle of Glory. So the Glory doesn’t manifest in the Kingdom of God as much as it should because we’re a kink in the armour of God so to speak. Because we want Glory to ourselves.
We want to be like Lucifer a little bit and take Glory to ourselves. That was the difference between . . . that’s the difference between the dark brotherhood and the light brotherhood, one of the differences was the dark brotherhood seek to take Glory to themselves. The Brotherhood of Light are willing to pass the Glory on to who deserves the Glory.
He who will give his life for my sake shall save it. The same with Glory, He who seeks Glory for its own sake will lose it. He who is willing to relinquish the Glory and serve us will be given Glory.
Like Jesus says, Every idle word you’ve ever spoken, you’ll be held accountable upon the day of judgment. In other words, everything that you’ve ever done, whether good or bad, isn’t forgotten. You’ll either be acknowledged for it or the opposite.
Yeah, self-interest and selfishness are two different things. Selfishness is wanting more than you deserve. Self interest is wanting what you DO deserve. And so, self-interest is not selfishness. Wanting what you do deserve – say if you’ve done an hours worth of work, you want an hours worth of credit, you want the hours worth of wage, you earned it, you deserve it. But, say if you’re getting ten dollars an hour and you want twenty, then you’re being selfish because that is more than you agreed upon. You can ASK for more, you can say, Well, I did work hard, I’d like a raise. That’s fine. But to demand it when you’ve agreed to something less is not correct.
So, with Glory, it gives God the incentive to create and gives us incentive to create. Because, if there was no recognition at all – you may not see that as your motive, you may see that as serving people or whatever – but, let’s say you served and served and served and nobody appreciated anything, pretty soon you’d get tired of serving and wouldn’t do it anymore.
But if you serve, not thinking of Glory, but if it starts to come back and people appreciate it then your incentive is increased and then you follow the path even more. But if nothing comes back to you after a period of time, you’d quit doing it.
If God created the Universe and the being in the Universe, none of them believed in him or none of them gave him Glory, He’d say, Well, the heck with this, I’ll make that universe disappear and do something else. [laughing] So, you gotta get some satisfaction out of your work and just the job for the job’s sake . . . that’s halfway there but it doesn’t take you all the way there.
Eventually, you expect some feedback. Even Jesus did, at the end of his life he says, Father, Glorify thou me with thine own self. With the Glory I had before the World was. So, even Jesus sought God to glorify him, he asked God to glorify him. He knew he couldn’t glorify himself but near the end of his life he thought, Well, you know, I’ve done … I’ve done some hard work here God, so … you know … you should give me a little recognition. [laughing] So, even HE did this.
The Fourth and Freedom
Since today is the Fourth of July it seems to be appropriate to say a few words about freedom.
Before I get into that it is interesting to note that it seems the Fourth of July was selected as the date to celebrate because it has a good ring to it. The Fourth of July just sounds a lot better than any other date you could think of. Here are some interesting details:
On the night of July 2nd, the Pennsylvania Evening Post published the statement: “This day the Continental Congress declared the United Colonies Free and Independent States.” John Adams thought July 2 was going to be the day future Americans celebrated, or so he said in a letter to his wife, Abigail Adams:
Americans didn’t first celebrate independence until July 8, when Philadelphia threw a big party, including a parade and the firing of guns. The army under George Washington, then camped near New York City, heard the news July 9 and celebrated then. Georgia got the word August 10th. And the British in London found out on August 30th.
Though both Jefferson and Adams later claimed the signing ceremony took place on July 4th, David McCullough writes in his biography of John Adams:
“No such scene, with all the delegates present, ever occurred at Philadelphia.”
In fact, most delegates signed the document on August 2nd, when a clean copy was finally produced by Timothy Matlack, assistant to the secretary of Congress; some waited even later to sign, and the names on the document were made public only in January 1777.
One thing we do know for sure is that July 4, 1776 marks for us the beginning of a free America – the first major nation in the history of the world to offer its people the power to escape the beast of unjust and unearned authority.
Yes, before independence we were subject to a king who ruled with absolute authority at the seat of the beast. After independence, we were ruled by a wise president who did his best to rule by the will of the people and then relinquished his power after eight years.
The struggle between good and evil at this time is the struggle between those who want powerful centralized control at the seat of the beast and those who want minimal government and maximum freedom.
What confuses the low information non-thinking masses is that both sides claim to represent the highest state of freedom. This has always been the case.
Rome and other empires conquered surrounding nations in the name of liberating them and giving out more freedom.
Hitler tried to conquer the world in the name of freedom. He spoke about freedom in many of his speeches that aroused the masses.
Slave owners in the Southern States claimed slavery was a good thing as it gave the white people more freedom and the blacks did not need it.
Now today the illusion persists in that many want to over tax us, over regulate and make restrictive laws in the name of freedom.
The question must then be asked. What is the difference in the views of freedom from both sides?
The answer is quite obvious to any fair minded person who studies the use of freedom in the past by those we know were on the wrong side of history, such as slave owners, Hitler and King George.
The leaders on the left hand path seek full freedom for themselves at the expense of others and will give out limited freedom to supporters in order to further their selfish goals of power and wealth. When they talk about freedom that are talking about what they and their supporters will receive. Those who do not support them will have little or no freedom if such leaders get their way.
Those on the right hand path seek freedom for all, even those who do not support or agree with them. They so not seek to take from one group by force and give to other groups, but emphasize personal responsibility which is essential to insure the preservation of maximum freedom.
Those on the right do not want to enslave one group so another group can have greater freedom but seek equal freedom for all.
This was the goal of our founders, but is now being sabotaged and subverted. Those with the spirit of freedom in their hearts must stand up and be counted and do all in our power to fulfill the dreams of our fathers.
May it be so.
Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE
July 5, 2014
Questions on Glory
How likely is it that one will retain such knowledge (lesson, Principle, Eternal Word), as of the Principle of Glory, beyond death, if one hasn’t ALREADY previously had the consequences of such transgression beaten in to him over and over again (so to speak 🙂 in previous incarnations?
There is a big difference between the registration of a fact, or piece of data and a principle or some type of knowledge that requires understanding. A fact is most strongly registered in the physical brain whereas a thing that requires understanding is registered much deeper within the soul. This deeper registration rises with you in the next life and is available to your consciousness whereas mere facts rarely are.
Now this does not mean that facts are lost or that you are born understanding all that you acquired in past lives. All data is recorded in the akasha and can be retrieved through powerful focus, but we start each life with a hard drive in the brain that is wiped clean of regular memory storage so most of us have to add data into that hard drive from external sources through study and memorization.
On the other hand, the higher parts of our operating system are not lost and the wisdom we acquire that pieces together those facts in a way that makes sense stays with us. Then when one acquires the understanding of a principle his higher mind keeps that understanding from life to life so when the necessary facts are placed in his physical brain he is able to piece then together and see a picture that was not available to others who lacked such understanding in past lives.
This is why I place so much emphasis in understanding and principles. You will lose the facts I now teach in your next life but the understanding and principles will come back quickly when you get a few new facts stored in that future life.
It seems to me ya just gotta do whatcha gotta do and let it all come out in the wash.
So my question (statement? 🙂 seems to be – even if a person NEVER receives glory in (this) life, they shouldn’t necessarily be disheartened should they?
Just work, Work and WORK (follow the highest you can hold yourself to) and have faith the Universe will “know” when you “get it right” and you will reap as ye have sown, right? Give Glory to others (god) and in this manner, if/as you deserve it, it will return an hundred-fold. Right?
A good show to watch that illustrates the drawbacks of attempting to steal glory is The Words, starring Bradley Cooper. He was an aspiring author who discovered a lost unpublished manuscript and then published it as his own and gained great fame. The problem was that the deception ate at him and he realized that he was not able to enjoy the false glory that had been thrown at him. His life turned into a real mess.
Then he met the real author who was gracious enough to not make demands. Even though the real author did not receive name recognition he still achieved satisfaction in that his work was glorified.
Then, after death, the full truth will be revealed and in that circumstance the correct recognition will be granted. In the great libraries there, the real authors will be cited.
In addition to this, in a future life one who was denied his full recognition will be given more opportunity to attain it there.
If we examine just one life it will seem that life is not fair, but overall we spend a lot more time out of incarnation than in it and the truth of accomplishment is more clearly seen in the spirit realms. When we take into consideration our lives between lives and adjustments made in future lives we will see that life is fair and in the end glory goes to those who deserve it.
I have received very little recognition for he truths I have given out in this life. Am I concerned/
If my writings are truly of value then they will endure and the recognition will increase to its right place whatever that may be.
If my teachings prove to be of little value then they will have at least provided a learning experience for me so I can come back and present new teachings in a better format that will prove useful and then receive recognition. In any work one does, he has to mentally prepare for acceptance or rejection.
You also said in a previous post, that Truth is earned. I thought Truth was learned, so could you expand a bit more on that statement. Do we earn Truth by seeking it out with all our heart and soul?
Data is learned but the knowledge of true principles and understanding has to be earned. Also, I was talking about the discovery of new truth that is not taught in books. This definitely has to be earned and is not just dropped randomly in our laps.
I thought the fact that Glory has to be given TO you by someone else to be so implicit in the concept of glory itself that THAT is why neither I nor anyone else had specifically articulated it – because it was such a given that it was unnecessary to speak of it.
This is the problem with all Keys and Principles. When articulated in a few words they all seem so simple that it appears that only the obvious is being presented and there is nothing new to be seen.
Think of the first two Keys represented by the key words Decision and Judgment. We all know what they mean so if explained in a paragraph or two the receiver would often see nothing there to contemplate.
The problem is covered briefly in the Immortal. Here is the dialog:
I gathered my forces and inquired, “So, how do we go about doing this?”
“If I were to just tell you the keys your understanding of them would be quite limited and you would not appreciate the depth of knowledge that lies behind them. Instead, we will use what is called the Intuitive Principle. I will give you pieces of information, or hints, and you contemplate where they are leading you and give me your intuitive feedback. Then I give you more hints until you come to an understanding of the principle. Sometimes that understanding comes gradually and other times it comes instantly in a flash of light.”
Just like there is much more to Decision than the dictionary definition there is much more to the Principle of Glory than getting a pat on the back or stroking the ego. You went to the effort of carefully going through my words and even transcribing them in an attempt to see something more than the obvious and you were rewarded with greater insight. All greater insights come through seeking, focus and contemplation.
Is there a similar list of questions we could contemplate on our own regarding Glory, now that we have the basics of the Principle?
That is a good assignment for me. I’ll see what i can come up with.
Looks like I need to add some clarification:
JJ said somewhere the last few weeks that a disciple will speak up if he is overlooked for his glory because he wants the truth to be told. If he does not speak up then his is condoning deceit.
That is not exactly the idea I attempted to put forth. Let me explain.
There have been many times that I thought I have written a profound post or a post with something profound in it that received little or no comment.
Should I have said, “Hey you guys, you overlooked my brilliant words. What’s the matter with you refusing to give credit where credit is due?”
If I had said that I would gave been attempting to glorify myself and the group’s opinion of me would have gone downwards.
So what did I do?
I followed the Principle of Glory and did nothing. At most I may have repeated the ideas later on in a different wording thinking maybe they could have an effect this time.
So in what circumstances do I defend myself to preserve the Principle of Glory?
There are two circumstances.
(1) If someone comments on my words in such a way that reveals they sincerely do not understand them.
In this case I will write more to clarify my words saying nothing about how profound I think they may or may not be. If the thoughts put forward have value then recognition will naturally come with clarification.
(2) If a reader steps forward and takes my words, attempts to diminish the value and distort the meaning.
In this case again I will clarify, but for a different reason. I do not want to let the distortion of my words stand as I see that as a deception and clarify further so the truth can be rightly seen.
Taking these two steps will assist the Principle of Glory, allowing the thoughts to register in their correct level. Insisting others recognize how clever I am would be a disaster and contrary to the principle.
Thus far, re-reading her posts back to June 19th, I don’t see anywhere that I did (Go contrary to the Principle of Glory).
Why is it so hard for you to give credit where it is due and acknowledge she revealed the insight on her own and before JJ confirmed it???
That is why I am taking the time today to point this all out to you because you are adamant and determined about not getting it.
The Principle of Glory is NOT centered around giving glory or credit where the person thinks he deserves it, but where the observer thinks it is earned.
Let us say I write something I think is the best thing ever penned in the universe and Jim Smith reads it and says, “It’s okay, but I’ve read better a lot of times.”
Has Jim violated the Principle of Glory?
If he honestly does not see value in what I have written (even if everyone else does) then he cannot honestly give glory. Jim has done nothing wrong.
Similarly, if Dan does not see enough value in another member’s words to go out of his way to praise then he has done nothing wrong. To receive glory from another the other person must sincerely feel the value and acknowledge it out of free will.
A violation of the Principle of Glory comes if…
(1) A person distorts or lies about the praiseworthy words or actions of another.
(2) A person attempts to take credit for himself for the words or actions of another.
If one does not appreciate the words or works of another then the laborer must accept that fact and let it go. If his work has lasting value then the guy will realize this in some distant future. For instance, many who opposed the Christ are now reincarnated and cherish his words.
July 7, 2014
Since there has been quite a bit of discussion about Allan Cronshaw’s teachings I thought I would make a few comments.
But before I specifically comment on him I’ll make a few points about our approach to other teachers and groups in general.
(1) It is unlikely that you will find any other teacher or group in full alignment with all my teachings.
(2) Some teachers are in the work for the sake of he ego where others have a sincere desire to serve. Then there are others who are a combination of the two.
(3) Those with soul contact will find a number of questionable teachings, and sometimes outright falsehoods, in other teachers. Then, from time to time they will discover some inspiring statements and truths.
(4) There are good and sincere people who are members of all groups… However … the greater the light which is manifest in the group the higher will be the percentage of the pure in heart.
(5) No group or teacher is perfect. Even groups ran by initiates will often have flaws in their teacher, their teachings and their members.
(6) We must always be open to the possibility that teachings that run contrary to our mindset may be true or have value and check with our souls before condemning them.
(7) We must remember that different teachings appeal to different people at different places on the path. Some sincere seekers who are near the beginning may be more comfortable in a regular church and then the more advanced will select different teachers according to their level of consciousness. That which has no interest for one seeker may be very stimulating for another.
(8) As long as seekers are asking questions and seeking with an open mind to learn they will move forward, even if their group and teacher have quite a bit of illusion.
So, what should we do when we encounter another teacher or group that may have some things in common with us? Should we seek to merge or join forces?
No. That is not practical. You’d be hard pressed to find even one teacher on the planet who is willing to merge with another or give up an ounce of his authority with his followers.
That is the reason Jesus called John the Baptist the greatest prophet who ever lived. He recognized one greater than himself and gave up his followers to Jesus. You would have to look long and hard to find a John the Baptist in this age.
I would like to think that if the Christ showed up and needed my help that I would recognize him and be willing to yield to him anything he needed, but such a thing may be a greater test than I realize. I have encountered a number of lesser souls in illusion who have demanded or asked for my allegiance which I have rejected out of hand.
You’ll note that when Jesus came along and John recognized him, that he did not join forces with Jesus. Jesus and John did not work together cooperating as co-leaders at the top. John continued with what was left of his group and Jesus moved on with a new advanced group.
Why didn’t they join forces?
Because two strong teachers cannot share the same position of power. Even if they agree they will place their teachings in different wording and the students will become confused. Therefore, these two strong men managed their separate groups, but cooperated and moved toward the same goal.
Even so it is with us. We will not merge with any other group but will cooperate and share wherever it is feasible.
Aren’t I afraid that if we cooperate with other groups that we will lose some people to them?
Not in the least, for if that happened it would generally mean they are merely going where they belong. On the other hand if my teachings are exposed to other group members some may decide they want to come here so this works both ways.
A number of good Keys members have been past members of groups and churches which are full of illusion, but they still learned from them and have followed the voice of the soul until they arrived here.
Stephen is to be commended for attempting to initiate here. He may or may not be successful but the effort itself is bound to create some reward. You cannot build anything of value unless you try.
I said this:
“I would like to think that if the Christ showed up and needed my help that I would recognize Him and be willing to yield to him anything he needed, but such a thing may be a greater test than I realize.”
To this Ruth expressed an exasperated astonishment at my possible fallibility. Among her comments were:
“Is it going to be that hard to recognize Christ, that even one’s soul contact isn’t enough?”
Ruth, you are taking my simple statement and projecting it to every possible contact with the Christ or His spirit.
The first point I will make is that my statement was following The Principle of Glory. Instead of proclaiming that I am a sure thing and infallible in taking the highest seat at the table as he one who can be depended upon to recognize Christ, I took the lower seat noting that I am a fallible being just like the least of you.
If Christ were to show up and I identified Him then if the members here adhere to my teachings they will not accept this just because I say it, but will check it out for themselves using their own soul contact.
This is as it should be.
There are many circumstances where it would be close to a sure thing that I would recognize the Christ. If he placed his spirit within me to establish a molecular link it would be pretty obvious because of the intensity.
On the other hand, there are other circumstances where it may not be so obvious. Let us say that He decided to not send out much of a spiritual vibration and decided to appear among us and see who would recognize him by the spirit in his words and works alone.
Let us say that he joined the Keys and decided to post something controversial just to see how we would handle it. It might even seem to disagree with something I have said.
How many of us would be able to neutralize the natural reaction of rejection and even check with our souls in that circumstance?
In such a situation, I would hope that I would do this.
The question is not whether soul contact is enough to recognize the Christ, but whether we will be still and check with our souls if a test should come.
“Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.” Matt: 25:13
This commandment applies to all, including myself. We must all be vigilant and watch and be aware or we will not be prepared for the encounter, or may miss it completely.
July 8, 2014
Other Groups, Part 2
Stephen seemed impressed with Allan Cronshaw’s teachings so I downloaded a good portion of them and read them to give them a fair examination
Overall he seems to be a sincere teacher and seeker. I didn’t encounter much new material in the way of teachings though he did come up with a number of quotes from the early church fathers that are not widely circulated. I added a couple of these to my collection.
His core teaching centers around basically what we call “soul contact” and he calls it “The Key of Knowledge.” He didn’t borrow this term from us but got it from the words of Jesus.
“Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” Luke 11:52
He says that the Key of knowledge which was taken away was the idea that seeker must find the kingdom of God which is within us and get revelation for himself.
In other words, he must obtain soul contact and obtain knowledge and verification through inner contacts as we teach here.
This is as good a teaching as any for a central idea but he places almost total emphasis on the inner world at the expense of the outer. When I read his writings I wonder if he realizes that he is an outer teacher that his group is looking to for knowledge and sometimes we need such outer stimulation to be motivated to check with the inner.
Another major thing he teaches is that most of the Bible is not literal history, but a combination of both fact and fiction, written for the purpose of teaching rather than something that is literally true.
That sounds like the approach I made with the Immortal series so you’d think he would endorse my approach, but he seemed somewhat skeptical of it.
Actually, the Immortal des not exactly follow this approach as I clearly state that it is all not literally true but a combination of fact and fiction. I would think that if Bible writers wrote fiction and presented it as literal truth that they may have accumulated some bad karma for their deceit.
I noticed that he doesn’t go into what is fact and fiction except he does seem to take Jesus and the apostles as literal characters.
He seems to believe the laws of Moses should be still followed quite literally and we should worship on the original Sabbath of Saturday. This emphasis on outward laws seems to run contrary to his teachings of going within to discover law and truth.
He doesn’t come out strongly and itemize laws that we are to follow except to say we need to follow the whole of the ancient law.
He talks a lot about the need to interpret the symbolic meaning of the scriptures since they are not to be interpreted literally, but hen he does not present many teachings explaining the symbolic meaning.
Since he is into symbology I sent him a copy of The Unveiling, which gives the inner meaning of the Book of Revelation. It will be interesting to see what he thinks of that.
He teaches that we need to go on a vegetarian diet to achieve enlightenment. This indicates he will be drawing those who are approaching the first initiation, as it is important for these aspirants to go on a vegetarian diet to prove that they can master the physical appetites. Some inner work is made easier by a vegetarian diet, but it is not essential for overall enlightenment. Many advanced initiates find it essential to eat meat because of their purpose or situation – especially those who are doing outer work. Those concentrating on inner work will often be vegetarians. There is not a one size fits all diet in this age.
He correctly teaches about reincarnation and presents himself as James, the brother of Jesus born again. Since James has not received a lot of glory in the scriptures or the historical record it seemed to add some credibility since another apostle or Bible figure would have been glamorous. That is, until I read a quote he discovered in relation to James. He wrote:
In the recently discovered Gospel of Thomas it is written: (12) The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?” Jesus said to them, “Wherever you are, you are to go to James the righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.” So to once again restore the teachings of TheWay which is today known as Christianity, the Lord has sent Jacob/James, the Brother of Yeshua/Jesus, back into the world in order to guide the faithful flock into the Truth, the Light, and the Kingdom within (Luke 17:20-21). It is there that my brother Yeshua/Jesus awaits you.
So here we read that James was so important that he is the reason “heaven and earth came into being.” That puts James right up these with the standard thinking about Jesus.
If one with a strong ego reads this quote he may be inclined to desire to be James in a past life even more than Moses, Elijah or Peter since heaven and earth was created for his sake.
I don’t know how such an outlandish statement got into the Gospel of Thomas for heaven and earth was not made for the sake of James any more than it was for you and me. Something obviously got lost in the transcription or translation.
If Allan’s followers take this statement seriously it would place him in a position to be a powerful outward authority. After all, who wants to disagree with the guy for whose sake heaven and earth was made?
Do I think Allan was James in a past life?
It doesn’t matter. What matters is what he does and teaches now. He is an intelligent man and is apparently appealing to a number of souls to seek for greater light and knowledge. I wish him well in encouraging his group to seek the inner God.
Good comments Judy. I would guess that the original words of Jesus are not represented correctly in this scripture. One can take any set of words and give some symbolic meaning to them but nothing works as well as just clearly stating what is true, whether it be for aspirants or high initiates.
Symbolic teachings such as parables only advance understanding when it is understood that there is deeper meaning involved and the symbolism adds to the understanding.
Let us say that Jesus did not really walk on water but this was given as a symbolic teaching.
The first problem is that readers do not know this so they do not even look for the deeper meaning. If one does not look he will not find.
Then let us suppose that the meaning to be conveyed was that the seeker (represented by Jesus) is supposed to master the emotions (represented by water) and thus take in higher knowledge (represented by air for the mind).
What would be the advantage of making up a false story that few get compared to just coming out and stating he truth?
I can’t see a lot of benefit here. If you approach teaching as Jesus did then there is a benefit. He taught various principles and then illustrated them with parables which had obvious symbolic meaning. Using this method the symbolism was helpful.
What would be the advantage of making up a false story that few get compared to just coming out and stating he truth?
I think you have a good point when dealing with parables or visions, such as the Book of Revelations. But i think it is confusing to record a thing as historical fact when the real purpose is to teach a symbolic message. The problem is that if Bible stories are meant for this purpose it would seem that no one knows the purpose for sure. On the other hand, a parable can have several levels of meaning and the reader knows there is symbolism hidden there. The nursery Rhymes we read our kids were really written to convey symbolic meaning and to make fun of authorities. The common people knew the meaning but the authorities did not, but no one took them as literally true.
In addition, I think real history has more underlying symbolic meaning than fictional history would have.
The interesting part of the quote about Bible history really being only a symbolic teaching aid is the only symbology mentioned is not historical scripture but a parable (prodigal Son) which was never presented as history. If that which is taken to be Bible history was really written to contain hidden symbolic teachings them someone ought to use them to teach just as much or more than they use parables which were never intended to be taken as history.
July 9, 2014
James/Heaven & Earth
Dan points out that because Allan teaches the scriptures are not literal that the Gospel of Thomas should be interpreted figuratively when saying that heaven and earth was created for the sake of James.
That is a good point except when we consider a couple details.
First, Allan has not interpreted this key scripture symbolically but what he has said in connection with it has a literal, not figurative basis. He teaches that James was the main leader in that day to whom the true disciples gathered around and he is James reincarnated to fulfill that literal purpose which James had back in that age. He is to literally restore the purity of the teachings of Christ to which men are to come to in order to be guided toward the true key of knowledge.
Even if we interpret the scripture symbolically it does not seem to fit in with the “come to James” idea.
James comes from the Greek IAKOBOS, which is derived from the Hebrew for Jacob. The Patriarch Jacob had two names. First, he was known as Jacob, but then, after he wrestled with God, he was renamed Israel.
Jacob signifies the lower nature and comes from the Hebrew YA`AQOB and is derived from AQAB. From this word and its variations the Bible gives these various translations: “heel, take by the heel, supplant, restrain, lie in wait, crooked, deceitful, polluted, and subtlety.”
After Jacob wrestled with God his name was changed to Israel, which means “to prevail as God.”
When the disciple, as symbolized by James (Jacob), meets the Christ (God) he wrestles with his lower nature until he prevails as Israel and then lives a life through the consciousness of Christ or God.
So to symbolically tell seekers to come to James is like saying to come to the lower nature. It would make more sense if the scripture made some subtle reference to the name Israel, which signifies overcoming. It could have been written, “Come to James, the Israelite,” or something to that effect.
It appears that Allan is referencing the scripture to be taken fairly literally, rather than figuratively.
Furthermore, it appears that he gives a lot more literal weight to the New Testament than the Old. He definitely sees most of the Old Testament, including characters, as figurative but when he quotes from the New Testament he teaches from it as it the words are literally true. All the characters mentioned, such as Jesus, the apostles, Paul, John the Baptist, the Jewish leaders etc., are presented as real people. The only teachings given a lot of figurative interpretation are the parables, and this all men do.
I think one thing he needs to do to clarify his teachings is to itemize some of the things in the scriptures that he sees as true accounts and those which are figurative. Which people are real and which are not?
As it is, when Allan quotes scripture one always has to wonder how he really sees the words he is interpreting.
July 10, 2014
Here’s another letter I’ve written to my paper. Unfortunately, I am limited to 200 words.
Since having a number of letters published skeptical of the orthodox global warming view I have been attacked in print and online with great intensity.
The most common attack is to call me denier of some kind even though I deny nothing factual.
Where alarmists cannot point out any facts that are denied by me I can point out plenty by them.
(1) They deny the value of skepticism which has always been a scientific staple.
(2) Many deny there has been a warming pause since 1998.
(3) They attempt to deny skeptics a platform to speak, publish and be heard.
(4) They deny or suppress the benefits of global warming.
(5) They deny that data has been altered to make warming seem worse than it is.
(6) They deny that a researcher’s career could be ruined if he doesn’t get his mind right and support alarmism.
(7) They deny the fact that skeptics such as myself understand that human released CO2 can have a warming effect. That is not part of the debate. The real debate, which is denied by them, is how much that effect is compared to many natural causes and what to do about it.
July 12, 2014
Post to Allan’s Group
I visited Allan’s group and noticed that some of my teachings were discussed with some misunderstandings. So, I decided to make a clarifying post. Here it is.
My fellow seekers,
Since there has been quite a bit of dialog between one of our Keys of Knowledge members and Allan, which has been followed up here by some discussion I thought I would make a few remarks.
First, I think there should be more interchange of ideas between the various groups seeking higher knowledge. One thing that is an obstacle to this is that many from one group will approach another with the idea of proving them wrong or converting them. Our group has certainly come across our quota of these characters.
If various visitors would concentrate on sustaining the good things of the group they visit while leaving an open door for a visit to their group we would see some mutual benefit of having exchanges. To understand this group I have read around 150,000 words of Allan’s teachings from his websites and find some praiseworthy thinking there.
There has been some discussion of my teachings which tells me there is some misunderstanding of what I teach so I thought I would make some notes of clarification.
If the Jesus that is portrayed in the Gospels is allegorical, then so it the disciple John — which Mr. Dewey promotes as an actual person who is still physically alive..
I make no such claims. I have two sets of writings. One set of over 6000 free articles contains my teachings which are to be taken as written. The other set are my books on The Immortal series. These books are written allegorically, the way that you say the scriptures are written. The allegorical series says that John is still alive but my much more voluminous teachings are silent on this and leave the truth up to the reader to discern.
Just like the scriptures contain part history and part allegory so also is the case with The Immortal books. It is up to the reader to determine the whole meaning through his own contemplation.
When the scriptures speak of the Christ, the reference is not to a man or being — but rather, the Christ is a Power of Enlightening Light that can only be manifest within one’s self by those who first come to Know Thyself — and then seek Oneness with the Indwelling Logos.
Agreed with the note that Jesus or anyone else can become a Christ.
The people who are attracted to JJ Dewey’s books and groups are still at a level where they look outwardly for a Messiah to come.
Jesus and the Spirit which entered him are certainly not limited to one life, just as you and I are not. Many great entities from the past will be reborn to which you must agree since you see yourself as the return of James, the Righteous.
We do not see Jesus or the overshadowing Spirit returning in a blaze of glory in the heaves as do regular Christians, but advanced entities can reincarnate or communicate spiritually with certain people on earth.
Our main emphasis is not based on waiting for some great entity to arrive but to manifest the Christ within, similar to that which you teach. That which opens the door to this we call “soul contact.” A search of my website at freeread.com for this phrase will reveal lots of teachings on this.
In contradistinction, all of my writings and teachings are totally concerned with the coming of the Kingdom within the seeker’s own mind and being, and the process of them becoming the Messiah.
We may differ a little here as I teach about both the inner and the outer. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus says, “the Father’s kingdom is within you and it is outside you.”
Jesus recognized both the inner and the outer and if you have a gathering of those who discover the inner kingdom then the outer manifests making God’s will realized on earth as it is in heaven.
Where Mr. Dewey is attempting to gather twelve couples together in order to manifest Jesus as the higher being of the group, I work to manifest what Jesus represents within the mind and life of the individual.
That is not what I am attempting. I am attempting to create the next great step in spiritual evolution with the creation of a greater life form, which will not be Jesus. First however, the individuals involved must find the Key of Knowledge within. That is not the end of the quest, however, but just the beginning.
Moreover, if Mr. Dewey was to adopt these points which I hold as important, he would quickly be abandoned by many of his followers who are quite New Age in their thinking.
And the reverse would be true. If you adopted certain parts of my teachings some here would think you lost your mind.
All we can do as teachers is be tolerant of each other and let the students use the Christ within to assist in discerning truth from error.
If some cosmic messiah could come and zap the earth — invoking an artificial peace and goodwill among men — then the actions of such a messiah would suspend the Laws and derail the spiritual evolution of the individual souls.
Agreed and I have taught this myself a number of times.
While the utopian mindset is with good intentions, its wishful thinking is based upon the ignorance of self and the Cosmology of Mind.
As far as the utopian ideas and methods of communism or the political left I completely agree. However, I believe it is an error to see that humans cannot improve their condition and after a sufficient time there can be a literal “peace on earth and goodwill to men.” The Will of God will manifest on earth as it is in heaven and the time will indeed come that the brotherhood of humankind will be a reality.
The hearts of the fathers (those of us in the present) must turn to the children (to the benefit of future generations) or the earth will be smitten with a curse. See Mal 4:6
July 13, 2014
One can never go far wrong when contemplating the Law of Correspondences.
The important thing about diet is what the seeker receives from his own soul. One size does not fit all. He should be guided by inner guidance much more than some commandment from a priest or guru.
Those working on the first and second initiations are guided at some point to go on a vegetarian diet. For the fist it is important to master the physical appetites and for the second the vegetarian diet reduces the strength of the carnal passions. Most have difficulty mastering the emotional plane while on a standard meat eating diet.
As the disciples moves forward he gains greater self control and can handle the astral plane no matter what diet he is on. At that point, he chooses his diet depending on whether his attention is to be on the inner our outer work. Many western disciples (such as Churchill) concentrate on the outer work and eat and drink as seems good. On the other hand, if one wants to concentrate on the inner work one not only wants to go on a vegetarian diet, but a very light one of raw foods.
Another factor in the minds of disciples is heath. The disciple, whether he be a vegetarian or meat eater, will carefully choose foods that will keep him healthy.
July 16, 2014
Precept Upon Precept
Greg being overwhelmed by new terms and the knowledge available is familiar to many of us who have either been kicked out of or left past orthodox belief systems.
Many of us call this moving away from orthodoxy as “graduation from spiritual kindergarten.” Indeed, kindergarten serves a purpose but we do not want to stay there forever. Once the simple basics are learned then it is time to go on.
Unfortunately, the churches have done such a good job of brain washing their members that they see it as a good thing that the people learn the same things over and over.
Isaiah spoke accurately of this situation.
“Whom shall he teach knowledge? And whom shall he make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will be speak to this people.” (Isaiah 28:9-11)
There has been much written about the stammering lips and another tongue that miss the point. The English word “stammering” is translated from the Hebrew LAEG. When one speaks stammering or LAEG., he speaks in a sort of repeating baby talk to jokingly irritate his listeners. Isaiah himself is using this sort of talk with the Jews when he repeats himself unnecessarily in verse 10. When he speaks of “another tongue”, we must remember that our tongue today is a different one than that used by the ancient Jews.
A higher interpretation of the other tongue is refers to a new way of speaking and teaching to Israelites. Jesus spoke with a different tongue, or manner of speaking, than Moses, and God will speak in new and different ways as the times change in this age. The teachers of the various ages and climes teach so differently (even though it is all one message) that it seems to be “another tongue.”
“But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” (Verse 13)
Here Isaiah again used his “stammering” language for he again uses his repetitive speech. He clearly illustrates how the word of the Lord has been presented to the resisting religions. He says it is, “Precept upon precept, precept upon precept;” the repetition or stammering indicates the manner of presentation of the gospel to the churches today. The church teachers say the same things over and over, and the Sunday School manuals teach the same simple lessons over and over. Because they “would not hear,” this is the backward manner that teachings would come to them.
Why is this? So that they “might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” “Taken” is from the Hebrew LAKAD which signifies being “caught in a trap.” God is allowing the churches to follow the backward course it is taking so they will be caught in a trap, and when its bands are made strong the real truth through wise virgins will come forth to reveal the bondage to those who thought they were free. There must be great contrast between light and darkness or the light will not be seen or sought.
“For the bed is shorter than a man can stretch himself on it: the covering narrower than he can wrap himself in it.” (Verse 20)
The “bed” refers to the foundations of the church and kingdom as presently constituted. They are not enough to fully satisfy the earnest seeker; therefore, he cannot “stretch himself on it.” The “covering” refers to the teachings available. The fullness of revelation is no longer with the church; therefore, the covering is narrower than a member can wrap himself in it.”
Visualize yourself going to bed in a cold room to take a rest. Your bed is so short that your feet hang over the edge. The covers are so short that they only cover half your body. Would this not be an uncomfortable situation you would want to rectify at the first possible moment?
Yet the foundation teachings, the good, the beautiful and the true, of most religions have been in large part shorted or removed making the bed of religion too short and a very uncomfortable resting place. Foundation teachings and new revelation have been suppressed so members do not have sufficient light as a covering and shiver inside stone buildings lacking warmth.
I remember feeling unsatisfied by being restricted to church teachings for knowledge. I looked for greater knowledge but little came outside of my own inner reflections. Finally, I discovered the freedom of exploring everywhere from inside myself to the outside world for greater light and truth. When this happened I was delighted to find that there is much more available than anyone can learn in one lifetime. But this is a good thing.
July 18, 2014
Dark Brotherhood Dream Assassins?
I, too, came under the worst attack in all the years I’ve endured them…this time in a gang of 3.
I’m sorry you had to go through such an experience. Because energy follows thought there were several things I was hesitant to include in the books, but I figured the positive knowledge conveyed would be worth the risk.
When one hears or reads about dark attacks the best course is to watch your thoughts and emotions carefully. Do not let your thoughts be directed toward the possibility and do not fear. Not providing any energy of thought or feelings provides a good shield. Absorb knowledge of the principle of Attrition discussed in the Lost Key. Learning to let negative energy pass through you as if it does not exist is an important key.
Stay focussed in the light and you will get the assistance you need from time to time.
I was wondering on what plane the “deceiving spirits”, dark brothers, etc. reside. Is it the astral plane or is there such a thing as a spiritual plane?
Most work on the lower levels of the astral or from the Eighth Sphere. This Sphere is a very low level plane of illusion even more dense than the physical where it is said lost souls dwell. Here the inhabitants are in the process of disintegration.
More advanced dark brothers who have not yet entered the Eighth Sphere sometimes dwell in the higher astral or lower mental. The lower mental is the highest level any of them can function. An advanced dark bother is difficult for many to recognize because when they work in the higher astral or lower mental they can come across an a regular inhabitant. This is why the trusted teachers there are from the higher metal plane or vibration.
July 19, 2014
Why we need the Astral body
The Emotions drop below the threshold of consciousness eventually, just like our instincts have dropped below the threshold, but we are still able to tap into them when we need to. Is this assumption correct, JJ?
Not quite. All those in physical incarnation have an astral body and all disciples have fully functioning emotions that are not below the threshold of consciousness just like the physical body and it’s feelings of pain and pleasure are not below the threshold.
If we got rid of our astral body, then we would no longer have any more emotions, correct?
No. The astral body is a lower reflection of the buddhic body and plane where the higher more true feelings reside. As long as we reside in some part of this universe there are feelings of some kind.
All entities incarnating on this planet have an astral body and do not get rid of it any time in the foreseeable future.
Most people die and pass over into the astral realm on the various levels of consciousness, so if there was no astral realm, then we would pass over to _______?
No need to be concerned. The astral realm will be there in any future that concerns us.
Although I understand that Disciples etc can pass over onto the mental realm when they die.
Passing to the mental realm does not make the astral world disappear, nor does it mean a disciple cannot use his astral body or later incarnate into the physical.
When humanity reaches and works through it’s collective mental body, then the emotional body does not disappear and become non existent, but rather just drops below the level of consciousness, because humans are living and using their mental consciousness. Is this correct?
No. They will still use their astral body, but control it with the higher mind.
July 22, 2014
The Feeling World
Thanks for clearing this up for me because I was wondering if the emotions dropped below the threshold in millions of years, like our instincts have.
Although the emotional body has to be mastered like our physical body, but the instincts belong to the animal soul, so that is why the instincts dropped below the threshold?
The feeling nature and instincts are two entirely different instruments. Instincts are like computer programs. You don’t use a computer program all the time and there are some that you don’t need any more and you may not use them at all in the present, but they can be retrieved when needed and attention is focused on them. These are below the threshold of consciousness until retrieved.
The feeling/emotional nature is not like a computer program but is generated by your consciousness interacting with your environment. As long as you interact with the worlds of form you will have feelings about what is happening. You can negate certain feelings but you cannot negate feeling itself. For instance, if you hate your next door neighbor and conclude that you are being unreasonable and through understanding replace hate with friendship, then you negated the negative feeling. It is not below the threshold of consciousness, but just doesn’t exist any more. That doesn’t mean that you could not wind up hating something else.
What we feel about things changes over time but some type of feeling always remains, even in the higher worlds. And who among us would ever want to negate happiness, joy, peace or bliss?
Also is there a Principle of Sealing? Or is Sealing incorporated into the Molecular Relationship?
Sealing exists, but not in the way the LDS church teaches it… And they should be thankful this is the case. After all, there are many thousands of unhappy married couples sealed together for all eternity (in their minds). Who wants to be bound for eternity to someone you cannot stand? This would be especially difficult if you found someone who you truly could love that was not currently your spouse.
Two things will bind you to another person so you will meet them in a future life: Love and hate. Love will cause your Higher Self to arrange a future life so you can enjoy each other’s company again and hate will cause you to meet again so you can learn to work things out and let the negative feelings go.
The Molecular Relationship is the closest thing to sealing as is generally understood in that you and others joined learn to share group consciousness so it will be as if you are never separated in life or death.
Joan basically says that she is a helpful person and people seem to be taking advantage of her but when she withdraws they are upset, which thing concerns her.
Yes, those who take more advantage than they should are legion, but the key to handling it is this.
Your peace and happiness is just as important as anyone else’s and if you do not do the basic things to insure this happens for you then you are doing just as much of a disservice as when one ignores the legitimate needs of others. If you do not keep yourself mentally and emotionally healthy then you will not be of much use to others, so for the sake of the whole you must examine your feeling needs and keep them satisfied.
If you have too many people coming into your life draining you of energy this means you are sending out signals that draw them to you. Reflect on what signals you must be sending and reduce them. Once reduced then fewer people will come out of the woodwork asking for favors.
The worst thing that can happen is if people impose so much that you suffer a grievance. Such a thing can fester into ill health and low energy. It is of extreme importance that the seeker keeps his emotional body balanced and happy.
Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE
July 23, 2014
The Bible – Fact or Fiction?
About time I give out another question or two. The group seems to like this John type of method as we usually get some pretty good responses.
Stephen has drawn some attention to some of Allan’s teachings who claims to be a reincarnation of James, the brother of Jesus. Let us examine a few of his teachings.
One of his core teachings is that the scriptures are not literally true but written as allegories with hidden symbolic messages that will be understood by the enlightened.
This is not a new teaching as many people think the Bible is not history but stories of fiction designed to present teachings of some kind. Some see the scriptures as presenting simple things while others see deep hidden meanings.
If the scriptures are truly fiction this means that whoever wrote them created a lie for, unlike Jesus presenting parables, and me The Immortal series, they have been presented as true history and in most cases the writers would have known that the narrative wasn’t true.
(1) Does this make sense to you?
(2) Would a truly enlightened teacher use such deception?
(3) Are there hidden meanings in the scriptures?
(4) Do you know of any useful knowledge anyone has derived from fiction presented as historical fact?
I find it hard to believe Allen is stating the Bible is completely allegorical with no basis in history. Is this really his contention?
Sometimes he talks about it as if it is pure allegory, but then other times he acknowledges that there is some history thrown in. He seems to think all the Old Testament is allegory and few if any of the characters are real. He does acknowledge that Jesus, Paul, James and some of the characters of the New Testament are real but most or all of the miracles are allegory, but doesn’t seem to tell us what the meaning of the allegory is. He seems to take most of the Gospel of Thomas pretty literally though.
Welcome to the forum Allan. I have been gone most of the day so haven’t been able to respond until now.
Since I hadn’t heard from Stephen for a while so I thought maybe the project was shelved, but I did want to cover this subject of the Bible a being allegory. It wouldn’t have been my first choice in the Stephen’s project, but here we are so we’ll go with it.
Do you know of any useful knowledge anyone has derived from fiction presented as historical fact?
To this you say that you believe you have presented a case for this. The trouble is that your post mainly deals with parables which are not presented as historical fact. Most Bible students realize that the parables have a surface meaning and then a deeper meaning as you teach. I have said a number of times that many ancient Jewish teachers believed that the scriptures have three levels of meanings, called the body, soul and spirit. Some even give as many as seven meanings to them.
But the point is that parables are not a part of the answer to the question because a parable is a fiction story that obviously presents a teaching of some kind. A parable is not presented as historical fact.
On the other hand, many of the scriptures that are not parables are presented as historical fact such as Jesus walking on water, raising Lazarus from the dead, the Resurrection, the Pentecost and many more things. Are you saying the writers of these things lied and presented fiction as historical fact to teach some type of truth?
And what truth was presented in any of this that was not obvious to begin with? I do not see how you have presented am example.
You say that you and Jesus wrote the original gospels. Did you devise the miracles as fiction to be presented as truth? And for what purpose? To teach deeper meaning you say? What is the deeper meaning that could have not been conveyed in an honest parable?
July 24, 2014
Re: [Keysters] The Bible – Fact or Fiction?
It looks my reply disappeared into the ethers. Here it is again.
Again, the question:
Do you know of any useful knowledge anyone has derived from fiction presented as historical fact?
The closest attempt I can see to answer this by Allan is:
“Solomon did not have 700 wives and 300 concubines — yet, these numbers in conjunction with the name Solomon convey important meaning to the seeker/disciple.”
Yes, you say there is some important meaning here but do not say what that important meaning is.
It is important to point out that any myth from the Old Testament presented to us in the scriptures is a much different animal than a fabricated or altered account of known recent history.
Let me explain.
Those who compiled the stories of the Old Testament gathered together stories that had been passed down by word of mouth for many centuries. They did not know if all the stories were literally true, but this was the best information they had. In other words, the compilers did not write fictional accounts and create myth, hut compiled the stories from the best sources they had.
Because various accounts were passed by word of mouth for centuries a certain amount of corruption was incorporated as well as a number of stories that may have been pure fiction.
The compilers did not know what was true and what was fiction so they just put together the best of what they had available.
I cannot fault them for this because they did not write the stories themselves. All civilizations had to do this with their stories passed down by word of mouth and preserving them to the best of the compiler’s ability did not involve intentional deception.
On the other hand, after we learned to write and keep a recorded history the records were kept much closer to real time and the authors knew whether they were writing about events that were true or creating fabrications.
Thus the New Testament is much different from the Old, as when Jesus showed up followers had full ability to record events in writing during or shortly after his ministry. The writers did not have to rely on legends a thousand years old or more.
Scholars say the Gospel of Mark was written within 30 years of the crucifixion. Jesus would have been as fresh in his mind as is President Reagan in ours. It would be pretty difficult for me to convince anyone that Reagan walked on water or changed water into wine, but if I could it would indeed be a deception, even if I thought I was conveying a great truth in the account.
Writing a stated fiction book conveying Reagan as a miracle worker would be one thing and fairly harmless, but creating one that is presented as true is quite another and would be a great deception.
Jesus said that Satan was a liar from the beginning and we certainly do not want to emulate his approach.
If any of the Bible writers created fabricated stories about Jesus and presented them to the world as true then they were in grave error, for a lie always gives the powers of darkness additional power to accomplish their ends. Deceptions causes a cloud to develop over the soul. The greatest key to liberation is truth. This includes not only higher higher metaphysical truth but truth as things really happen in history. Those who distort history, whether it be for good or bad intent, will create harm for future generations and karma for themselves.
So I ask again:
Do you know of any useful knowledge anyone has derived from fiction presented as historical fact?
I would say that most of the stories from the Old Testament would not count here as the compilers did not know for sure what was true and what was fiction. Its creation was not an intentional deception.
The compilers of the early New Testament knew the historical truth and generally knew if what they were writing was historically true. So what myth was knowingly placed in the New Testament teaches us any significant truth and what is that truth?
Here is a response I made to a member of Allan’s forum.
You are still looking at this through a very linear male pattern and with a literal bias toward scripture.
It sounds like you are trying to put me in a box as if I am some type of fundamentalist. I find a lot of symbolism in the Bible and have written volumes on it. I wrote a whole book explaining he symbolic meaning of the Book of Revelation. I have no problem in finding symbolic meaning in the scriptures or any other writing.
And yes, I realize the Gospel of Mark was probably based on an earlier version as most orthodox scholars also believe. Allan quotes from the Gospel of the Nazirenes which some believe to be an earlier version, but this presents the miracles as true history, including the resurrection.
The reason you do not understand the story of Solomon is because you are still trying to read it as some kind of historical record handed down by word of mouth without once understanding that there were a whole group of mystics living during that time period who wrote it down for a specific purpose that was not to document history.
And why do you think I do not understand the story of Solomon when I have not even given you my interpretation? You need to argue with what I say, not with what I do not say.
And what do you think that “specific purpose” was? And what was the real meaning of the 300 wives and 700 concubines?
In the higher spiritual realm where our souls reside, the history of human beings is pretty much a joke.
And you think this because? It sounds like you are saying that the things which are true are a joke, but deceptive presentations, where the truth is altered is much better.
You may be surprised to learn after death that accurate records are kept in the higher realms of not only the true history of humanity, but of all creation.
True history has more true usable symbolism in it than a concocted and altered history, even if the writers were clever and had good intent. Good intent does not create the communication of true principles whereas real truth pieced together does.
What is important is the development of the soul and soul does not speak in our language. We have to learn the language of the soul and in order for the most basic concepts to be past down from one generation to the next it has to be written in allegory using context clues that would reawaken within true seekers the clues to the language of the soul by applying the “Key of Knowledge” to each passage.
I am all for teaching in allegory as I have done it many times but little can be gained writing something that is not true (with some hidden meaning included) and then presenting it to the world as true history when it is not. If it is accepted as true, as the New Testament is by most, then, readers will not be looking for the hidden meaning. The few that do will rarely agree with what that hidden meaning is. If Allan is the only one who understands the hidden meaning what then was accomplished by the fictional presentation, other than the masses accepting a thing that is not true?
As it is, there are many parables presented by Jesus with no deception involved at all. Everyone understood that they were not literally true and they had an allegorical meaning. Jesus also clearly explained that they had a higher meaning than the obvious. I notice that Allan uses the parables a lot in teaching but rarely uses the historical narrative which he says is also supposed to contain mysteries in allegory.
…because we are not giving you the answer you want and you won’t stop until we agree with you.
That is not the problem. The problem is that I have not yet received an answer.
Well I hate to break it to you…it has been asked and answered by Allan through his soul directly to you and you just don’t want to accept it.
Then could you tell me in a sentence or two what the answer was?
Again, here was the question:
Do you know of any useful knowledge anyone has derived from fiction presented as historical fact?
July 25, 2014
The Bible Fact or Fiction Continued
You have an entirely different vision and understanding of scriptures than I do. What you seem to portray are accounts — i.e., historical, folklore, or even myths — that are passed down and recorded in the scriptures.
You seem to incorrectly see me as someone with a fundamentalist view. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not see all the scriptures a literal historical truth though some may be. They were written by imperfect people and then most of them have been altered since originally written. I read the scriptures like I read everything else – by the light of the soul. If it speaks to the inner spirit I accept it and if not then I do not.
A quotation attributed to me is:
One with soul contact can find more truth from the National Enquirer than one who is in illusion can find in the Bible
In contradistinction to this view which you share with those in the linear-intellectual community, my perception is that every word and aspect of the scriptures is a conscious portrayal of body, mind and spirit embodied in a road-map of the Laws and Forces of Mind and Being.
I’m surprised you would think that “every word” is part of a roadmap when you teach that the scriptures we have today are corrupted. There are also a lot of mistranslations from the earliest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
But I agree that the scriptures in general present a roadmap to higher truth if one interprets them by the Spirit.
While the authors of the scriptures may begin with a commonly held belief or story out of man’s historical past, every word of what they compose has been reformed into a spiritual account that would be better portrayed as a work of spiritual art. Every name that is used in the scriptures has a meaning — as does every name, place and thing — and these names and quasi-historical events are brought together in the creation of a masterpiece that portrays the blueprint and workings of the mind — and its interaction with spirit and flesh.
I probably do not see them as infallible as you seem to describe, but, yes, there is a lot of meaning there to be discovered. If you read my writings you’ll see that I have presented a lot of symbolic and inner meaning from the scriptures, including many names.
Every word of the scriptures — both Old and New Testaments — possess a sacred meaning that is not at all apparent to the vast majority of readers. And the true meaning can only be revealed to the mind of the reader by one’s soul-self or ultimately, the indwelling Logos/Son of God.
If one is creative he can come up with some type of symbolic meaning from any scripture, but some are much closer to the words of spirit than others. In fact some are quite ordinary and I notice that most of the symbolic meaning you mention from the scriptures are the parables and very little in connection with events. I agree with your emphasis and believe the parables of Jesus are vey rich with meaning compared to some other scriptures and they are presented honestly as fictional stories that teach.
Moreover, the true meaning is simply beyond the organic limitations of man to comprehend — and this higher meaning of body, mind and spirit must be revealed to the seeker/disciple from inner spiritual sources that are not in any manner of the thinking of this world. And this is why the reader is instructed not to attempt to interpret the scriptures with preconceived (human) ideas — or, to take an interpretation from without, and attempt to apply this to the scriptures.
I’ve read a lot of your interpretation of the scriptures and it certainly appears that you are using your organic self to the highest of your rational ability to interpret them just as do many other sincere teachers. Some of your interpretations are more linear and literal than mine and others do use some good symbology.
A student cannot rely on the interpretation of another just because he claims a high contact but must verify all things for himself through the Inner God.
With respect to you position that the scriptures are historical accounts, nothing could be further from the truth.
I think we both agree that the scriptures contain some true history but are not 100% accurate.
The authors of the scriptures therefore had no motivation to record Cave shadow-images — when the objective was to escape the illusions of this world and open the mind up to the higher reality of mind and spirit — bringing about the next stage of soul-birth that permits the seeker/disciple of Light to become their True Self.
It sounds like you are saying that the writers of the scriptures are attempting to escape illusion by presenting more illusion. This makes no sense.
In other words, to present truths to the world to enable seekers to escape illusion they create fictional, or illusionary history, and present it as true history.
You see the scriptures from an entirely different perspective than I do. I would never use such words as fabrications, myths or deceptions to portray the scriptures.
If a story is not true and yet presented as if it is true then what is it if it is not a deception? Why are you so reluctant to call a spade a spade? If Jesus did not walk on water, and the writer knew this, yet presented the story as being true then this was a lie plain and simple and such a writer will have to answer for his act.
“But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” Matt 12:36-37
You see the scriptures as historical or quasi-historical accounts — whereas, I see the scriptures as patterns and blueprints of mind impressed into accounts that reveal the Laws and Forces of Consciousness to those who are able to perceive beyond the garb of the cloak of the written word. Our perception of the scriptures therefore has nothing in common.
We have more in common than you acknowledge.
(1) We both see the scriptures as part allegory and part true history. We only differ in degree.
(2) We both believe that they need to be interpreted through the light of the inner Christ or soul.
(3) We both believe they have a lot of inner meaning not apparent to the average student.
(4) We both believe they have suffered from corruption.
(5) We both see a lot of meaning in the parables not obvious to Bible students.
The main point where we differ is this.
You think the writers did a good thing in fabricating history and presenting it as truth because they placed a lot of hidden truth in them.
I, on the other hand, believe in the simple truth that honesty is the best policy and we cannot obtain liberation from the physical plane by using deceptive means. We trust God and His spirit which dwells in us because we know that whatever is revealed is true and not just something fabricated to teach us a lesson.
You have covered a lot of material (and I agree with a lot of it) but still have not answered my question.
Can you give me an example of any useful knowledge anyone has derived from fiction presented as historical fact?
It would only take a paragraph or two to answer this.
The Value of History
I would ask this question, what do I gain if it is a history? Does it advance you spiritually at all?
That is like asking if truth advances us spiritually. Everything of which we can write or speak is either truth or error. Why would anyone on the Path choose error? Every piece of truth is a piece of the puzzle of the whole and when error or deception is chosen the individual is then faced with a missing piece.
“But we live in a world of illusion so it matters not how the illusion is presented because it is still illusion.” says one.
Well, a dream is even more illusionary than waking life but what happened in the dream is still a real experience with symbolic meaning. If my wife asks what I dreamed of last light and I relate a total lie because it sounds good then that is a sin against the light of the soul. It is a sin against the light to lie about a dream, about events that happen in our normal waking state or about any experience in our or out of the worlds of illusion. A deception blacks out a piece of the picture of the whole truth and pulls the deceiver further in to illusion.
Allan, in his actual writings, seems to support the idea of presenting true history. He considers it true history that he was the brother of Jesus in a past life and presents this as true history many times in his writings.
Many times he attempts to accurately quote the true (not the untrue) writings of the church fathers to support what he sees as truth.
Then he attempts to relate the true history of how the scriptures were corrupted and the true disciples were persecuted.
He emphasizes the importance of finding the true historical scriptures as they reveal more pure truth than the distorted ones.
It indeed appears that the truth of history is very important to Allan in the presentation of many of his writings.
Almost daily in your forum is the presentation of historical facts giving it meaning. Peter just gave some historical information today also mentioned previously by Allan. Let me quote:
“What Allan spoke of happened within the Ebionite communities within the gathering of the elders. Each community was roughly around 50 or so to keep the attention down and therefore have less focus on them. Within each community were elders or those whose souls were more spiritually advanced in that they could perceive spiritual concepts from multiple perspectives, but there were some who were slightly less advanced who could see things from only a select few perspectives. Now in their gatherings when someone spoke the other elders would listen and understood that while they might have a differing perspective on a subject they also understood that the individual speaking was speaking from their perspective at the level they were at. It was understanding that each person was on a different rung of Jacob’s ladder. They were free to speak openly and without judgment but there was as Beth mentioned discernment.”
I didn’t see anyone criticizing Peter for bring up useless true history.
Looking at it as a history and literally you may lead a slightly less selfish life. You may help the needy and you may sing songs on Sunday. What would it benefit you if Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water, was raised to to the heavens to be tempted by Satan to rule all the earthly kingdoms? It doesn’t benefit you at all.
Totally untrue. If Jesus really turned water into wine then this tells me that this is something I can also learn to do. If he didn’t really do it and this power has never been demonstrated then maybe such a power is beyond our abilities.
They used to think the four-minute mile was impossible but when this milestone was surpassed, and this true event circulated, the truth was out there that this feat could be done, and after this many others accomplished the same thing.
The truth of the possibilities of human ability is of extreme importance to know.
On the other hand, let us take an apparent inconsequential true event. Let us say I got up at 8 AM and told a friend that I got up at 7 AM knowing that this was not true. No harm done, right? Because it makes no difference to the friend what time I get up.
The truth makes a difference to the soul and when we knowingly replace truth with error we sin against the light whether that deception has small or large consequences. And it matters not whether the deception seems to be for the other persons own good. Every unfaithful spouse who lies to his partner does so to avoid hurting him or her. Does this effort to benefit his partner justify the lie?
No, it does not.
These are lessons that children rightfully learn in Sunday School. It is strange indeed that I need to repeat them here on a forum seeking higher truth. The most basic of all truth is truth itself.
Knowing Jesus/Yeshua rode on top of a donkey into Jerusalem on top of palm leaves through a certain gate of the city does nothing for me. However, the allegory presented in that portion of text is full of information. The animal and mineral/vegetable kingdom being domesticated/submissive to the Jesus speaks volumes.
So by extension, when we see the Lone Ranger riding his horse we are witnessing the great truth of “the animal and mineral/vegetable kingdom being domesticated/submissive” to the rider?
Give me a break. I got to give you credit for a good imagination here though.
When Jesus healed the blind man, what did this do from a historical context? He healed one blind man. He had done many miracles before so why was this one included if it was historically true?
Maybe because it was historically true. Why would you think otherwise? Because someone told you so?
If it is an allegory we can look past the literal
A seeker can always look past the literal whether the story be truth or fiction.
Like your question, you demand an answer yet could you handle the unveiled truth? Would it do more harm than good?
Test me out and see if I can handle it. For some odd reason no one has answered my very simple question.
Can you give me an example of any useful knowledge anyone has derived from fiction presented as historical fact?
You mentioned Jesus riding the donkey but did not give me a clue as to how the information you gathered was useful and furthermore how do you know the incident did not really happen?
Answer to Beth
Actually I did not say “historical truth” .. I said “as originally written are truth”….you added the word historical.
But if you label historical events, such as in the Bible as true, then one would naturally assume that you are referring to the history as well as any inner meaning.
For instance, if you say the scripture about Jesus walking on water is true then one naturally assumes you think Jesus walked on water.
Peter talked about the history of the Ebonites and I assume he is talking about more than allegory.
I have recently read some of your articles and find interesting things there as well as some things I do not see the same way… and that is OK. Wasn’t the goal of the cross pollination between the forums to share your perspective with us and vice versa? If so, then it may be more fruitful if you tell us more about your thoughts instead of critiquing Allan’s writings or demanding we answer your specific questions as if it is some sort of test.
Good point. I didn’t plan on starting out on this subject as I knew it would press some buttons. Here is how this evolved.
Stephen came up with this idea of cross posting and Allan didn’t seem that interested, but Stephen thought he could convince him. Some time had passed and I thought the idea was shelved. In the meantime I thought that discussing his idea of the scriptures not being true history would be of interest to the Keys group so I asked some questions for consideration.
Immediately after that post Allan responded, apparently thinking this was my first post in Stephens plan. After the discussion was placed in effect I figured the best thing to do was to go with it.
If this accident had not occurred I would have started off with some type of teaching that would have been more agreeable to the your group.
Maybe the next subject attempted will be more harmonious to both groups
By the way, I pick up a positive vibe from you as a sincere and kind person. One more thing Allan and I have in common is the fortune of having good companions.
Here is another response I gave to Allan’s group.
Pure Practice (Gary):
I get the feeling you are playing a version of 20 questions. That is you have an answer, from your perspective, that you believe is valid to your OWN question:
Can you give me an example of any useful knowledge anyone has derived from fiction presented as historical fact?
If you do, why not just share it and let it be examined?
There are many possible answers to this question as it is not complicated at all.
Allan tells us that most of the history as presented in the New Testament is fiction, as it was not written with any consideration of historical fact but to convey inner meaning to the more evolved seekers. The outer presentation was fiction presented as true to pacify the unwashed masses.
In other words, the writers knowingly fabricated accounts and presented the material as being something that literally happened, or as true history.
There are hundreds of examples that could be drawn from the New Testament if Allan is correct. There are also hundreds of false teachers out there who are presenting false accounts as if they are true in an attempt to teach truth and gain followers.
In all my experience I have not found much light that pointed me to new knowledge among any writings where the author presented the teachings or history to be true when he knew it was not.
When I first asked this question it was just to my group, but now it has been expanded to this group. I am wondering if anyone has actually gleamed any significant knowledge that is not already readily available from anything in the New Testament or other works where the writers presented fictionalized accounts as being true.
My belief is that there could not be a lot of light hidden in such deception.
Even if every miracle recorded in the Gospels were literally true, exactly as written, how would “knowing” that such and such a thing happened transform YOU into Messiah/Christ?
It wouldn’t, and I do not know of anyone who thinks that it would. On the other hand, presenting fiction as being a true account or falling for the deception would hinder one from manifesting Christ.
July 26, 2014
I posted this on Allan’s forum:
If you are going to post on their forum, be respectful and practice humbleness. It is clear that they are at a different level than the members of this forum — and we can’t be of assistance to them if we offend them.
Three or four times now you have insinuated that the Keys members are of a lower level than your group. So far I have let this slide but now I see you are repeating this I must stand up for my students who I would favorably compare to any others on the internet.
Of course, you must keep in mind that there are several who have joined and are moderated who see me as an enemy and are not students. Through limited moderation I seek to allow as many diverse opinions on the forum as possible.
Both your forum and mine have members who are at different grades of spiritual evolution, but one of the greatest mistakes one can make is assuming that one has a higher seat at the table than is earned, and even if one thinks this, he should take the lower seat and let his actual words and works speak for themselves.
Instead of judging the other group to be inferior I think we should be open to the possibilities that there are some significant lights in both groups.
You have dealt with Stephen and I’m sure you will agree that he is a true seeker, seeking to manifest the Christ within. There are quite a few others like him on the keys.
Stating, up front, that a book, broadcast or movie is fiction is no guarantee that it will be seen as such.
That is indeed true but that misses my point which is this. If a person produces a work of fiction with the intent of deceptively presenting it as truth then the one with deception as his motive would be working on restricted light and anything he produces would be of low value. True, some may get something out of it, but nothing like Eternal words delivered by one dedicated to pure truth.
Larry W says:
Object lesson: you don’t enhance rights by taking them away. Even so you do not enhance truth by taking it away.
Normally Larry is a harmless fuzzball, full of love and kindness, but this idea presented that the scriptures are based on intentional historical untruths has really riled him up.
Note to Larry, who is not moderated.
I agree with you that it would be an outrageous violation of the principle of truth if Bible writers fabricated history in an attempt to teach truth acceptable to the masses, but I see no evidence that Allan is trying to be deceptive or lies in his current life.
We have an opportunity to befriend another group and share with them as an experiment. Let us not stop it before it gets a good start by calling anyone a liar – for that is pretty strong language.
If there is something that you see that is not true identify it and then explain why it is not true without using any name calling. Let us demonstrate the quality of this group by being as civil as possible.
July 27, 2014
Questions from Flo
Here are some answers to Flo, Allan’s wife. I was thinking that Beth was his wife, but i guess it is Flo.
I write to you about a good man, a man with integrity, the man I have been married to for almost forty years…
I’m sure he is a good man. I have never said otherwise.
You implied on your forum that you rather not converse in a confrontational manner… I think you called it in the “manner of John”…
I do not mind confrontation when it is called for. The “manner of John” has nothing to do with confrontation but refers to teaching and learning by asking questions as related in my Immortal books. This method is not confrontational, but provokes thought.. This whole exchange began when I asked a couple questions to my group and happened to get posted over here.
Yet you portray Allan as someone that does not believe in the Bible???
This I have not done. I have said that we both see the Bible as part true and part myth, but differ in degree and in the intent of the writers.
Allan’s position is the Bible (except for the Epistles) and all Scripture is truth with a three-fold meaning. Allan would never say that any Scripture is fabricated, a lie, untrue, a myth, a deception, fiction, and made up.
It seems to be you are is not representing Allan’s belief’s correctly. Does he or does he not believe that the Bible writers made up some of the history that is in the Bible? Does he believe that Jesus fed the 5000 with fishes and bread? Does he believe that Jesus walked on water, got tax money from a fish and other miracles as written? He has pretty much said in black and white that many of these things did not happen but were placed there by the writers of scripture and contain symbolism for teaching.
He just said today that when the names like Peter James and John are mentioned in the gospels that they do not really refer to them but we need to see the meaning behind the names instead. In other words the accounts of such men are made up, fabricated or fiction even though they may contain hidden meaning.
So when the group here says the Bible is true or truth they are not referring to all of it, but parts of it. If the Bible writers knew Jesus did not walk on water yet say he did with no caveat of it being a parable then obviously that part presented as history was not history and was fabricated, fictionalized, made up or whatever you want to call it. Because history is seen to be made up for a benevolent purpose the group seems gun-shy about calling it what it is. If a thing is said to have happened when the writer knows it has not then that is a know untruth. I do not know any other way to honestly say it. Sorry.
I do not understand why you would be upset at me restating what Allan has already said.
Now, I totally respect the fact that you are taught by the Spirit within… why do you not respect that Allan also was taught from the Spirit within him?
I do. I think he has received some good things and doing a good work, but that doesn’t mean I automatically agree with everything he says, just as he does not agree with everything I say.
Your words are more than confrontational… They are insulting, and you are confronting Allan in a negative way. Why???
I am trying to be as civil as possible. Can you give me an example of something negative I’ve said that bothers you? Most of my writing here has been answering questions and I am trying not to offend anyone.
why do you feel it necessary to put a negative twist on Allan’s words???
I have tried to represent Allan’s views as he has presented them. If I present anything incorrectly just let me know.
Every scripture is written with a three-fold…Body, Mind, and Spirit
I agree and have taught this many times myself, even before Allan started teaching on the internet.
Why not state what you have been taught by Spirit and likewise with Allan and leave out the insults? Like it or not, Spirit will touch others, each according to their condition.
I do not believe I have insulted anyone here. If I have I apologize. I believe in keeping all discussions on a friendly nature.
As I said earlier this first topic here occurred by accident and it has generated a lot of questions to which many seen to want answers. I’ll try and introduce a less controversial topic next time.
I thought Allan was an invited guest to JJ’s forum, as he was invited to ours! Does insults rally his base? For what purpose does JJ be so uninviting? He is guiding his forum members into being not only unloving, but being nasty.
Again I do not see how I have been nasty or uninviting. All of Allan’s posts on the Keys forum is welcome by me.
One guy sent Allan a nasty email but he is not a student and is just as nasty toward me and one member overreacted. I have cautioned the group to be civil and if they go too far off base I will take action. I try to give the group as much latitude as possible.
Meanwhile I hope you will realize that I am attempting to respond to your husband according to his stated beliefs.
So if you know of “many possible answers”, why not share a few?
He is referring to this question I have asked many times and still waiting for an answer.
Tell us (those who read this) a fabricated story presented as true that has taught you a significant truth.
I personally have not gotten much truth from fabricated stories, but if one reads through the eyes of the soul he could get some benefit from the words of the devil himself.
To answer your question I will put myself in the thinking mode of a good group member here. As I understand it Allan believes that Jesus did not really walk on water but the story was created, fabricated, fictionalized, or whatever you want to call it, for the purpose of conveying a truth.
If a member here answered my question using this example he could have said.
“Yes, I believe the walking on water thing was fiction but water is a symbol of the emotions and air is a symbol of mind. The idea of walking on water conveys the idea that we need to master our emotions so we can breath the clean air of pure reason undisturbed by negativity.”
You overlook the reason I asked the question to begin with. I believe there is much more truth presented in true history than in fiction presented as true history.
So, I was curious to see if anyone could come up with a false event which has been presented as true and still get anything significant out of it.
I believe that there is good symbolic meaning in Jesus walking on water because he did actually walk on water, but there is no way to prove this one way or another.
Even in this the symbolism nothing new is taught that couldn’t be conveyed in simple words or a good parable – or fiction presented as fiction.
Wouldn’t it be fair to say that since God is a God of Truth according to Deuteronomy 32:4 that the language that He speaks is Truth as it relates to what you hear from Him when you hear His Voice in your inner Kingdom?
Yes, that would be fair indeed and we should seek the inner voice.
Allan has been trying to show that not only are the Scriptures allegory; but so too is all of life. So that would include the Lone Ranger too.
One can interpret anything allegorically, but most are inclined to enjoy fiction for fun rather than serious interpretation. Unlike regular fiction a parable is mentally put together to clarify some important truth.
Since you wrote about judgment, do you understand the difference between discerning and judging?
While there was an historical man named Peter, John and Jacob who they call James, when these names are used in the scriptures, the scriptures are not making reference to the historical person — but what the meaning of the name signifies within one’s own mind and being.
Then there must be a tremendous amount of meaning hidden in these names. Do you mind sharing what several of them mean and why you think the meaning is significant or useful?
Matt 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
Matt 1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
Matt 1:4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
Matt 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
Matt 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
Matt 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
Matt 1:8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
Matt 1:9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
Matt 1:10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
Matt 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
Matt 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
Matt 1:13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
Matt 1:14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
Matt 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
Matt 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Truth Be Told
You continue to portray what I write as suggesting the scriptures are fiction, because you are attempting to repeat a lie in the hope that others will believe you.
You seem to be in extreme denial on this and I’m surprised no one from your own group has called you on it. This is evidence that they are relying too strongly on you as an external authority and not checking with the inner truth verified by the soul. The denial also explains why it takes you thousands of words to state what could be simply explained in a paragraph.
Your teaching of the truth of the Bible is extremely confusing and obscure to those who are not enamored with your claims to authority, so let us clear this up once and for all.
(1) Did the writers of the New Testament scripture intentionally write in people, events and history into them that did not occur as events in this physical reality?
(2) Remember we are not talking about allegorical truth here so answer this. Would such writings be fiction or non fiction, historically true or not true?
(3) Is the intentional presentation of information you know to be not true, as if it were true, a lie or not?
Please answer this in your own words without relying on outer authorities, or linking to a lengthy website, and try and be concise.
Beth relating what she sees as new principles.
Teachings on most of these can be found in many new age sites and topics of conversation are not principles. Principles are the true language of the soul but first one must understand what a principle is.
JJ, I agree with Flo that it seems you started this off by basically saying Allan is a liar
I have never called anyone in my life a liar and have not called Allan one. If someone says something that appears to not be true I will point out why the statement seems to not be true and allow for the person to explain himself.
and you called your “students” to answer 4 questions to prove or disprove Allan. Whether that was just intended for your forum or both forums is not important… it is what you set in motion in either case.
And what is the matter with a class taking a teaching, examining it in the light of day, and then reaching the best possible compulsion as to whether it is true? Allan has done this numerous times.
It feels like the attacking/discrediting tone overall was triggered by your approach. It is you that must set a different tone, a cooperative environment where everyone can easily share their thoughts and questions without joining a battle of sorts or forced to declare allegiance. Does this make sense?
It takes two sides to create a battle
Allan, I understand what you are saying with crystal clarity as you have repeated the same simple teachings many many times. There is nothing complicated here except that you are making it so by refusing to speak in plain English and when you get in a situation that you can’t handle you just tell everyone that theanswer is too far above us to understand.
Do you realize how silly this sounds?
Me understanding you or your lofty thoughts us not the problem.
The problem is simple communication which you outright refuse to do on this issue.
Why don’t you take a stab at those three questions so we can once and for all clarify how you really view the scriptures so we can have a good starting point for a discussion that involves real truth.
If a guy says a thing is red at one time and yellow at another then this makes it difficult to discuss anything to do with the color.
You say the historical accounts of the scriptures did not happen on one occasion and then insist they are true on another. We need to have consistency in order to have an intelligent conversation.
Before we can go further, do you think people learning from their inner Christ (soul-self) get the same message person to person?
If you are asking whether or not two will get the same message on the same subject without contradiction the answer is yes.
So, why does everyone who thinks they are in contact with the Inner Christ not agree? Several reasons.
(1) Many merely contact their emotional/astral body which turns many things upside down and takes them into illusion. High emotional contact can still feel quite Christlike to one who has not felt the real thing and lead him to illusion.
(2) One may make contact and then fail to accurately communicate that which was received and thus appear to be at odds with another who has received the same thing.
(3) There are yet others who think that anything they imagine that feels good to them comes from God.
We want to see the New Age wisdom on the twelve (12) sphere Tree of Life. The Law of Octaves. The Divine Marriage. The New Age version of the Images generated by the soul-self . Also, their biblical understanding of the Key of Knowledge — and how to properly apply the scriptures by turning them within self. I really want the links that JJ is referencing, so I can read this New Age wisdom.
It might be a good start for you to explain some of these yourself. For instance I have not seen you explain “how to properly apply the scriptures by turning them within self. ” You have said that we need to do this, but haven’t seen you demonstrate it or show others the path to achieve this.
As for me, I have written on about every spiritual subject there is. You can start with this link:
I have been reading several of JJ’s archived messages today and have found things that resonate right along with TheWay teachings… but it is like some force is fighting to derail this interaction. This runs deep… feels like a replay of a battle from a prior life. It is fascinating, amazing and exhausting all at the same time. Hmmm….
I commend you for being open minded enough to check out some of my writings. This is an important step. Before we even started this process I read about 150,000 words from Allan’s websites. This gave me a pretty good idea of where he is coming from – as I do not like to enter any enterprise such as this with false assumptions.
I said earlier that I received a good vibe from you but I seem to have been mistaken in thinking you were Allan’s wife.
I may not have come across as Mr. Nice Guy here (and Allan isn’t on our forum) but the Key to making progress on this enterprise is accurate communication. We have hit a very unnecessary snag in communication with this Bible history fiction thing. I’m not saying anyone is a liar, evil or a bad person but just think that a simple thing like what is fiction and what is not should be easy to see. If we cannot see the easy things together how then can we see the difficult ones?
Allan thinks I do not understand him, but I do. I am just attempting to get us to both say that red is red so we can identify the simple truth when red is seen on the horizon.
Scripture is written having a body, mind, and Spirit meaning to it. To which you said you agree. The words have a deeper meaning than that which are written…a Higher Truth on a three-fold level… Not a falsehood, untruth, lie, deception, fabrication, etc. but a Higher Truth.
But if it says that Jesus walked on water when he did not how can you with a straight face say there is is no untruth there??? Just because there is symbolic truth underneath does not mean that the outer is also true – if it is historically false.
I am amazed that this simple thing is so difficult for this group to see.
No One, is going to say the Bible is anything but Truth, so can you move on…
But Allan has said the historical part is not true. Strange approach you have here.
If we cannot resolve this through honest communication without claiming the other side doesn’t see the higher truth then this problem is likely to reoccur. But if the mindset here is to avoid questions and not answer them on this subject then we may have to move on to something else and hope for the best.
I do NOT consider physical history to be fact…
It’s pretty difficult to have a logical discussion with a group that doesn’t believe facts like Kennedy was assassinated, that George Washington was our first president or that Obama is our historical president today.
This is a really odd belief system I am dealing with here that I have encountered in no other group and it has nothing to do with truths in the Bible, finding Christ within or spiritual progress. This hindrance of seeing reality just interferes with it.
Fishing around on the Internet for a quote from Origen, I found a web site which seems to use a similar line of reasoning as can be found in some of Allan’s writings:
“What man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second and third days in which the evening is named and the morning, were without sun, moon and stars, and the first day without a heaven. What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in paradise in Eden, like a husbandman, and planted therein the tree of life, perceptible to the eyes and senses, which gave life to the eater thereof; and another tree which gave to the eater thereof a knowledge of good and evil? I believe that every man must hold these things for images, under which the hidden sense lies concealed” (Origen – Huet., Prigeniana, 167 Franck, p. 142).
The same blogger continue on to say: “Sometimes the untruths in scripture are so blatant that only a fool would believe the literal text of the scriptures”.
If what Origen writes is true, maybe only an … idiot … would think Jesus actually walked on water?
If I were to use a comparison to the modern time frame, what if you encountered someone who believed in Spiderman?
You and others seem to completely, absolutely miss the point of the problem here, It has nothing to do with finding symbolic meaning in the scriptures, contradictions in scripture or whether Jesus walked on water.
It has to do with the support of the idea that the Bible writers presented false history as true history and thinking this deception was not a deception and was a righteous thing to do. Why do you think that the fabrication of history was not a fabrication of history? I am amazed that more than a dozen people on the planet can swallow such a contradictory idea.
Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE
July 28, 2014
Discussions with Another Forum
You (Allan) say that Larry does not use the scriptures for their intended purpose – that he doesn’t live “the necessary Consecrated Life” that he doesn’t seek the kingdom because of his concern with the cares of the world, that he doesn’t seek self knowledge, and does not endeavor to know himself. And you know all these things about Larry because???
Note this from the Gospel of the Nazirenes which you use:
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again; and as you do to others, so shall it be done to you.
2 “And why behold the mote that is in your brother’s eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, ‘Let me pull the mote out of your eye; and behold a beam is in your own eye?’ You hypocrite, first cast the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast the mote out of your brother’s eye.
Instead of judging that about which you know not, how about giving us something usable? You say that you have assisted many in recalling their past lives as have I. We would be interested in hearing your method as well as how you did it yourself the first time.
We have just about milked this scripture-allegory-deception-history thing for what it is worth. I believe that we understand the points that Allan is making but I do not think he and his group understand the main point I was trying to make. Oh, well, I gave it my best shot.
Meanwhile, Allan makes an interesting claim that he is the reincarnation of the Brother of Jesus and even helped write the scripture. Since he claims to have a memory of that life he could answer some interesting questions. Here are mine.
Are the current gospels accurate in stating that Jesus was physically crucified and resurrected? If not could you tell us what really happened and how Jesus really died?
Did Jesus walk on water, calm the storm, raise Lazarus from the dead and pay his taxes with a coin from the belly of a fish?
What did Jesus physically look like?
I’m sure others will have their question as we move forward.
A reader wants to know how I view the scriptures.
I see the Bible as a composition of a number of endeavors. The farther back in history the Bible compilers had to go the more they had to rely on legends passed down by word of mouth. There was indeed a creation and a first family but there are many legends of what happened and the Bible compilers took the best and what they thought was the most accurate available and created a narrative containing as much truth as they could encapsulate until we ended up with the Old Testament scriptures. The farther back we go the more myth is incorporated, yet some of the greatest truth is revealed through allegory. But even the allegorical stories are a mixture of historical truth and symbolism.
I believe there has been numerous Adams and Eves who have represented new beginnings after cataclysms. The first Adam appeared over 18 millions years ago.
As the scriptures get closer to the present the historical part becomes more accurate.
The New Testament accounts we have were written between 60 – 120 AD, some of them based on earlier records. I do not think they wrote them as allegory, though there is a lot of symbolism in them but did their best to make their accounts accurate as far as the teachings and history go. Of course, we do not have the original manuscripts but current scriptures are translated from about the twentieth copy or so. Thus there is no way of telling how much any of the scriptures have been altered and corrupted, but I think the original writers of New Testament scriptures did their best to relate real happenings. It just so happens that many of those happenings have allegorical and symbolic meaning.
Some, but not all the Bible writers were inspired. Works of particular depth are Genesis, Isaiah, Daniel, the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation.
The scriptures were written by intelligent, but flawed mortal men and are bound to have some imperfections, thus they, along with all other writings, need to be read by the light of the soul to avoid deception.
I do not believe that the whole of the scriptures are full of hidden meaning placed there on purpose by the writers. The more inspired scriptures do have a lot of hidden meaning, but they weren’t always placed there consciously by the writers so hidden knowledge could be passed down – with maybe a few rare exceptions.
How is it then that so much symbolic and hidden things are found in the scriptures? The answer is this. When any writer touches the Spirit with his consciousness as he writes, the words that are written will contain more than seems to appear on the surface. There will be interesting things to discover through numerology, symbolism and other means.
But the greatest discoveries are made through the contemplation of the words themselves. The student must let the words take hold as planted seeds and see where they take him. Jesus said it well when speaking of inspired words, “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63
All words of truth are words of life.
How about the idea that the Gospel writers had to write in allegory because it was too dangerous to tell the truth?
This does not make sense because nothing they could have written could have been more dangerous than the portrayal of an entity such as Jesus who was much more powerful than Caesar and even rose from the dead. In fact what was written was so dangerous that thousands of Christians were persecuted and put to death. What hidden meaning was there that could have upset the authorities more than that which already happened? One would have to stretch his imagination to come up with something.
In other words, there was no reason to alter the historical accounts in the gospels in order to pass along hidden meaning, but hidden meaning wound up being there naturally because many of the words and actions recorded touched the Spirit.
July 29, 2014
Knowledge & Relationship
True friendship doesn’t require agreement in all things, can withstand differing opinions, cannot be built upon deception and is lasting.
Your words reminded me of my many interactions with my good friend Wayne, who has now passed. When we had lunch together we often got into very intense disagreements and had some very good discussions, but neither of us let any disagreement interfere with our friendship in the least.
Even so, here I have had strong disagreements with you (Dan), LWK, Susan, Blayne and others, but they remain great friends. This is as it should be.
It is too bad that there are so many who see anyone who disagrees with them as an enemy that should only be attacked. This clouds a person’s vision from seeing the inner Christ and the true concepts that they may be saying.
On that note, even though Wayne and I had disagreements I found myself amazed at what he would come up with at other times. He was capable of manifesting amazing light that I would have missed if I had stereotyped him as one in darkness whose thoughts could not be trusted.
BUT, and it’s a big but 🙂 if there IS both an outer and inner meaning(s) to soul-infused writings then there was not necessarily deception involved on the part of initiates when they wrote the scriptures, they just wrote in the outer manner KNOWING that the inner meaning would be preserved for those “with eyes to see”.
The deception I was talking about was the intentional type. If, for instance, some writer made up the story of Jesus walking on water for teaching effect then that would be an intentional deception. That is a lot different thing than writing what one may consider a true account of Jesus walking on water and manifesting some true symbolism in the process.
Re: The Scriptures
Allan maintains that the gospels were not written to be historically accurate but to be allegory containing events that did not happen in historical reality. It is interesting that a quote he gives in this post says otherwise. He quotes Gibbon as saying:
“But the secret and authentic history has been recorded in several copies of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, which these sectaries long preserved in the original Hebrew, as the sole evidence of their faith.”
So, according to Allan’s quote here the original gospel did not contain just made up allegorical history, but “authentic history.”
Now I’m sure he can argue that the real “authentic history” is allegorical and did not really happen, but that would require a stretch of the imagination and believability to interpret this way. When 99.9% of the population says “authentic history” they mean history as it has actually occurred, recorded to the best of humanity’s ability.
Then the more widely circulated edition was translated into the Greek from the Hebrew. The translation was undoubtedly imperfect but there is no evidence that wholesale changes in the history were made. I would bet that the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection were quite similar as they are in both the Gospel of the Nazirenes and the modern gospels.
Those who had the early texts didn’t just keep them among believers merely because the writings were sacred to them but it was dangerous to give out writings to the masses. A character like Jesus who was elevated above Caesar was dangerous to the Empire. It was so dangerous to be an early Christian that the sign of the cross was developed originally to be a means of one Christian identifying another. It appears the story of the “authentic history” of the gospel was given out to all who were willing to listen whether it was dangerous or not. After all, the apostles went all over the known world teaching the message in the original gospel.
Some believe that there is hidden or allegorical meaning in all he scriptures. For those who are so inclined I would like to see then reveal the hidden meaning is a scripture like this:
Numbers26:16 Of Ozni, the family of the Oznites: of Eri, the family of the Erites:
Numbers26:17 Of Arod, the family of the Arodites: of Areli, the family of the Arelites.
Numbers26:18 These are the families of the children of Gad according to those that were numbered of them, forty thousand and five hundred. 26:19 The sons of Judah were Er and Onan: and Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan.
Numbers26:20 And the sons of Judah after their families were; of Shelah, the family of the Shelanites: of Pharez, the family of the Pharzites: of Zerah, the family of the Zarhites.
Numbers26:21 And the sons of Pharez were; of Hezron, the family of the Hezronites: of Hamul, the family of the Hamulites.
Let’s face it. Some scriptures are full of meaning while others are just somewhat boring accounts of what the writer deemed to be true.
July 31, 2014
A reader gives this partial scripture apparently as evidence that we are not to be called teachers.
“or One is your Teacher, and you are all … brothers?
Let us give the whole quote.
“But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
“And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” Matt 23:8-12
The first thing to look at is the main point that Jesus was making, which was revealed in verse 12. He was teaching the disciples to avoid titles which would place them in a position of authority which would take their attention away from the inner Christ.
First he told them to not be called Rabbi. A Rabbi was seen as an authority, like a priest, whose words were supposed to be followed above what a seeker may receive from within.
Secondly, he says to call no man “Father.” Now people who take things too literally may go so far as to not call their own fathers this, but is this what he means? If it is then we shouldn’t call our parents Mom and Dad, Father and Mother, etc. By extension Grandma and Grandpa would be forbidden.
Does such a restriction make sense? That is what the true seeker must always ask and the answer he gets should be in harmony with his spirit, mind and emotions after he thinks it through.
No, it doesn’t make sense to refuse to call your Father and Mother by what they are for it doesn’t unjustly exalt then. How could we honor our Father and Mother if we cannot call them by what they are?
What Jesus was against was substituting the authority of the inner Christ for the outer that takes it’s place. The Catholic Church as done this by insisting members call the priest “Father.” He is seen as a father that is a substitute for God and this exalts him, which thing Jesus was against.
Finally he says, “Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”
Master here comes from the Greek, KATHĒGĒTĒS, and these verses in Matthew are the only place in the New Testament where it is used. Here in the King James it is translated, “Master,” but other versions render it “teacher, instructor, leader, director, and even preceptor.” The first suggested translation from Vine’s as well as Strong’s is “guide.”
KATHĒGĒTĒS is derived from two other words which are KATA and HĒGEOMAI. KATA is a common preposition indicating motion but HĒGEOMAI denotes power or regal authority. That us without doubt the reason Bible translators in the past have rendered KATHĒGĒTĒS as Master, for Master is a much more authoritative word than teacher.
The common word for teacher in the New Testament is DIDASKALOS, which is used 58 times. When we think of the English word teacher, this would be the Greek word we would want as comparable. Nowhere does Jesus tell us to not use this word.
Jesus was called DIDASKALOS a lot of times and he did not correct anyone for doing this.
In addition to this the teachers Jesus confronted in the temple were called DIDASKALOS. (Luke 2:46) Jesus also called Nicodemus a teacher (John 3:10).
Disciples were called teachers or DIDASKALOS in numerous places after Jesus left the scene.
“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger,” Acts 13:1
“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles,” I Cor 12:28
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” Eph 4:11
Paul says, “Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.” II Tim 1:11
Obviously neither Jesus or the disciples saw any problem with using the common word for teacher which was DIDASKALOS.
Even so, common designations like teacher can be misused. I call myself a teacher in a way that applies to anyone who teaches for we all teach one time or another and are students at other times. What could create a violation of the principle that was being stressed by Jesus was if I demanded that I be called “teacher” when being addressed. This was why Rabbi was on Jesus’ list of forbidden words because when meeting one with such a position you are expected to address him as such.
It is not the words that concerned Jesus, but the way they could be used. If a title is applied to you in a way that is forbidden to others then you are falsely exalted and this is an error.
Such designations are the “names of blasphemy” which were applied to the beast of Revelations. (Rev 13:1)
Here are some more comments on this subject from my book, The Unveiling.
We are told that on his heads are the names of blasphemy. The King James says “name” but most modern versions correctly translate this as “names.” What are the blasphemous names on the heads of the Beast?
The emperor of Rome was proudly called Caesar Augustus. “Augustus” implies Caesar was Lord, or God. We all know many Christians were fed to the lions and crucified. Few know that much of it had to do with the refusal to accept this and other names chosen by the Roman emperors.
The current names of the Beast are not negative names like anti-Christ, Satan, devil and so on. The names of the Beast are adored by the world.
Here are some of the names of blasphemy used in the religious and political world:
* His/Her Royal Highness
* Holy Father
* His Holiness
* His Eminence
* His Grace
* Imperial Majesty
* Serene Majesty
* Most Reverend
* Most Worshipful
The Pope has been accused of having the name VICARIVS FILII DEI (in the place of the Son of God) written on his hat or some other item. The roman numerals on this name add up to 666, but this seems to be a fabricated accusation made by the enemies of the Catholic church who believe they singly represent the Beast. Little do they realize that the Beast has infiltrated all the organizations of the earth.
The great name of blasphemy was extended through the Caesars who went beyond Augustus to being called Lord and being deified as a God. Once a year each citizen in Rome had to appear before authorities and acknowledge that Caesar was virtually God. Once one did this, he could go worship according to his choice undisturbed. But, if one put Jesus or some other version of God above Caesar, he was seen as a danger to the state and was usually executed.
Thus, the most blasphemous name of the Beast occurs when a flesh-and-blood man, like the rest of us, is called and worshiped as a God. It is true that even Jesus said that men are Gods (John 10:34), but he was speaking of God in all of us with equality, great and small. Caesar was declared God as one who was special and unique among men. Caesar demanded to be worshipped, and it is blasphemy for one man to worship another man or even see another person as having more rights than he himself possesses.
The interesting thing about the emperors of Rome is that it was not the government who it was the people. The early emperors thought it was a silly thing for the people to do, but eventually the people called them gods long enough and with enough repetition that they began to believe it, and also see that the idea would secure more political power.
One does not need to go to the extreme of calling himself a God to his fellow men and women to have a name of blasphemy, but any name that brings the person a reverential respect takes away from the glory that belongs to God alone. Even Jesus was very cautious about not taking away from the respect due God alone. A man once addressed Jesus as “good master.” To this he responded:
“Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.” Matt 19:16-17
Jesus did not even want to take the chance of looking too “good” to his followers, but in the present time his mindless followers think it is blasphemy to call Jesus anything less than the best and most perfect creator God of the universe.
Here is another example: “But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” Matthew 23:5-15
Isn’t it interesting how clearly Jesus tried to teach the principle of not using a name or title that exalts one person above another because “all ye are brethren.”
The Catholic Church has certainly disregarded the command of “call no man your father …” Using the title or name of “reverend” violates the same principle and is blasphemous. One man is to be revered no more than another because “we are brethren” as Jesus taught. Many religions use the title of “Holiness” or “Holy” in reference to their leaders. Many New Agers use the title Master when talking about a teacher, but there is one Master over us and that is the Christ within all of us. If a teacher does not speak to that center within us then we should ignore him.
Royalty uses all kinds of blasphemous names for God such as “Your Highness,” “Your Majesty,” “Your Excellency,” and so on. Even the idea of one being a king or the divine right of kings is blasphemous. One person has no more divine right to be a king than does another. There are many titles that are not blasphemous because they do not indicate that a man is taking the place of God. A title is correct if it merely indicates the job he is attempting to do in this life such as president, mayor, judge, senator, doctor, teacher etc. “Master” may be legitimate as an acknowledgement of one’s mastery over an activity, but not in relation to being a master (or in the place of God) over an individual. There is nothing untruthful or disrespectful about these names.
You will find, however, that wherever unjust authority rears its ugly head, the person exercising it will revel in the chance to be called by some title that belongs to God alone.
There are religious and political organizations where blasphemous names are not allowed, but the leader is still revered as one who is infallible or able to commune with God in a way that the average person cannot. This type of fixation corresponds to a name of blasphemy and it will be just a matter of time before the illusionary names surface to fit the thoughtform.
Truly great leaders are examples of what we are to become, not examples of holiness that we cannot attain. When is the last time you heard a person with a God-like title speak in such a way that it spoke to your inner Christ and caused your heart to burn? Probably never. It is different when a true teacher, who wears not the names of blasphemy, speaks or writes. Then the soul of the seeker will be stirred.
Comment to Allan who claims Jesus doesn’t want us to be called teachers:
Allan is teaching you but he is not a teacher.
You are learning from him but you are not students.
Throughout the world we have millions of teachers teaching students but they are not teachers.
We have billions of students, but they are not students…
Are you sure I am not on the Twilight Zone forum here? The illusion here is of Biblical proportions.
To call yourself a teacher when you teach is a description not a title. It is like calling one a human when he is human.
You need to spend more time on writing some enlightened teachings you think to have gotten from your higher self rather than creating minutia that has no significance one way or another.
There is nothing in the New Testament that tells us not to use the word teacher as a description. That must e hidden in the original Gospel of Matthew that no one can see but Allan.
A reader accuses me of calling myself a master. To this I respond:
Completely untrue. It is amazing how many falsehoods are thrown out here with no quotation marks.
As far as being a teacher goes which of you are not teachers to your children? A Parent is a similar term. Which of you with children are not parents. Some of you are looking for evil where there is not a hint of any.
Aug 1, 2014
Past Lives & More
Rather than spending all my time answering questions on nuances of meaning and defending myself it may be more productive at this point to switch to looking at doctrines that Allan has presented here and commenting on the bigger picture rather than fragments. His teaching the shadow and higher selves seems to be of concern to the group. It goes something like this:
(1) We have a Higher Self which is a being of light and much more enlightened than ourselves.
Though I have read quite a bit, I haven’t read everything Allan has written, but haven’t found any more information about this being, like: How did it originate? Where does it dwell? Did it have a beginning and will it have an end? Does it have a Higher Self also? What is its purpose?
So, about all he says about the Higher Self is that there is one and it is a fantastic being.
Comment: We both agree with the basic teaching that we have a Higher Self.
(2) We as individuals are not much more than shadows created by the Higher Self and have nothing in common with it and are only given one life to have a chance at salvation. After death, all but a few are consigned to some dwelling place where they have no access to the Higher Self, or apparently the kingdom of God. He doesn’t say much about this place, except it isn’t nearly as glorious place to dwell as where the Higher Self lives. Because these lower selves are just shadows one must assume they live in some type of shadow land after death. One guesses that maybe this is a hell of some kind.
On the other hand, there are a handful of shadow people who, during their life on earth, follow in Allan’s footsteps in some mysterious way only known to certain special people, and merge with their Higher Selves thus becoming saved and enter the Kingdom of God after death. There they can dwell with their Higher Self in a glorious mansion world. The secrets of this are too sacred to put into words so we must discover them for ourselves, apparently by osmosis, without much help from anyone. All that the unwashed are told is that there is a way called TheWay and we are supposed to find it.
Allan says he knows this is true because he has communicated with his Higher Self and even communicated with his past lives, including the failed ones. He does talk about progressing through the 12 spheres of the Tree of Life but I don’t see much instruction on what these spheres are or how to move through them.
Comment: Allan has part of the truth here but is mislead on a couple of items.
Each life you live is created by your soul essence in connection with your Higher Self. You will determine what you want to accomplish and then create mental, emotional and physical bodies that are suitable for your needs. Each life these bodies will be somewhat different and the entity’s identification with them will cause a different personality expression.
Some time before birth your Higher Self will determine how much of its essence and consciousness to endow in the new life. The more demanding the life mission is expected to be the more essence is made available. This means that a part of itself is born into incarnated earth life and a part, the greater part, remains in the spiritual world. So it is interesting that as we live our lives here we are really living in two places at once but the lower part of ourselves is generally unaware of this.
At death the entity goes through a process of shedding the personality self and then merging again with the Soul essence. You, as an individual existence ever remains but the bodies which created your personality are left behind to make way for a new creation in a new incarnation. On returning to your soul you realize the truth that is taught in my books, that you are not your body, nor are you your feelings or your mind, but an eternal intelligence with power to decide.
To understand this better we need look no farther than the dream state as a correspondence. When you go to sleep and dream, only a part of your consciousness enters this state. It is the consciousness connected with your emotional body with some access to the physical through the brain. The mind part of yourself is off in a higher sphere. Just like your Higher Self is in two places at once so now in the dream state is your lower self. The lower part of the lower self is in the emotional body in the dream state, completely unaware of what the mind is doing. The mind is in a higher sphere with full awareness of the two parts. Because the mind is away from the body at sleep the brain has no recollection of its activities when it returns.
When you awake the “you” of the dream state no longer exists, but you the entity which is you certainly does. You feel no loss when you realize that the you of the dream was a projection that is no more. Instead of loss you feel a gain because you have greater consciousness and power of decision in the waking state than the dream state.
Even so, death is like awaking up and discovering that the real you has more parts, greater consciousness and greater power of decision than did your projected personality while on earth. There is no sense of loss, but of gain, especially if the life went as planned.
Why is it then that some teach that all of our past lives are still in existence? Some go so far as to teach that they are not just alive, but still living that past life as a monk, a warrior or whatever. As proof some will claim they have communicated with their past lives. How could this happen if we have really moved on?
Let us go back to the dream again. Le us say you dream you are rich and famous and all kinds of fans are wanting your autograph. When you wake up that rich guy no longer exists, but you, the dreamer certainly does. As time passes does that rich guy return? No. Most likely you will never see him or dream of him again.
BUT, can that which he was be recovered? Yes, at any time. Through hypnosis or a guided meditation he can return to the dream and fully recover the consciousness and experiences of that rich guy.
On a higher turn of the spiral, in the realms of greater consciousness, such a recovery is similar but with differences and more potent. Each one of your past lives still exists as a recording, but much more sophisticated than a tape or digital recording. All that made up you as an entity is recorded like a super computer program which can be accessed by tuning into its frequency.
If you were Jessie James in a past life and tuned into his frequency you could meet Jessie James, even though you may be Jim Jones in this life. But you are not really encountering yourself, but a recoding of yourself. Your consciousness is no longer Jessie James, but what you detect is a simulated consciousness.
Every life past and present has a simulated consciousness that can be accessed with the right frequency. When we see psychics contact the dead, they usually do not contact the real person, but merely tune into the right frequency and pick up some details from their recorded self. The real entity generally ignores most of the psychics.
The real you then lives numerous lifetimes trough its creations. When one life is finished the soul unravels its makeup and moves on to another. As you reach liberation you become one with your Solar Angel and it goes back to its Source leaving you with its reflection which now has access to a still Higher Self, the Monad, or your Father in Heaven.
There are many steps involved in the whole process that would take a book to cover.
I am not going to reply to your below points, because that would be a negative reply.
So, I take it that you think your replies so far are of a positive nature then? Interesting and revealing.
Unlike you, I ceased to read books about 30 years ago. And everything that I write on, is based upon first-hand knowledge.
This must one of those allegorical statements you talk about that has no historical truth in reality.
You obviously read books and lots of them – apparently quite a few more than me. You rarely make a post without quoting from some book or author of books. Even in this post, where you say you don’t read books, you quote from books you have read. Strange indeed. You quote from more outward authorities than anyone I have encountered – as if you feel your teachings are not potent enough to stand on their own. So how do you get all these quotes without reading books and outward authors? Does your Higher Self project them on a wall or something?
In this life when I was first communicated with my higher soul-self in the Realm of Souls, I was told to get rid of the Alice Baily and other books because of their gravely misleading content — much of which is in fact a cosmic type of allegory.
So, let me get this straight. You apparently were told not to read any modern books that attempt to present higher knowledge but it was apparently fine to comb through every book available from centuries past by the church fathers or anything relating to them? Or maybe you are just being a disobedient rascal and defying your Higher Self in reading all the books from which you quote. I’m surprised none of your group has called you on this. I know my group would if I made such a contradictory statement.
The focus was to open the door to my higher soul-self in order to write what had previously been portrayed as the incomprehensible mysteries of God — and set them forth in a way that genuine seekers could receive the necessary edification to begin their own walk in TheWay.
And where is this information available?
With respect to my portrayal of the scriptures, I authored the original Gospel along with the historical man that you call Jesus —
So, are you saying here that Jesus helped you write about his crucifixion and resurrection when he was still on earth and nothing like that had occurred or would occur? I know you do not like to answer interesting questions, but please answer this one or your credibility on this will go to zero.
but since the manner in which the scriptures are allegorically written has already been portrayed by some people as a fiction and a fraud, if this is their judgment of the man they call Jesus, then their own judgments will come back upon them.
And where has this happened? Most of the Keys members think as I do and accept what a writer says as either true or possible as a true event unless we see evidence to the contrary. I accept the New Testament as written except in a few cases where I conclude evidence indicates otherwise. That doesn’t mean that all I accept for consideration is historically true. Some could be true and some not. The truth of the history of the scriptures is not something have placed much attention on as I read them and other works for the principles.
Thus we do not portray the scriptures as a fiction and a fraud. You have been told this many times, but it seems to go over your head. It makes me wonder that if you received things from your Higher Self if they would go over your head also.
The genuine Yeshua does not want you to study history
Are you talking about the Jesus who obviously studied all the history in the scriptures and often quoted from that history?
much of what I have written exists no where else.
I have found that some of the names you have given to writings are found nowhere else, but then when you read the details most of them are found in pretty standard new age teachings or break-away religious thought. You must not be aware a to how common some of your teachings are since you do not read modern books.
The only thing I have found in your writings that I have found nowhere else is the idea that the average guy does not reincarnate but the spiritual guy does.
But, in order to bring about Stephen’s vision of a Spiritual Community, the people will have to begin to learn the Language of the Soul — and properly interpret what they see — i.e., (5)
Interpretation. People must accept and interpret the scriptures as Allan presents them.
Admittedly, what I write can be difficult to comprehend — but since it has been portrayed as incomprehensible by many enlightened men of the past, I can live with the assessment that what I write as being portrayed as difficult. As I stated, it exists no where else.
I do not see anyone as saying your writings are difficult to understand. They are pretty easy to understand. The trouble is that you do not go beyond the basics and answer questions that would reveal some real usable knowledge – like how does one contact the Higher Self as you see yourself as having accomplished? How did you go about retrieving your past lives and what did you do to assist others in doing this? I have asked lots of questions you just refuse to answer.
Knowledge & Relationship
… the idea that the agents of light started off with little or no concern for factual truth should be obviously false to anyone who understand the principles of soul contact and the Holy Spirit.
What? You and I have completely different understandings about what JJ has taught on these subjects then and I ALSO must not “understand the principles of soul contact and the Holy Spirit”.
According to his teachings, these “agents of light” are ALL fallible human beings that are subject to that same horror of horrors that we all are: being wrong. Getting it flat-out twisted up and backasswards.
To decide in the extremis of possible, even probable, persecution unto death if discovered (or whatever) to camouflage secret teachings in the guise of historical accounts or teachings does not NECESSARILY mean one has “no concern for factual truth” – for crying out loud!
Hate to see two good friends having a conflict here.
You are both making good points. Larry doesn’t like the idea Allan presents that the original writers of the scriptures may have written them as fiction and presented allegory as true history. As I have said, wherever conscious deception is applied then a lower amount of light will manifest and negative karma will set in.
Dan is correct in that all past disciples have indeed been fallible people and thus we always need to run all things by our souls. It is possible that those working for the light decided to create a fictional/allegorical historical account and present it as fiction for some reason they thought was justified. Good intent though does not negate the negative karma incurred from deception though.
One reason that this history/allegorical presentation does not carry a lot of weight with me is that I have seen no one come up with any good inspirational knowledge or principles contained in them. Allan and others quote and interpret the parables, which we all know is intentional allegory, but where is the interpretation of allegorical New Testament history? If something is hidden there someone ought to be able to find it. I have seen little if any of this discovery from the New Testament.
If a bunch of truth is being hidden in allegory then where is it and who is seeing and using it or doing anything with it??? It appears that if this was truly what was done then all that effort was a waste of time.
I don’t know whether you realize it or not, but Alice Bailey portrayed the black race as not evolved and inferior.
Obviously, you have not read the Bailey writings. In them she asserts that the black race will prove the ideas of the inferioty incorrect by establisjing at some pont in the future a society in Africa that will be as advanced as any on the planet. She also wrote that Christ could very well chose to come again as a black man.
Here are a couple other quotes from Problems of Humanity
Behind the many separative religious cults of that dark land, there emerges a fundamental and pure mysticism, ranging all the way from nature worship and a primitive animism to a deep occult knowledge and an esoteric understanding which may some day make Africa the seat of the purest form of occult teaching and living.
…goodwill must be demonstrated. Right human relations must be firmly established between the emerging Negro empire and the rest of the world; the new ideals and the new world trends must be fostered in the receptive Negro consciousness and in this way “darkest Africa” will become a radiant center of light, ready for self-government and expressing true freedom. Increasingly these Negro races will forsake their emotional reaction to circumstances and events, and meet all that transpires with a mental grasp and an intuitive perception which will put them on a par and perhaps ahead of the many who today condition the environment and the circumstances of the Negro. … The destiny of this great land will clarify itself and Africa will take its place as a great center of cultural light, shining within a civilized land.
All races have child souls. Child souls incarnate into the more primitive cultures as a whole and it is a fact, especially almost a century ago, that a lot of the tribal people were black. As any race create situations where greater civilization and opportunity exists then more evolved people will incarnate into it. The black people in America today live in a time a great opportunity and this is drawing many evolved souls to incarnate among American blacks. It is not the race that draws the evolved but the opportunity.
And to suggest that to help any race or people in their progression as being racists is crazy talk and has no logic whatsoever behind it. I suppose you think that those who merely disagree with Obama are racist too.
Okay, it is noted Ra that you do not like how Djwhal Khul the Tibetan oriental Master of Wisdom who actually wrote through Alice A Bailey wrote about blacks. None of it offended me and I have two black granddaughters who are fairly advanced souls. One size does not fit all.
On his forum we do not recognize any text on earth as being infallible and run all things by our souls before we accept them.
Aug 2, 2014
Bailey was also eventually opposed by some within the Theosophical movement. They said that she was channeling inferior spirits.
Not eventually. They opposed her from the beginning. Every group resists new teachings – like your group doesn’t want to consider anything I teach. We would consider what you say if you’d answer our questions – but as it is there is not a lot to consider. We already use the Key of going within.
She (Alice A. Bailey) wanted to rid the world of Judaism. She actually was of the position that the violence in the Old Testament represented actual historical events. And yes, she was against interracial marriage.
The real author, the Tibetan Djwhal Khul, who we call DK, did not say he wanted to get rid of Judaism, spoke very little about the Old Testament and merely said that interracial marriage was difficult to make work, which indeed it was in the 1930s. He spoke positively of the interracial unions that were brought about through various soldiers and natives of foreign lands indicating that this would further evolution and inclusion.
You ought to break with your rule of not reading books and read some of the AAB material.
You were asked questions about what we portray as the Law of Octaves, the Tree of Life, the Divine Marriage, as well as a whole host of other such topics. I believe you told one forum members to go and search your writings. They are not satisfied with the depth and understanding of your writings. I back virtually point that I make — which as questioning minds, they respond positively to. I have been criticized in this group for information overload.
This is a completely unfair accusation as usual.
What they wanted would have required me to comb through the millions of words I have written and compare them to their list of subjects, some of which I am not that familiar. To read through all your material on those subjects and then research trough all my material for comparisons would take hundreds of hours and weeks of time. I told them that if they wanted to know the comparisons to just do a search of my site, which search feature you do not have. And because you have so many sites one is limited even with Google search features.
I did read a little on the Law of Octaves and gave samples that seemed to compare and was told it did not, so I researched more and gave more material and again was told there was no comparison (but nothing to back the statement up), so this indicated to me that the only way to satisfy them was to comb through the minutia of everything both of us had written and compare them side by side which in my mind would accomplish nothing, but at least I tried.
On the other hand, questions that need a simple answer concerning my beliefs or do not take a lot of research I have answered to the best of my ability, which thing you have not done.
For instance you could easily answer these questions.
(1) What technique do you use to regress people to their past lives? Is it guided meditation, hypnosis or something else? If it is something else please briefly describe.
(2) Do you believe that Jesus was resurrected in a physical body? If not what is your belief about it?
(3) Do you believe the ancient Jewish laws (diet, Sabbath etc) should be obeyed literally or should we interpret then as analogy?
(4) Since you believe the gospels is mostly analogy with hidden meaning to teach us why is no one, including yourself, coming up with hidden meaning to illustrate this is true?
I have had no problem with simple questions like this that can be answered off the top of my head. I have answered probably around a hundred of them on your site. On the other hand, you dodge. Why?
Re: Past Lives & More
You don’t have to lean on the crutch of “the Greatest Source” and capitalized mysterious phrases if you are actually in possession of truth. If you are in possession of real truth then speak it, speak it to the soul of the listener. But lay off the mumbo jumbo and mysterious claims. Just teach truth, if you have any of it.
Great advice, Larry. That is what I attempt to do. There are times I could reinforce my teachings with some claim of spiritual authority, but I do not do so, for it would set me up in the position of the beast. Instead, i just throw it out there for people to take or leave and I find the words that rang true to my soul usually ring true in the souls of others who are seeking.
JJ is not winning any praises for his teaching style over on Allan’s forum either..
I’m not doing much teaching there. Most of my time has been spent answering questions and attempting to correct false accusations. Then when corrected they surface again and when questions are answered they are rejected but surface again.
Then they complained I wasn’t presenting any teachings and when I made a couple teaching posts one complained that I was teaching intrusively and another complained that I presented no teachings. Then when I presented links proving that I supplied teachings I was greeted with no acknowledgement and no interest in talking about the teachings.
It appears the group is only interested in learning from Allan and any disagreement with him is seen as hostile and dealt with accordingly.
Great Post Olivia. That deserves to go in the archives.
Thank goodness you wrote that last paragraph because that first one was all over the place!
So you admit that you strive to bring your lower nature under your control or to become “kosher” but this is not necessary for indigenous people because they want to be immersed in their lower nature. You criticize AAB for being racist by stating that they are child like souls but it is OK for you to state that they should be left to express their lower natures with their animal consciousness.
The whole point of existence is to subjugate the lower so that the higher may come through wouldn’t you say?
After all you a black man, “as black as the ace of spades” according to YOUR WHITE TEACHER have decided it is OK to subjugate your lower nature in pursuit of the higher and yet you say making this opportunity available for indigenous cultures is wrong.
In New Zealand we have the Maori who are indigenous here. Yes good old Mother England came over and made settlements. With them came Missionaries. Some tribes embraced them, some did not. Some traded and became wealthy, some did not. We had land wars and much upheaval.
In order to redress some of the past we have given back land and payed many millions in compensation. Some tribes have done so well that they are a business force to be reckoned with internationally. Others have lost money and this has caused tribal infighting.
Despite all this virtually none of the tribes apart from a few radical individuals really desire to loose the benefits of being part of a modern society with all the opportunity this offers, and go back to trying to survive off the land with no modern conveniences. And if they did want to they could, no one would stop them.
So really in your long convoluted back hand way, you do agree with AAB, that there ARE child like indigenous cultures, yet you don’t think they should benefit from the opportunities that modern society can offer them, even though you do. Because you have a different consciousness than they do?
According to you we should leave these people to express their lower animal consciousness and they will be better off.
Ra, if you had been locked in a room with only enough to keep you alive, do you think your inner intellect would have automatically risen you above these limitations and educated you, or have your experiences and opportunities that “you have been blessed with” stimulated your intellect and helped shape who you are today?
Confusing double speak and verbiage seems to characterize the way your group communicates. Now may be a good time to read the link that Dan gave you. Perhaps that will provide some clarity for you and your group.
Hallelujah. Allan finally partially answered a couple questions. Now maybe we can get somewhere. Let us review them
(1) What technique do you use to regress people to their past lives? Is it guided meditation, hypnosis or something else? If it is something else please briefly describe.
I use Age Regression.
This is a method similar to that used in Scientology where you regress to unpleasant memories and reprogram or release them.
Perhaps you just meant that you take them back step by step using hypnosis.
Whatever the case, from reading your writings it sounded like some very mystical process was used and now it seems you use fairly standard hypnosis.
If you want to clarify further about your technique we would be glad to hear more.
(2) Do you believe that Jesus was resurrected in a physical body? If not what is your belief about it?
I believe that Jesus so transformed and perfected himself, that he literally took his body with him.
At least you gave us some information. I asked if you believe he was resurrected, not whether he was transformed. Resurrection means he would have had to been put to death first by crucifixion or some other means. I’m sure the group would like some clarification here. Was he resurrected as implied in the scriptures or not? If he was just transformed instead, then when and how did this come about?
(3) Do you believe the ancient Jewish laws (diet, Sabbath etc) should be obeyed literally or should we interpret then as analogy?
How can I believe in the Jewish dietary laws when I am a strict vegetarian for the last 40 years?
You have a talent for seeming to answer a question yet not answering it. The truth is that as a vegetarian you automatically conform to Jewish dietary laws so you haven’t told me if they should be obeyed or not.
The Sabbath is a Universal symbol of Completion. The Jews, being carnal, have never experienced a true Spiritual Sabbath.
That is in harmony with my teachings except it doesn’t answer the question so let me ask it again:
Do you believe the ancient Jewish laws (diet, Sabbath etc) should be obeyed literally or should we interpret then as analogy?
In other words, are we bound by the dietary laws of what not to eat? We realize you have gone the extra mile here in being a vegetarian.
Should we literally keep Saturday apart as a holy day as is taught in the Ten Commandments?
(4) Since you believe the gospels are mostly analogy with hidden meaning to teach us why is no one, including yourself, coming up with hidden meaning to illustrate this is true?
By Divine Design, everyone who opens the scriptures is supposed to see a different message — in accord with the Laws they were born under — their Spiritual DNA — and the condition of their mind, or where they are at. Therefore, the scriptures should be a personal learning and self-discovery oracle between themselves and their own higher soul-self, and ultimately them and the Indwelling Logos.
Sorry this sounds like a dance to me. In your previous writings you say that the inner group had the original gospel written in allegory, but they knew the inner meaning which had to be kept hidden so the mysteries could be passed on.
Now are you telling me that the mysteries are different for each person? That doesn’t make sense. If they are true allegory containing teachings to be passed down then a thousand people interpreting them a thousand different ways would make them meaningless. If there is truly hidden knowledge contained in the original gospel then it can’t be different for everyone.
This is a complete non answer as far as I can see here and think you should clarify
If you were nice to the people on the other forum, they might begin to share their experiences with you.
My response to your group is posted on my site and I think if people go through them they will have difficulty in finding examples where I have not been nice.
I believe that if you ask the members of the other forum, they will say that you have not answered any thing they have asked of you. Moreover, they feel your hostility.
Again I ask all those who are objective to look at the links I’ve given to Judy and ask if I answered the questions or not.
Except for one that would have taken lengthy research I think I have gone out of my way to answer questions. This is something that was Not reciprocated by Allan or members of his group.
And any hostility seen is in your imagination. I speak as the greatest expert in the universe on my own thinking.
“This is a method similar to that used in Scientology where you regress to unpleasant memories and reprogram or release them.”
This is not exactly true, and it has nothing to do with hypnotism. As, LRH says “we are trying to wake people up, not put them to sleep.”
Allan said he used an age regression technique which may or may not use hypnosis. Here is some information on this:
I haven’t been in the program like you but as I understand it to become clear all the negative engrams need to be removed in Scientology as well as Dianetics. Correct me if i am wrong.
I have never said my regression techniques at the gatherings is anything like Dianetics or Scientology.
Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE
Aug 3, 2014
And the idea that the Jews should be wiped off the face of the earth, is pure ignorance.
Who in the world is saying this? The Alice A Bailey writings were one of the few in the area of philosophy that was against Hitler and such ideas from his rise to power.
Please refrain from throwing out wild accusations on this forum with no evidence.
You might also take note that we do not agree with a lot of Theosophical material. We attempt to run all things by our souls for verification.
Here is what the Bailey writings actually said:
The gradual dissolution again if in any way possible of the orthodox Jewish faith, with its obsolete teaching, its separative emphasis, its hatred of the Gentiles and its failure to recognise the Christ. In saying this I do not fail to recognise those Jews throughout the world who acknowledge the evils and who are not orthodox in their thinking; they belong to the aristocracy of spiritual belief to which the Hierarchy itself belongs.
Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 544
DK thought that the orthodox practice of Judaism (nothing to do with allegory) will gradually dissipate as well as many other outdated religious practices. This will occur naturally. Nowhere do the Bailey writings advocate wiping the Jews off the face of the earth. That may be the most outrageous and untrue statement ever made on this forum.
Aug 4, 2014
Resolving Conflict Through the Soul
This experiment with the Nazirene group has been interesting and intense. Unfortunately, we got off to a rocky start. The first post that got the ball rolling was one I just intended for the Keys only to discuss. It wasn’t intended to be an attack on anyone, but merely an analysis of whether it would be a good or bad idea to write an allegory with apparent history in it that was not true and present it as being true for the sake of teaching true principles.
Then when both groups interacted on this the misunderstandings reached Biblical proportions.
This type of conflict between two groups illustrates just how difficult it will be to find 24 people who can learn to resolve conflict and see eye to eye through the eyes of the soul so the foundation of a human molecule can be laid.
But seeing eye to eye should be easy for our group, right? – since most of us here agree on the basics. Well, remember the experiment we did a couple years ago. I set the group toward discussing a controversial subject, one that I knew that not all on the Keys agreed upon and challenged the members to attempt to resolve the differences through the soul.
The topic involved was whether it was right or wrong for Obama to execute the American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, in the foreign country of Yemen with no trial, even though there was overwhelming evidence that he was a participating terrorist.
Indeed it turned out that there were strong opposing opinions on this subject. The conflict turned out to be at least as strong as we have had with Allan’s group. The only difference was that no one saw anyone else as being mean or not nice but lots of stubbornness was on display.
When I saw we were not making any progress I tried to get the group to break the argument down to its basic parts. So I steered them away from whether it was right to whether it was legal. Then the group moved to an argument I did not anticipate and that was the definition of what “legal” is. After about a week of intense argument over the definition of a word I put an end to the discussion by pointing out how simple reaching agreement should have been, yet we could not even agree on the definition of a word that would allow us to get to the first base of agreement.
Now, this doesn’t mean that gathering a group together that can see eye to eye and resolve differences is impossible. There were people involved there that did try and see through the soul, but all it takes in a group is a couple of people overly attached to their belief system to destroy the possibility of union.
If we threw out a net and gathered in 1000 people from the general population there would probably be about a dozen who could drop their bias enough to resolve conflict through the soul.
If we threw out the net again and gathered from seekers seeking spiritual truth we may find ten percent who could do this.
Indeed the path to beginning the next great step in human evolution is difficult, if not impossible.
Meanwhile it is good practice for us to work with each other and possibly other groups in attempting to resolve differences through the soul so we can see eye to eye.
I’ve been thinking about Stephen’s idea and I think anything we do in the future should have very little structure. If every couple weeks Allan or I think it would be advantageous to throw something out to the other group – that may work, but it would be treated as any other post. If it generates interest fine and if not fine. Both groups have their own agendas and this interaction should not interfere with either one.
In addition, we have had some of Allan’s members join our forum and some of ours joined his. These should be accepted and treated as any other member and be encouraged to conform to the protocol of each group.
If anyone has further comment or ideas I would be happy to hear them.
Aug 5, 2014
Re: Resolving Conflict Through the Soul
JJ apparently wishes to debase what I have said, effectively calling me an idiot at best and liar at worst, when stating: “Those who say they have read similar things before are like those who say they read about the Theory of Relativity before Einstein because they read about theories and they read about things being relative, or maybe they have relatives. Not the same at all. Actually Shohn needs to read the book before he can even say he has read of similar concepts.”
Hey, settle down. No one is calling you an idiot. What is it with members of your group having such a thin skin?
My point was that you cannot say that you have read anything that teaches the Molecular Relationship and how it works until you read the book. All you have right now is a rough idea.
You can’t really write on any subject that hasn’t been written about in some degree. Even Einstein was criticized at first for coming up with nothing new because all the ingredients of his theory was already out there. But when the whole picture was seen then his fellow scientists had to admit that he had indeed come up with something new.
One can put pieces together and create an insight in a different way than has been done before – and this I have done a number of times as my readers will attest. I wrote the first draft of the Molecular relationship in 1979 and since then no one has been able to point to any work similar to it in all these years.
If you hang around here long enough and read through the archives you will find a number of insights and principles that should be new to you.
I think most of the group is tired of playing defense here. We don’t want to spend the next three days debating what is new and what is not or comparing my teachings to Allan’s. It is time to move on and discuss some new things.
I thought I should add a few more comments of clarification on civility and name-calling.
Most of us do not mind a little passion in an exchange as long as it does not get too insulting or goes on for a long time distracting the forum.
Secondly, name-calling is different than accurately describing what the person does that may fit the name.
For instance, outright calling a person a liar is probably the most common form of name-calling going on throughout the internet. Often this is thrown out with no evidence just because the writer doesn’t like what the other guy has said. Even with evidence it is still an uncivil thing to say.
What would be the appropriate thing to say to a person stating something you know to be not true?
The civil approach is this. “What you said is just not true and here is why. You said this (quotes his words) but this is what actually happened (give account).
With this type of response readers can examine the situation and determine if the guy did lie or maybe was just mistaken.
Even so, it is with the word hypocrite. If one just calls another a hypocrite with little explanation as to why, or even a good one he is taking the uncivil approach. On the other hand, Larry Woods took a more civil approach with Shohn. Instead of calling him a hypocrite he stated that what he did was hypocritical and explained clearly what he thought that was. Now readers can read the explanation and assess for themselves.
Even giving descriptions though can inflame people. On various forums I often come across statements that seem to be outright lies and if I respond I give my reasons so people can see. I could end with this statement: “This accusation you made is obviously a lie.” Instead I may say something like, “your statement is just not true – here is the actual truth which can be verified.”
Even this gentle response will still inflame many because people do not like their flaws exposed, but sometimes it is appropriate.
If it was misunderstood the first time, then allow and accept an amended explanation. Give the benefit of the doubt. I know, its hard.
Good point. If people would do this one thing half the arguments on forums would cease. Sometimes people do not want to understand what the other is saying.
Aug 7, 2014
Claims to Fame and Power
It seems that about once a year or so I come across someone who is making strong spiritual claims. Many of them have strongly warned me that I need to listen to them or my very soul will be in danger. Because I did not jump on their bandwagon and actually analyzed their claims with reason I have been condemned by several of these as one who has sinned against the Holy Ghost and will reign with the devil and his angels for eternity.
Others have condemned me to a regular Christian hell. Still others have condemned me to extinction or some outer darkness where I will suffer more than one can imagine. Then some kinder ones do not speak so much of punishment but basically tell me that unless I heed them that I will never know what they know or see what they see which is always a great state of knowing or bliss that they assume I know nothing of.
The claims made by some of these guys are interesting and sometimes amusing. The most popular claim is the leader is reincarnated from some great historical being – from Joseph Smith, an early apostle, to Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and even God. One guy who demanded I follow him claimed to be the Logos of the entire galaxy. Another who condemned me for not following him channeled the very voice of God the Father (so he said.) You should have heard this guy bark out orders in a voice not his own. It would have been scary if I had not been seasoned in dealing with such things. Then there was another who topped the list in claims stating that he was above God and was his boss.
Then we can’t forget Chris Nemelka who drew the attention of a number of Keys members. He claims to have had numerous encounters with the resurrected Joseph Smith, Jesus and early apostles.
He is far from the first to make such claims for a number of ex Mormons have claimed to visit with resurrected beings, have visions or speak for God.
On top of this if you surf the Internet a little you’ll discover all kinds of people claiming to be the Second Coming of Jesus or a messiah of some kind.
All these guys stand in stark contrast to Jesus who made no claims. He did not say who he was in a past life, nor did he even claim to be the messiah or anyone great or even that he attained any lofty spiritual state. When he began his work what did he do that caused people to pay attention?
He manifested the Two Witnesses as spoken of in the Book of Revelation. And what are the Two Witnesses?
They are the Words and Works that testified to his mission. His words spoke to the soul and his works manifested faith. Because of these two witnesses he had no need to make a great claim to gain attention.
So why do these various gurus feel the need to make such claims? “Because they are true,” says one. But even if he thinks it is true this is still not a good reason to claim a thing that cannot be proven – just so people will pay attention. The biggest claim to fame for Jesus was his resurrection, but that was not a claim, but an actual happening witnessed by many. A thing that can be demonstrated is not a claim, but an event.
There are several reasons that gurus make claims of spiritual power or greatness.
(1) They realize that few people will listen to them if they merely relied on their words and works.
(2) A strong claim will give them greater recognition.
(3) A strong claim will cause people to lean on the leader for light and give him more power to influence, or in many cases control the lives of followers.
(4) A strong claim creates fear in those without soul contact. Many are afraid to question the words of the guru for fear they are questioning the will of God or will fall out of grace with God or the guru.
(1) Even though many of these leaders or gurus think that they are the furthest thing from representing the beast, how are they furthering his power?
(2) Contrast how a representative of the beast instills fear whereas a worker in the light instills hope, peace and faith?
(3) What are the three most common claims made by representatives of the Beast?
(4) What do you suppose the personality traits are that causes certain people to make great claims and expect to be followed because of those claims?
A lot of writings on the beast can be found in the archives. Here is a link.
Aug 8, 2014
Here’s another question to fine-tune our thinking on the Beast.
Both the Catholic Church and the Evangelical churches would be surprised to discover that they compose part of the network of the Beast. But … the power of the Beast controls the actions and thinking of their followers through different means.
What then is the difference in how Catholics and evangelicals are controlled by the Beast?
The Catholics through Authority claims of being directly linked to Peter and God and the evangelicals through emotions.
Yes, but where is the current main source of authority for the Catholics and where is it for the Evangelicals?
Aug 9, 2014
The Faces of Truth
Truth to one man, is not to another.
Here is a great quote from A Course in Miracles that may shed some light:
For truth is true, and nothing else is true. There is no opposite to choose instead. There is no contradiction to the truth.
The truth is true. Nothing else matters, nothing else is real, and everything beside it is not there. Let Me make the one distinction for you that you cannot make, but need to learn. Your faith in nothing is deceiving you. Offer your faith to Me, and I will place it gently in the holy place where it belongs. You will find no deception there, but only the simple truth. And you will love it because you will understand it.
Allan gives a long quotation and writes:
“What is true to one man, is not to another.”
Incorrect Allan. The truthful wording would be, “What is perceived to be true for one person is perceived differently to another.” If a person interprets that to not be true as true then it is not true for anyone. The person is only seeing illusion and interpreting it as truth.
Let’s analyze your quote and see what stands up to the statement, “The truth is true and nothing else is true.”
“Behold this crystal; how the one light is manifest in twelve faces,”
It is true that he is talking about a crystal with twelve faces and nothing else is true. To say it has 13 faces would be false.
“each face reflects one ray of light, and one regards one face, and another, another, but it is the one crystal, and the one light that shines in all.”
This is true and nothing else is true.
“Behold again, When one climbs a mountain and attaining one height, he says, this is the top of the mountain, let us reach it, and when they have reached that height, lo, they see another beyond it until they come to that height from which no other height is to be seen, if so be they can attain it.”
It is true and nothing else is true that if you climb to the top of a mountain then you are at the top and if you see a higher mountain then it is higher.
“That which appears true to some, seems not true to others. They who are in the valley don’t see what they who are on the hill top see.”
Again, this is true and nothing else is true that would contradict it.
“But to each, it is the truth as the one mind seeth it,”
It is true and nothing else is true that those who are in different locations see different things. This is really elementary.
“and for that time, till a higher truth shall be revealed to the same; and to the soul which receives higher light, shall be given more light.”
If a guy has one piece to a large puzzle he is crazy to say he has all the pieces and can see the whole picture. That would be illusion. The truth that is true and nothing else is true and he has one piece of the puzzle and when he gets all the pieces he will be able to see the whole picture.
“Be faithful to the light you have, till a higher light is given to you. Seek more light, and you will have abundantly; rest not, until you find.”
“God gives you all truth, as a ladder with many steps, for the salvation and perfection of the soul, and the truth which seems today, you will abandon for the higher truth tomorrow. Press toward perfection.”
From Gospel of the Nazirenes
Good advice. It is what we teach here.
Each person due to the Laws they are born under, each sees a different face of the crystal. And each face is 1/12 of the whole — portraying a different perspective — which appears different than the other 11 faces of the crystal. “And that which is seen and received by one, is not seen and received by another. That which appears true to some, seems not true to others. They who are in the valley don’t see what they who are on the hill top see. But to each, it is the truth as the one mind seeth it, and for that time, till a higher truth shall be revealed to the same; and to the soul which receives higher light, shall be given more light.”
Yes, all people see different things at different times. That doesn’t mean the truth changes it means their perception changed and the fact that perception changes is a truth that is truth and nothing else that is true contradicts it.
If a bottle of jelly beans has 1000 beans in it, according to your best perception, that does not alter the truth that there are really 1022 beans in it. It doesn’t matter what you perceive or how many perceive differently the only thing that is true at that time is that there are 1022 beans in the jar.
Yeah, I agree Allan it is basic philosophy 101 that to learn anything you have to move forward a step at a time, but you do not abandon any truth as you move forward, you only abandon things that are not true or usable. When you move from Spanish I to Spanish II you do not quit using all the true words from the first class, but just add to them. You would only abandon the words or usage that are not true Spanish.
As I said, it is philosophy 101 that we do not see or understand all things now but we move forward until we do. Truth is true whether it be spiritual of physical. From a higher pt of view all things are spiritual.
What then is the difference in how Catholics and evangelicals are controlled by the Beast?
“For the Catholics Pope Francis and for the evangelicals whomever they are following…a tv minister…”
Or the Bible? Maybe the Bible itself is the Beast to Evangelicals?
Now we are headed the right direction.
How is it that the Bible and the Pope represent the forces of the Beast which lead us away from the Inner Voice? After all, they seem so different?
What force works with the Bible to support the Beast for the evangelicals?
Aug 10, 2014
The Beast 101
All right. It’s time to focus and get back on topic. If anyone wants to talk about Allan’s material then please suggest a topic with short description and if the class expresses interest we’ll discuss it when we move to a new topic. The problem we have had lately is that a half dozen things are in play and none of them get covered well. It is best to approach a single topic step by sep until the ingredients are absorbed.
We have discussed the Beast before, but there are aspects of it as it applies in the lives of people that we need to explore in more depth.
Concerning the Beast it is written in Rev 13:
“And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”
All but a handful will worship the beast. The word “worship” here comes from the Greek PROSKUNEO. Literally translated into today’s language it means “to kiss ass”. In more sensitive language it would mean to “fawn over someone” that you see as your boss or master.
The fact that the Beast is fawned over tells us that this is not necessarily a Nero type of character that forces people to acknowledge him but is something that almost all give their minds and hearts to voluntarily. In other words, people love the Beast, respect him, kiss up to him and are happy to replace the inner voice with the voice without.
Shohn asked why this would be the case. The answer is simple. We humans are lazy and tend to take the path of least resistance. Outer answers are easy to find and they are in black and white. Once accepted no more thinking is required.
The Inner Spirit works with our free will and it takes effort and contemplation to connect with it and come up with an answer. And the answer is never the final answer but is always something to help the seeker on the path of true knowledge that will take you to your next step. Another problem is an answer from the inner Spirit is seen as threatening to the Beast and his agents so the person who is guided by the inner rather than the outer God will often meet with great opposition.
It is just much easier to let the outer authorities who represent the Beast do the thinking and tell you what to believe.
So, even though we live in an age where we are not likely to get burned at the stake, there is still strong incentive to worship (kiss up to) the Beast.
So who represents the Beast in the Catholic Church? More people than you might think. The obvious suspect is the Pope but he is only one of many, though obviously he is a big fish.
All the hierarchy down to the local priest represent the authority of the Beast and replace the true God within with the shadow God without. They tell the people what to believe, what sins are forgiven and how they are to worship.
The outreach of the Beast does not stop there. It’s greatest power is with the people themselves who kiss up to this outer authority. Among families and friends Catholics will receive reinforcement of the thinking which has been passed down from higher authorities. If someone wants to break with the thinking of the church he will receive great pressure from family and friends to conform.
Now the good news is this. The hold of the authority of the Catholic and other churches has been diminishing the past couple centuries. Does this mean the power of the Beast is diminishing? Not necessarily. The Beast just moves his power base to other areas as we shall see.
Now the Evangelical churches do not have a strong central human authority as do the Catholics. Does this mean that they are not controlled by the authority of the Beast?
Unfortunate the answer is no.
Where then is their outer controlling authority?
lwk gave us the right answer. It is the Bible.
How can an inspired work such as he Bible be a controlling instrument of the Beast?
Can an instrument used by the Beast be someone or something that is seen as good as well as being sinister? Can a kindly old man such as Pope Francis unknowingly really be an instrument of the Beast? Why?
The Bible by itself is just a book… What is it that gives it power in the hands of the Beast?
If the Bible is an instrument in the hands of the Beast for the Evangelicals then what is the deal with the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and other religions that have a different interpretation? Do they represent the Beast also?
Truth Conversation Continued
..what is seen in the below is the fact that you clearly do not possess an in-depth comprehension of the Laws.
It’s the other way around. You only state that you comprehend laws, but do nothing to demonstrate an understanding of them. Just stating I am wrong and you are right does not make me wrong or you right.
And the problem is seen in the fact that the necessary comprehension of what is presented in the below, is as a gateway transition point that has the capacity to open the door to higher understanding and true spirituality. It is clear from your own reply where you attempt to portray me as being wrong, that you fail to comprehend not only WHY each person sees truth and the world from a different and often opposite and conflicting perspective — but just as important as to WHY this great variance in vision and understanding is important to your own development, as well as the development of those who see you as their teacher.
First, it was you that attempted to prove me wrong and I merely defended my own thinking which you continually insinuate is incorrect or substandard.
Secondly, I perfectly understand why people perceive from different points of view, but I am not so sure about you. You seem to be arguing in support of that which is not real rather than the real.
Especially in view of the fact that without this knowledge of the Laws, a seeker will not only mentally and spiritually flat-line — but will have squandered away a most important opportunity.
You’re not talking about me because I am a long way from flatlining and you have no idea of the experiences I have had as I make no claims as you do, but just give out knowledge and let people take from it what feels right to them. You insist we listen because you’ve merged with your higher self. The problem is that you give no more evidence that you have done this than other gurus we have encountered.
Should I apologize to your forum for knowing and understanding the important knowledge that was suppressed and even outlawed by the Pagan Church of Rome?
No apology is asked for as we are already aware of this.
There are members of your forum who are threatening to leave, because I claim to know more than others who did not have the same opportunities that I did over the course of my soul’s previous lives.
That is not the problem. You need to read more accurately. The problem is all the conflict as well as all the different directions your group has taken us. This particular problem stems more from your group members than you. Outside of insulting our spirituality and insisting you save us from ourselves you behave yourself fairly well.
If you had what you portray as soul-contact before you replied to me and told me I was wrong, you would have responded differently than you did.
And perhaps if you were really in contact with your higher self you could understand what I am saying and would have responded differently than you did. You still seem oblivious as to my view of the scriptures and couldn’t seem to answer the questions that would have clarified my thinking in your mind.
Why? Because your own higher soul-self knows and sees things as they truly are. My only objective is the development and enlightenment of you and your forum members.
We would like to see you and your group receive an extra shot of enlightenment also, but we have enough light here to see that attempting to force feed you is not the answer. The plan here is just to reveal simple truth step by step and those who are ready will use those truths to advance onward until full soul contact is obtained.
But that is just he beginning.
There is more, much more.
Aug 11, 2014
The Beast 102
Thank you for your participation and thoughtful answers on the Beast so far.
The First Question:
How can an inspired work such as he Bible be a controlling instrument of the Beast?
I just may be the first person on God’s green earth to teach that the Bible is a powerful instrument in the hands of the Beast and its branches, but indeed it is.
Does this mean that the Bible is a flawed or evil book? No. People who are looking in this direction do not understand the Beast for God and Jesus themselves are powerful instruments in the hands of the Beast. After all, its objective is to take the place of God, so, of course, he uses God as a draw. Not the real God of course, who dwells within but a false image of God – a trick god..
The Beast uses unearned authority differently with the Evangelicals than the Catholics. The main thrust of authority with them is the Pope and hierarchy of the church. The Bible may be important to members but the words of the authorities carry much more weight.
For instance, Jesus clearly said, Call no man Father, yet they ignore this scripture and call their local priest, Father. What Jesus said about this doesn’t concern them because of where their worship of authority is placed.
Now the Evangelicals do not have a powerful hierarchy so their reliance on authority is in two areas
(1) The Bible as the infallible word of God. Among this group if one of their own were to doubt the truthfulness of any scripture quoted they would indeed receive the evil eye of disdain. If the Bible says that God created the earth in six days then, by George, that is exactly what happened. If Jesus said he is coming quickly then He is coming quickly, even though we’ve been waiting 2000 years. After all 2000 years is just a moment for God.
To the Evangelical every word in the Bible is infallible and literally true, even the passages that do not make sense to the logical mind. They are not to be questioned, just understood.
Therefore, the Bible is an instrument of the Beast with the Evangelicals because it is set forth as a powerful outward authority which directs many spiritual seekers away from looking to the God Within for answers. Instead, they look to the god without, the infallible words of the Bible which are not to be questioned. If you do question them you will not be accepted as a preacher, teacher or faithful member of the congregation.
If they were free of the Beast they could openly question and discuss the veracity and unorthodox meaning of any scripture.
But the authority of the Beast retains tight control over the minds and hearts of the masses. If you question his agents you will be rejected and often attacked in some way.
(2) If you thought I was just going to give you the second one think again. Here is the question of the day.
The infallible Bible is the first powerful instrument of the Beast among the Evangelicals. What is the second and how is it used to steer believers away from looking within?
Whatever I write is automatically rejected in this forum.
The few teachings you have presented has been accepted such as;
We have a higher self with which we are to merge.
We do not see all the truth in this land of shadows.
As we grow in truth we change our views.
Actually these things pretty much agree with what is taught here.
What is rejected is the incessant preaching to us by you and your followers that we are not seeing through the spiritual vision as yourself and your group and insinuating we are spiritually inferior. It seems the only solution for us is to accept every word you say without question – then we can enter the promised land.
The problem is that you present no steps for us to follow to enter that exalted state from which you claim to perch yourself.
I have never insinuated to your group that I am more spiritually advanced than they are or that they must listen to me if they want to be saved, enlightened , merged with soul or whatever. If i had approached them the way you approach us their rage at me would have been much greater than it currently is.
In those links exist an in-depth explanation of the workings of the Laws … If you seriously wanted to know what virtually all the biblical authors portrayed as inconceivable from a human organic perspective, then you would read the links and ask meaningful questions in search of the Ultimate Answers. And if you were to do this, then I would be glad to engage you.
I’ve done this and found mention of law and things that were supposed to be mysteries, but very little in the way of explanation. About half of what I read were quotes and most of these were repeated many times. After a while I got tired of reading the same quotes over and over.
One of what appears to be your most important teachings is about the Twelve Rounds of the Tree of Life. Others teach 10 rounds or 11, but you teach 12 so I guess this sets you apart.
Since this is presented as a very important teaching you would think there would be an explanation of it somewhere. The only place I could find that even named the 12 rounds was a graphic image that I had to blow up to read. I couldn’t find any explanation of those twelve rounds or whether one can progress from one to another or how to progress or absorb all twelve or whatever.
This explanation may be on another site I haven’t read, and that is another problem you have. Your teachings are scattered in lots of places, so I’m sure I must have missed something. You ought to place all your basic spiritual teachings on one site the way I do. That would make searching for things a lot easier. You’d think it would be easier and cheaper than maintaining a dozen sites.
I am here to convey the Mysteries of the soul and the Gospel to those who Paul portrayed as being spiritually mature enough to receive this wisdom.
Then you should do this. Tell us of a mystery that we do not already know.
I am not a teacher. I am not a master. I am only a lowly servant who is performing a service to the lost prodigal sons and daughters who desire to Prove the Truth by Travailing in TheWay.
But you do claim to be “THE prophet” which is a much higher and holy claim than that one who says he is a teacher because he teaches things. Here is a quote from one of your sites:
The world-wide ministry of the Prophet Allan Cronshaw — known to some as the Long Island Mystic — the Nazirene Disciple of The Way — the man who lived in a previous life as Jacob who is known as today as James the Brother of Yeshua/Jesus
Re: The Beast 102
The infallible Bible is the first powerful instrument of the Beast among the Evangelicals. What is the second and how is it used to steer believers away from looking within?
We can look deeper if the group considers the following.
When we look at the various churches that take the Bible literally, as their personal Beast, we find something interesting. The various denominations have much different interpretations yet within each denomination is amazing uniformity. This uniformity is usually seen as a wonderful thing by them, even the work of he Holy Spirit. Yet what they fail to realize is that each religion has this and the more authoritarian they are the greater the uniformity.
How is it that the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons and the Evangelicals (who all literally accept the Bible but believe different things) are uniform in their internal beliefs? In other words, you can go into one of their churches several times and it will not be long before you know what you are supposed to believe and support.
What creates this uniformity that seems to almost be picked up by ESP?
Aug 12, 2014
The Beast 103
How is it that the Seventh Day Adventists, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons and the Evangelicals (who all literally accept the Bible but believe different things) are uniform in their internal beliefs? In other words, you can go into one of their churches several times and it will not be long before you know what you are supposed to believe and support.
What creates this uniformity that seems to almost be picked up by ESP?
Susan, Duke and Ruth mentioned thoughtforms in some type of context and this is certainly the right direction. The average person doesn’t even realize what a thoughtform is and those who do generally fail to understand how pervasive they are. They not only exist in the religions, but in all walks of life. They are particularly powerful right now in politics.
Even though average people do not understand thoughtforms many do have a sense about what they do. Most are familiar with the term “groupthink” and have some understanding of the power of unified group thought on the individual.
Few realize how potent thoughtforms are, especially when they themselves are controlled or influenced by them. Believers see themselves as attending church and not questioning anything entirely because of their own free will and intelligent decisions. More often than not they have bought into the parameters of the thoughtform and are controlled by it. Ironically, they often see this as the work of the Holy Spirit when they are really controlled by one of the tentacles of the Beast.
I have attended quite a few different churches and movements in my day and being aware of the power of thoughtforms makes the situation quite interesting. As you enter from the outside world it seems as if you are leaving one world and entering another. As soon as preaching or teaching begins you start to pick up what is acceptable and what is not. You do not interact with anyone from the pulpit but there is sometimes interaction in Sunday School Class. Sometimes I will ask a question that is not a part of the thoughtform and you ought to see the looks that generates. The question can seem quite harmless to an outsider, but if it doesn’t fit the thoughtform the group will see it as intrusive, rude and sometimes outright evil.
How is a thoughtform created?
Name some thoughtforms in your life which you have to handle?
How can you control the thoughtform rather than it controlling you?
Aug 13, 2014
The Beast 104
How is a thoughtform created?
A thoughtform is created through this principle: Energy follows thought. The more thought that is applied the more power it has.
Basically, a thoughtform in the context that we are using it, is a computer program that writes itself from thought energy and tells a person how he is supposed to think, act and feel. Most people who pick up one associated with his group identifies with it and takes the thoughts and feelings as his own. He is thus controlled without realizing where the control is coming from. It is difficult to go counter to something which you think is you. Why would you want to go against your own thinking?
Now just because the Beast uses thoughtforms does not mean that they are evil in principle. The good guys use them also. Thoughtforms are like plants. Some are weeds and need to be ignored or discarded while others are nourishing and useful.
Most people are controlled by thoughtforms without realizing it, but if one understands them he can use or discard them as suits his goals and needs. If he accepts the thoughtform as part of his own makeup then he becomes subject to the intelligence that created it.
Examples of thoughtforms that can have a positive effect are:
(1) A highly structured successful business that uses its thoughtform to direct its employees to high production and efficiency, making the company successful.
(2) A health spa or program that aids you in keeping in shape.
(3) One you may create for yourself to establish good work habits.
Then there are examples of thoughtforms that can have a negative effect:
(1) The Nazis had one of the most destructive ones in history. It was so powerful it swept good people’s thinking in line with an evil plan with ferocious speed and power.
(2) While some aspects of a religious thoughtform can influence people to moral living, other aspects cause undue devotion to illogical thinking or allegiance to an authoritarian leader.
(3) Some create exclusiveness and feelings of specialness that make subjects see themselves as better than their neighbors.
There are many unconscious assistants of black magicians that create or support thoughtforms that assist the Beast in controlling the hearts and minds of “all kindreds, tongues and nations” as spoken of in Revelations 13:7 Those on the Right Hand Path do not create thoughtforms to control the minds of men but to assist themselves and others through free will.
The distinguishing characteristic of a thoughtform used by the Beast is that of unconscious control that directs the subjects attention toward an outer god that replaces the need for checking with the Inner God.
Those in the light do not use a thoughtform as a replacement of the Inner God, but may use it as an instrument for good just as we use our computers. Just as we realize that our computer programs do not replace our thinking, even so, do workers on the Right Hand bypass all thoughtforms to go to the Inner Voice.
The controlling thoughtform in the Catholic Church, as we said, is created around the idea of unquestioned authority that speaks for God. This was created with the cooperation of both the people and the leaders placing sustaining thought into this idea. In this transition age thought power is slowly being taken away from this idea and the authoritative power there is finally diminishing.
Among the Evangelicals there is not so much powerful thought placed in the direction of their various leaders. Instead, here is where their thought is placed:
(1) On salvation though faith alone in Jesus. Good works are nice, but have nothing to do with salvation.
(2) The inerrancy of the Bible.
Any scripture or person that supports these two ideas is fully accepted and anything that does not is rejected.
For instance, take this passage from James:
“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” James 2:17-20
This scripture clearly talks about the importance of works, but even though they believe in the infallibility of the Bible they are more attached to the thoughtform as a whole and ignore this or explain it away. They still believe in the infallibility of the Bible, but see James as really saying something different than appears. Anything that does not support the prime ingredient of being saved by faith only, without works, is automatically rejected. No amount of logic or even scriptures to the contrary will convince them otherwise.
A number of other religions are ruled by strong thoughtforms. Ironically, the Catholics and Evangelicals often look these on with disdain.
(1) The Seventh Day Adventists. These are ruled, as the name implies, by a belief that Saturday is the correct Sabbath and all who do not recognize and obey this have the mark of the Beast. Little do they know that their allegiance to their controlling thoughtform is the true mark.
Now this religion has other ingredients in its general thoughtform such as diet and a number of literal interpretations of the scriptures, but their view of the Sabbath is the major controlling one that is not to be questioned.
(2) Jehovah Witnesses.
Even though this group takes the Bible literally it is not the main source of programming for their thoughtform. The programming comes from its governing body and the publications that we are handed each time they knock on our doors.
Their thoughtform has been powerful enough that it has persisted through a number of failed prophecies about the coming of Christ, Armageddon etc. Through required study and paying attention to governing authorities each member knows exactly what he must do to stay in the good graces of leaders and local members. They know that if they question or get out of line they will be shunned.
(3) The Mormons (LDS)
Since many members are somewhat familiar with this religion let us consider several questions in relation to it.
Aug 14, 2014
The Beast 105
As we delve into thoughtforms that give the Beast its power we need to be aware of this fact. The programming for thoughtforms of various groups changes over the years as thinking changes. Think of a thoughtform as you would a computer program that keeps getting new versions. Each new version is more complicated than the last and often lacks the original simplicity and is more difficult to learn.
The thoughtform that governs the Mormon Church is an interesting one to consider. The Prime Directive that governs its program is “authority.”
Now authority has been important for the Catholics down through the centuries, as they see themselves having authority from Peter who was appointed by Christ to be the rock of the church. But, whereas their emphasis on authority has decreased, that of the LDS has increased. The seeds of this strong authority was started by Joseph Smith who claimed visitations from God, Jesus, angels with the authority of the original church given to him and Oliver Cowdery in person by John the Baptist and the apostles Peter James and John.
Members that accept these visitations give great authority to the words of Joseph Smith. After all, opposing his teachings would seem to be like opposing God, for he not only claimed visitations but often said, “thus saith the Lord,” and then the words were supposed to be Christ himself.
It is interesting that even though Joseph possessed all the ingredients to exercise powerful outward authority to steer members away from the inner voice that he was the least authoritarian of the leaders of the Mormon church. He rarely spoke of his supernatural experiences, or emphasized them to sway the people. Instead, he emphasized that it was important for members to go within and get their own revelation.
Then, after Joseph was murdered Brigham Young became the next prophet and this was where the powerful emphasis on authority really took hold. One reason Brigham placed more emphasis on authority was that he thought that one of the reasons Joseph was killed was he was too lax in its use. Joseph did not clear out al the dead wood that caused opposition and problems. Brigham decided that if he was going to avoid a similar fate he needed to be more controlling and get everyone in line thinking the same thing.
The thoughtform then had an upgrade which told members, “When the prophet speaks the thinking has been done. Independent thinking is not to be tolerated.”
It is strange then that the church started off with powerful claims of authority, and used it sparingly, but then as miraculous events diminished the projection of authority increased.
This quote from the official Church magazine gives the prime directive of the programming:
“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan ‚Äî it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”
Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 354.
This idea has been repeated many times since then. It thus seems contradictory that one of the central doctrines of the church is free agency. Joseph Smith taught that the original war in heaven was over the free agency of man. Satan wanted to take away the free agency of humanity to make it easy to save them, but Jesus wanted to give us our agency so we could make our own decisions and earn our salvation.
So how do they reconcile free agency with having no agency to think contrary to what the leaders say?
They say that they have the freedom to think contrary to authorities, but a member just may be thrown out of the church for it and risk being a Son of Perdition to reign with the devil and his angels for eternity. In addition they say that there are lots of things they can use their free will on that the authorities have not given orders on. For instance, they can decide who to marry, what career to pursue, etc.
The problem with this rationalization is that even under the greatest of tyrannies people had some freedoms including speaking against the dear leader if they were willing to pay the price.
The other prime doctrine that seems contradictory is that of continuing revelation. Joseph taught that not only the leaders of the church receive revelation of the mysteries, but such revelation was the right of every member.
To any outsider looking in there is a major problem with this belief. The church leaders haven’t presented a revelation in over a century. There was an official pronouncement in 1978 that the blacks could hold the priesthood, but no revelation on it was ever presented to the church. The other problem is that if a lowly member claims to receive a revelation about any of the mysteries that are promised in LDS scriptures he most likely will be excommunicated.
So… how does the Mormon thoughtform tell the members to think to get around this contradiction? It says this:
“When the leaders give instructions to govern the church there is the hand of God at work giving them revelation to do their jobs and when they speak to the church, God is revealing things to their minds that come down to the members. There is more revelation coming down from on high than you can shake a stick at.”
A as far as personal revelation goes, they can’t get revelation on doctrine, the mysteries or the affairs of the church but each member can get revelation for his family or personal; affairs.
So do Mormons get answers to their prayers from a thoughtform?
In many cases, yes. This happens with many religious people, but the Mormons are particularly vulnerable because they pray for answers for all kinds of personal things.
I used to sell children’s books which had good moral uplifting stories in them for kids as well as a children’s encyclopedia. After the presentation everyone fell in love with the books and bought them if they could fit them in their budget. Everyone that is, except the faithful Mormons. Almost every time I gave a presentation to an active Mormon family I received the same reply, a reply I received nowhere else, even from super religious people of other faiths:
This was what they said: “We will have to pray about whether or not to buy the books. Come back tomorrow and we’ll give you our answer.”
When I came back the next day the answer was always the same. God told them to not buy the books. Not once did any LDS family get a yes from God to buy those great books for kids.
One can only conclude that either God hates children’s books or…
The members are picking up the programming from the thoughtform that governs the church.
I think it is the latter because I’m sure God would have liked the books.
Now does this mean that all prayers are answered from a computer-generated thoughtform? No. Now and then a sincere seeker will break through the barriers and make a true spiritual contact. Unfortunately, this is the exception and not the rule.
Now don’t think the Mormons are unique in having rationalizing thoughtforms. All of us are exposed to them and it takes a very spiritually independent person to recognize them for what they are.
So what about atheists and non believers? Are they influenced by thoughtforms? Are they also controlled by the Beast? If so, where do the thoughtforms come from?
Aug 16, 2014
The Beast 106
So what about atheists and non believers? Are they influenced by thoughtforms? Are they also controlled by the Beast? If so, where do the thoughtforms come from?
Looks like the group realizes that atheists and non believers are influenced by thoughtforms. And yes, they are influenced by a thoughtform around Darwinism and anti religious rhetoric, but that is not where they are most powerfully influenced. Since they do not believe in God or trust in Him they believe in man and the power that he has. And what is the greatest source of humanity’s power?
Political thoughtforms are very powerful, especially the ones on the Left. Many on the Right are controlled by the thoughtforms governing their religious thinking and do not have a lot of attention left over to give to political thoughtforms. If they get involved in politics it is usually because something about their faith is involved, such as abortion, gay rights, drugs etc.
On the other hand, non believers and those not involved in religion do not pay much attention to religious thoughtforms. This frees their attention up to be captivated by powerful thoughtforms in other areas.
Contemplate what the wording of the most powerful political thoughtform would be and submit it to the group.
What other powerful thoughtforms are out there besides that of religion and politics? How are people controlled by them?
Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE