The Left, the Right and DK, Part 1

This entry is part 1 of 73 in the series 2015

The Principle of Freedom

A reader brings up an interesting point that most Bailey students are from the Left and see me as a heretic to the faith because I lean to the Right and this division seems unreasonable.

Yes it is interesting that a great majority of Bailey students as well as most in other new age movements lean quite strongly to the Left. If I had to guess the amount I would say I would say it was over 80%.

So, do shear numbers in majority mean that going to the Left is the true right hand path?

Not hardly. History proves that the next level of truth is always seen by the few, not the many.

Before I proceed let me note that when I speak of political divisions I usually use Left and Right instead of liberal and conservative. This is because these titles are misleading as those who are called conservative are liberal in many ways as they give more to charities, they are supportive of space exploration and technology, they look for new ways to expand on freedom, liberally embrace free speech, limited government, etc. Those who call themselves liberal are extremely conservative about conserving all kinds of things – the environment, cultures, historical sites and buildings and unfortunately lean toward the old conservative ways of totalitarian government much more than do conservatives with their emphasis on freedom..

I consider myself on the Right because I choose the Right hand path and it is no coincidence that the political left and right have taken those names to themselves as they are indicative of which path they knowingly or unknowingly support.

So what are the indications that the seeker is on the Right hand path?

As I have said many times, the key indication that one is treading the Right hand path is an embracement of the Principle of Freedom. After all, what is the core ingredient of the various initiations that have to be taken on the path to liberation?

DK said again and again that the initiations remove limitations. And what happens when limitations are removed?

Greater freedom.

How can a seeker be making significant progress toward his next initiation, which brings greater freedom if he fights against the very principle of freedom that is needed to move forward?

The problem with understanding freedom is that everyone thinks they are for it. Slave owners during the American Civil War thought they were fighting for it. Hitler thought he was fighting for it. Even ISIS think they support it.

How can some be so deluded one may ask.

The reason is that individuals tend to see freedom only as it relates to their own little world and totally miss seeing it as it applies to the whole.

If slave owners won the war they would have had more freedom to do what they wanted with their slaves. If Hitler had won he would have had more freedom to carry out his insidious designs. If ISIS gets their way then they’ll have lots of freedom to rape and pillage.

Fortunately most reading this will clearly see that the above groups did not embrace any true principle of freedom. Unfortunately, many cannot see where they are missing the principle with the political views they embrace.

Consider the ways that many miss out on the Principle of Freedom.

They accept the idea that it is okay to limit or take away freedom if their intention is to do good.

For instance, Obamacare limits numerous freedoms, but is supported by many new agers because they think it will help people.

Is that any different in principle than a slave owner using his slaves to build a school for kids?

No. The building of a school does not justify enslavement and neither does the good Obamacare does for a few justify the freedom taken away from the many – freedoms such as;

  • Freedom to not have insurance and pay your own way.
  • Freedom to keep your policy with which you were happy.
  • Complete freedom to choose your doctor.
  • Freedom to not support it with your tax or medical dollars.
  • The freedom to pay for what you get instead of being gouged with excessive payments.

Basically, choice is limited for individuals, institutions and business yet many who think they are on freedom’s side cheer on this debacle.

This is just one example of many where the Left miss the true application of freedom

Only by creating a sense of personal responsibility and a consciousness of freedom can we insure that our world will not slip back into slavery.

A reader writes:

“So, are you saying those that lean to the political left are “leaning toward the Left hand” (spiritual) path?”

JJ

The reason I use “Right” and “Left” as much as possible when I am teaching is to correlate my views with the Right and left hand path more than the literal political right and left.

The political left leans more toward limiting freedom than does the political right, but the Right is far from perfect so I do not set them up as the ideal by a long shot. Now because the political right have some areas where they also want to limit freedom does not mean they are equally egregious. One has to use the Second Key of Judgment and assess the degree each side goes off the path to liberation of the human spirit.

Both political sides are way too black and white and a black and white approach overlooks the Principle of Judgment, as well as principles in general, which must be used to see the Right hand path. Without judgment the seeker will naturally gravitate (usually with good intentions) toward the Left hand path until he reaches a point of tension where the real truth stares him in the face. At that point many will choose correctly and veer to the Right.

Another readers asks:

I feel like you talk about socialist policies, as if they were brought in by a dictator. Was it not the majority rule, that you espouse, that brought about socialist policies? Is it not then the will of the people, that enacted these policies in order to make a more just, and equal society?

JJ

If people want to cooperate in socialistic endeavors through their own free will then I am all for it, but many socialist policies, as well as many acts of Congress and presidential executive orders, run contrary to the will of the people.

Our elected representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people, but often vote against it and in harmony with pressure groups and political leaders rather than the people.

Congress barely passed Obamacare with only Democratic votes which ran contrary to the will of the people.

A big problem with it was that the people were unaware of what was in it and those who did read some of it were usually strongly opposed to it.

When passed the Obamacare bill contained 381,517 obscure words and within three years an additional 11, 500,000 words were added in attempts to clarify and expand its powers. I supposed additional millions of words have been added since.

The bill did not have majority support when passed and has low support now. A Washington Post poll in June 2015 showed support at 39% and in October 2915 a Rasmussen poll showed support at just 32%.

If we eliminated the people from the poll who were getting highly subsidized insurance at the expense of the middle class then support would be much lower.

The New York Times found that more than half the plans offered through the federal Healthcare.gov exchange had deductibles of $3,000 or more. In some states, the median deductible was $5,000 or more.

Sky-high deductibles like that high used to come with extremely low premiums. But thanks to ObamaCare’s many rules and regulations and fees, such plans are a thing of the past.

The Times notes that an Albuquerque, N.M., woman pays $4,800 a year for a plan with a $6,000 deductible. Before ObamaCare, a plan with a $2,500 deductible was available in that state for just $1,625 a year, according to a Government Accountability Office review of pre-ObamaCare premiums.

LINK

If you have a social program where a third of the people get free stuff then almost all of that group will vote for a continuation of the freebies. On the other hand, it is theft for those who are getting the benefit without paying for it, to have the power to demand free stuff from those who work hard to earn the money and pay the taxes. Any social program should be supported by the majority of those who actually pay for it. Benefits supplied by the approval of the majority who who pay the bills are much more justified than those opposed by the majority.

Right now almost half the people are receiving government benefits. If we reach a point where over half receive more than they pay in then the takers will have power to demand the givers to give more and more until the country unravels and collapses.

Not a good thing.

The solutions to these problems are presented in my book Fixing America and the core of the solution is presented online free HERE.

Universal Healthcare Lost

Would you say that we have universal healthcare if we had a system that all could afford, even if one worked for minimum wage or was a fruit picker working for piece work with imported Hispanics?

Let us say that a fruit picker had an accident where he wound up spending three months in the hospital involving six operations, yet had no problem paying for the whole thing. Does that sound like the best system ever?

Yes, it does. This was what we once had and we let this utopia slip from our fingers for a bowl of porridge offered to us by Big Brother.

We had such a wonderful system back in 1958 when I had an accident with a homemade rocket exploding that indeed put me in the situation just described.

This happened at the worst possible time. My parents had just divorced and my Dad took off to central America, not to be heard from for years and giving us no support. We had no food stamps no welfare, no child support, no medical insurance and no skills in making money. To make money, my mother, younger sister and I picked fruit in the summer and my mother worked for minimum wage in a potato plant during the rest of the year.

After the explosion I spent eight hours in surgery and a month in the hospital. Then a short time later I had a second surgery requiring a few extra hospital days.

I was quite concerned about the cost to my mother for something that was my fault and discovered that my cost there was $8 a day. There were other rooms that cost $12 and $14 a day, but I had a cheaper one because it was a ward shared with others.

Even so, eight dollars a day in 1958 seemed like a lot for someone in our situation. That’s about $70 in 2019 dollars. On top of this we had the surgery costs and office visits.

We, of course, could not pay it off all at once, but over time we paid the whole thing by picking fruit, working near minimum wage and me mowing laws on the side.

Then, later I had four corrective surgeries by a specialist that required an additional two months in the hospital. To cover the costs my savvy mom found a private charity that paid for the whole thing.

If this happened under today’s system the overall bill would be around a half million dollars and there is no way that a fruit picker could handle it, even if he had good insurance that paid 80%.

Indeed, we used to have a universal health care system, in other words, a system that all could afford and it required no payments to the IRS taken out of paychecks to cover Medicare – neither did it require the government to borrow money to supplement healthcare.

What happened that destroyed such a fair system?

It happened when the government stepped into help in 1965 when Medicare was introduced. It was supposed to help with medical costs, but from that point on they increased exponentially.

Medicare seemed like a good idea to many, especially in consideration of the cost projections at the time. The public was sold on the idea that Medicare’s $3 billion cost in 1966 would only reach an inflation-adjusted $12.0 billion by 1990. Instead, the actual cost in 1990 was a whopping $67 billion. The “experts” were off by 7.44 times. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007, or 16 percent of all federal spending. Since that time, spending has continued to rise and Obamacare is sending taxpayer costs through the roof.

The only larger categories of federal spending are Social Security and defense.

Would the public have supported socialized medicine if they could have seen what they would loose?

Certainly not.

Unfortunately, young people today have no sense of history, of what a financial paradise health costs were when before 1965.

Back then doctors often put patients a couple days in the hospital for observation. Because costs were so low the payment was no problem. Now, even with insurance, no one goes into the hospital unless absolutely necessary.

Today people are often complaining about the price of gas, but when I had my accident in 1958 the price of a gallon of gas was 40 cents a gallon. In today’s money that is equivalent to $3.48. These supposedly greedy oil companies are now selling gas for as cheap as $2.06 a gallon at the time of this writing in my city. Consumers are winning in that they are buying this product below the cost of inflation.

On the other hand, if you spend a day in the supposedly non-profit hospitals you can expect to pay around $4000. That far exceeds the inflation of the $8.00 I was paying, which would be $70 today. In fact it is 57 times the cost of inflation.

If gas went up the same amount we would be paying almost $200.00 a gallon.

So much for the benefits of being non-profit and benefitting from government help.

Help like this is something we can certainly do without.

A question a real seeker of truth may ask here is which has worked better in proven reality? Has it been free market capitalism in bringing us oil or socialism replacing the free market in bringing us medical services?

Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE




Where Are the Masters?

This entry is part 21 of 34 in the series 2010B

Blayne writes:
I am wondering if there are many masters reincarnating or have already into this time period to help humanity through this rough patch? Or high level initiates at least?

Maybe it is just me but I feel something has to give soon and I have the feeling it is going to get pretty rough soon. I feel like the Korean problem while still volatile has passed its most dangerous point and is calming down.

Still unemployment is increasing rapidly despite politicians and media pundits claiming were in recovery and of course politicians are borrowing and spending like drunken sailors.

We Have riots in Europe and the UK as students are mad the government wants to cut back the education subsidies and make them pay more as governments all over the world are bankrupt and running the printing presses or credit card so to speak to pay the bills. And yes Australia too they just had more room to inflate then the US but are in the same boat and will catch up soon.

While it’s possible things could change nothing has and there is no indication any of the people that need to be the catalyst for change are even considering it. At some point the unemployment will reach a critical mass and then you will have a bunch of pissed off people with nothing left to lose.

I just feel people need to prepare for a time in the near future when there will be no jobs and food etc will be scarce. I don’t see it heading any other way. If something changes to save the day great but in the meantime were on our own for a good stretch and were going to have to reap what we have sown as a people I think.

Hate to be gloomy and I still have a strange optimism at the eventual outcome but the in between is not going to be fun and what we see now is just barely the tip of the iceberg. Thoughts?

JJ
Unless some turnaround occurs we are indeed headed toward financial catastrophe. One just has to do the math on the increasing interest payments we are making on our debt.

There are ways to turn things around and perhaps the only real solution will come from the people themselves as politicians seem to lose all touch with common sense after they get settled into office. The new crop shows some promise but we’ll have to wait and see.

Mentally it seems logical that I should be placing all my energy into organizing something to incorporate some of the changes I have written about but my soul tells me that the time is not quite right and wait for a season. I do not think the time is far off as more people are looking for solutions as time passes.

As to where the masters or initiates are it appears that not many high on the scale have entered politics as there doesn’t seen to be much light in he halls of Congress.

An amazing number thought that Obama was a master or high initiate. His ability to read a teleprompter well seemed to have misled many. Thankfully you and I were not among them. Now, even many of his supporters are coming to the conclusion that he is in way over his head.

So, if Obama was not a master or high initiate then where are they – or do such entities avoid politics completely?

If we want to find any initiates among politicians we must know what to look for. What kind of approach would be taken by a lofty soul who is in politics? The masters focus on the line of Love/Wisdom and can be found on the plane of the mind so a high initiate would use logic and reason tempered with love.

Anyone working with the forces of light would show these qualities.

(1) He or she would not support the idea of continually spending more money than we have and strapping the next generation with high interest payments.

(2) He would support the principle of freedom and thus work to run the country on the lowest possible tax rate giving people freedom to invest their own money.

(3) He would not seek for excessive regulation and quality of laws but only essential ones.

(4) He would not use the poor and unemployed to increase his power base but sincerely seek to assist them in ways that will get the willing back into productivity.

(5) He would be a true environmentalist. He would not use the environment as a weapon to increase political power or raise taxes but seek to aid the environment in common sense ways.

(6) He would not be black and white but willing to use the principle of judgment as situations change.

(7) If he is an initiate then he will be working on initiating something new.

That said – let me throw this out to the group.

First, do you agree with the above seven points? If not what criteria would you use?

Secondly, can you think of any one involved in politics who you think could be an agent for the Brotherhood of light?

If the answer is yes then why do you think this?

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2013, Part 8

This entry is part 8 of 25 in the series 2013

March 20, 2013

Aquaponics 

I came across something new that Blayne and some others may already know about. It’s called aquaponics. Here is a brief definition of it:

“Aquaponics is the combination of a Aquaculture and Hydroponics. In these semi-closed systems, water flows between a fish tank and a plant growing bed. The fish waste in the water is used to supply nutrients to the plants. The plants and micro-organisms clean the water that is returned to the fish tank. This provides a mutual beneficial environment for both the fish and the plants, and results in two crops (the fish and the plants).”

Benefits of aquaponics?

Aquaponics uses less than 5% of the water that traditional farming does.

Aquaponics is energy-efficient: our current systems use one-tenth of the energy conventional farming does!

Aquaponic produce can be grown year-round in almost any climate in an Aquaponic Solar Greenhouse

Aquaponics has eight to ten times more vegetable production in the same area and time.

Aquaponic systems with mosquito fish eradicate mosquitoes in a LARGE surrounding area!

Aquaponics is fully scalable from indoor systems to backyard family systems to full commercial systems.

Aquaponics is pure, clean, and natural: USDA Certified Organic and Food Safety Certified.

Aquaponics is easy to learn and operate: anyone can do this!

I first came across it in an internet infomercial ad that sold it on the idea of being a way to produce food for yourself if society were to have a total breakdown. I did some Googling and found several helpful links. Here is a youtube video that gives a good idea how the system works.

Here is a site that sells various systems.

And here is the infomercial I watched. It is interesting to listen to but fairly long:

They sell instructions to build your own system and supposedly save big bucks.

If anyone in the group has any knowledge or experience with this please share with us.

 

March 22, 2013

More Threats to Freedom Part 2 

This continues my treatise.

(5) The freedom of belief. Ryan Rotela attends a University in Florida and struggles to do well in classes as well as live his religion. Then one day he was put to the test.

His professor, Deandre Poole, who is also a Democrat party official, gave some strange commands to his class.

First, he told the students to take out a blank sheet of paper and write the word JESUS in bold letters. This order seemed strange to Ryan but he complied.

Next his teacher instructed them to place the piece of paper on the floor face up. This also seemed odd but Ryan complied.

Finally he ordered the students to stomp on the word Jesus in front of them.

This was too much for Ryan. He refused and picked up the sheet of paper instead.

He thought the order was outrageous and complained to school officials. Instead of reprimanding the professor they turned on Ryan and suspended him from the class.

Perhaps, even more disturbing than this was that Ryan was the only one who objected to stomping on Jesus.

Read the story here and watch the video.

This is just one of many examples that comes over the media of how the freedom to follow one’s own harmless beliefs are being threatened within our society. Here are a few:

Not only is prayer outlawed in schools but even the mention of God or Christ is largely prohibited. Some schools do not allow religious or even patriotic symbols to be worn. Kids have been sent home or chastised for wearing shirts bearing the American flag or even flag pins.

Nothing of a religious nature is allowed to be held on any public property. This was not the way the Founders interpreted the separation of church and state for in the early days of the Republic the local courthouse was often used for church and spiritual meetings of all kinds. Prayer was common everywhere and there were lots of Bibles in all schools. Even the hated early Mormon missionaries were often allowed to hold meetings in public property.

It ay be true that the State embraced religion a bit too much for the modern tastes of the majority, but now they have gone the other extreme and are acting as an agent to mold belief and suppress that which they deem undesirable.

Big brother decides that its sanctioned beliefs are to be presented and others are not thus restricting the free choice of students.

For instance, there are scientific arguments for and against Intelligent Design, but only one side is allowed, which is the atheist view.

The Powers-That-Be are big believers in orthodox climate change theory and again only seek to have one side presented.

Then the overwhelming majority of teachers and professors are Democrats and openly give their political views in class while the more conservative views are either ridiculed or penalized.

We are supposed to be living in a free society and in a free society there must be tolerance of people expressing their views and both sides presented. We must be allowed to live our spiritual lives without hindrance from the beast of unjust authority.

 

March 22, 2013

Re: The freedom of belief 

The problem here was not that the kid was merely ordered to stomp on a sheet of paper with words on it. Yes it is true that if one sees the paper in that way no harm is done. It wouldn’t be much different than stomping on a picture of Hitler or opening a book.

There are two things at play that you are overlooking.

(1) If faced with such an order few would look at the command as merely stomping on a sheet of paper. If ordered to stomp on Jesus, a picture of your kid, your wife or your mother, few would just see the exercise as just stomping on a sheet of paper.

The command would obviously be an affront to what 99% of humanity would consider decent and would be a humiliating thing to be forced to do.

(2) Secondly, even though I could take the viewpoint of the observer and see the thing as a mere piece of paper I would consider it an affront on my free agency and normal human respect. Most likely the teacher sees the representation of Jesus as being more than just ink – as something he wants to diminish. What is his motive here? Why Jesus – why not Mohammed, Obama or anyone else? Perhaps if he, being a Democrat, first demonstrated his open mindedness by stomping on a picture of Obama he would be somewhat justified in his class exercise.

I would consider it an insult to be forced to make the symbol of stomping on a representation of any human which is interpreted by all in the room as making a statement that this particular human has no value. I would refuse a silly command like this just for the principle of the thing.

 

March 23, 2013

Intelligent Design Questions 

—JJ— For instance, there are scientific arguments for and against Intelligent Design, but only one side is allowed, which is the atheist view. ——–

Nathan In order for an idea to be scientific, possibly the most important quality it must have is that it be falsifiable. Intelligent Design is not falsifiable (capable of being tested and proven true or false by experiment or observation). There is no experiment, test, or analysis you can make to reveal evidence that could challenge ID. This is mainly due to the fact that the elements of this “theory” are too vague, which is another reason why ID is not science. It is missing the “How does it work?” component. At most, ID belongs in a philosophy class, but not in science classes.

JJ It sounds like you are talking about the Big Bang which is considered valid scientific theory. It cannot be tested or proven true or false and not all scientists accept the theory. What caused the Big Bang is more vague than the Intelligent Design teaching and it is missing “How does it work?” According to your thinking this should be resigned to a philosophy class.

But it is not. Even though no scientist can demonstrate a Big Bang can happen with no intelligent direction it is still taught in our schools.

That pretty much destroys your reason Intelligent Design should be ignored as a cause.

Isaac Newton, acknowledged by most as the greatest scientist of all time believed that Intelligent Design is proven by observation which means he saw it as falsifiable. He believed that observation alone of the eye or the ear provided overwhelming evidence that an intelligent designer was at play.

Whenever I consider our bodies and how wonderful is their design I marvel at the fact that there can be even one human in existence, possessed with any intelligence at all, that cannot see that some intelligence was behind its creation.

As I said, if you stumble across an iPod in a forest would you assume the elements just came together on their own and created it? Would that be a scientific conclusion? I don’t think so.

There are good scientific arguments for Intelligent Design. A good book to read is “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen C. Meyer. He presents a lot more scientific evidence for intelligent Design than I have ever seen against it.

—JJ— The Powers-That-Be are big believers in orthodox climate change theory and again only seek to have one side presented. ——–

Nathan Remember weeks ago? I posted that article which showed that as far as the scientific community which studies this phenomenon goes, there really is only one side to this argument.

JJ That is an amazing statement concerning a subject with two definite sides. I’d say that 30,000 scientists signing a petition that disagrees with orthodox global warming theory definitely demonstrates there are two sides to the argument. Check this out:

Let’s review our dialog. Note that what the scientists you referenced agreed upon was not even part of the argument posed by skeptics.

You wrote: The Web of Science is a database with articles from a little over 10,000 academic journals. Of that entire database, 13,950 articles can be found on the subject of climate change. Only 23 articles reject global warming or reject global warming as a man-made phenomenon.

JJ I’m surprised they found 23 fitting their criteria which is: “To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming.”

Every knowledgeable skeptic including myself would have to side with the majority here. Of course, over the past century there has been warming and man made emissions has been a partial cause. The disagreement isn’t over this technicality but on how much of a cause CO2 is and whether the apocalyptic doctrines they promote are probable. Maybe we should worry more about being hit by an asteroid and concentrate more on preparing for that than global warming. After all, global warming has never destroyed most of the life on earth. (End Quote)

If the religious orthodox global warming political theory is taught in schools then the scientific skeptical side should also be presented. Otherwise, it is like teaching only addition in math class and never teaching the kids how to subtract.

As far as ideology affecting teaching, yes it happens on both sides but the Left has by far the majority of control here. I refer to a previous article on the subject.

 

One point to make is that Intelligent Design is different from what is called Creation Science. The latter usually assumes that the earth was created in six days and is less than 10,000 years old. This is not scientifically supportable. Intelligent Design merely states that there is strong evidence that life was created by a higher intelligence. This is in harmony with esoteric thought.

 

March 23, 2013

Re: The Freedom of Belief

Dan: Your point number (1) is answered in my original reply (and again above). I said that in the absence of additional information, _I_ PERSONALLY would look at it that way and didn’t find it all that disturbing _BUT_ (essentially) that others might and I could understand that.

JJ Let me put it this way. Actions are communication symbols just as words are. To stomp on a picture or name is to issue a statement that this person is despised and hated.

Now let us say that the paper contained a picture of your mother and you were ordered at one time to stomp on it and at another time to state before the class that you despise and hate your mother.

What is the difference?

Nothing.

If you love your mother this means you are being asked to lie or make an untrue statement a thing which goes against the code of any disciple.

If it were the name of Jesus, Mohammed or even Obama I would not do it because I do not hate any of them.

If there was some greater purpose involved I could see the image as just a piece of paper or the words as just vibrations but that would be a rare circumstance.

On the other hand, many in the Middle East burn the American flag in disrespect and are being honest because they really do hate us.

Dan: Well, then I must hate/despise not only my mother but most of the rest of my family to include myself 🙂

There are a bunch of framed photographs on my livingroom wall of me, my mother, brothers and several other family members.

I regularly shoot these pictures between the eyes with my handgun/laser for trigger control practice, maintaining a proper sight picture, practicing stance, draw and etc.

I’m sure a psychiatrist would have a field day!

JJ I’m sure you do not see shooting a harmless laser at family photos in the same light as an ex wife burning or stomping on her husband’s photos as far as communication goes. On the other hand, it would be different if a beastly authority ordered you to shoot with either a laser or a bullet a picture of Marcie between the eyes as an acknowledgement of what you or he you think of her. I think the guy in the class felt that stomping on Jesus was an acknowledgement that Jesus was a worthless dude.

 

March 24, 2013

Thinking Makes It So

Dan’s comments on Jesus and shooting pictures reminds me of a scene from Hamlet by Shakespeare:

Hamlet: What have you, my good friends, deserv’d at the hands of Fortune, that she sends you to prison hither?

Guildenstern: Prison, my lord?

Hamlet: Denmark’s a prison.

Rosencrantz: Then is the world one.

Hamlet: A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o’ th’ worst.

Rosencrantz: We think not so, my lord.

Hamlet: Why then ’tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.

Is it true that thinking determines whether a thing is good or bad?

In what context would it be true and when would it be false?

 

March 25, 2013

Was Jesus Wrong?

Tom writes: How can Jesus Christ be wrong about the mustard seed? If he was really a 6th degree initiative then why did he not know there was seeds smaller then a mustard seed that can be sown?

JJ This is certainly not something I would lose sleep over no matter who said it for the purpose of the conversation was not to find the smallest seed on the earth but to illustrate how the Kingdom of God will begin as a small thing and grow into something great.

A problem with analyzing this is we do not know the exact words that Jesus used when referring to the mustard seed. The Gospels were written down from memory decades after Jesus spoke the words and who knows how accurate they are.

Your post quoted from Mark as follows:

Mark 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: Mark 4:32 But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.

On the other hand, Luke words the account quite differently: Luke 13:18 Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? Luke 13:19 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.

Notice that in Luke’s account that Jesus said nothing about the size of the seed. It is quite possible that this is closer to his original words and other writers just embellished what he said.

But what if Jesus did say that the mustard seed is the smallest. This was a logical presentation as far as I can see for the mustard seed with the smallest seed with which the people were familiar. If he had identified the true smallest seed in the world the people would have been confused and the parable would not have had much meaning.

But the black mustard seed (Brassica nigra = Sinapis nigra) was the smallest seed ever sown by a first-century farmer in that part of the world according to some scholars.

Whatever the case, the mustard seed was probably the smallest seed that Jesus knew about and the contrast between its beginning and end made for a good example to illustrate the truth of his thinking.

Jesus probably didn’t have a clue as to what the real smallest seed on earth was. Neither do I and I do not care.

 

March 26, 2013

Re: Thinking Makes It So 

The questions: Is it true that thinking determines whether a thing is good or bad?

In what context would it be true and when would it be false?

We’ve had lots of good comments on this assignment – too many for me to comment on so I’ll just add a few of my own.

The individual’s thinking definitely determines whether a thing is good or evil in his own mind and thinking.

For instance, the teacher that ordered his students to stomp on the name of Jesus thought it was a good thing to do.

On the other hand, the student who resisted had different thoughts. He saw this as a bad thing to do.

The only difference in how the two people saw good or evil in the act was determined by their thought.

This principle also applies to groups. For instance, the Nazis as a group thought that it was a good thing to exterminate the Jews. On the other hand, the Jews had a different outlook. They definitely saw their persecution and extermination as very evil.

So Shakespeare was correct as far as good or evil is interpreted by individual or group consciousness.

Now we need to look at the bigger picture and ask if the Nazis belief that killing Jews as being a good thing really meant that it was a good thing to do?

To understand the answer we must define the principle of good and evil. We have previously defined good as that which moves us forward in our spiritual progression and freedom and evil that which takes us backward.

Therefore, the Nazis were definitely doing an evil act, even though they thought it was good. Taking an innocent life interferes with the path of the soul whose life is taken and the one taking the life suffers loss of soul contact and gains karma.

Now let us apply this to the assignment to stomp on Jesus. One thing that interferes with spiritual progression is to interfere with free will. For the students in the class who cared less about Jesus there was no problem. They could stomp on the name of Jesus, have a good laugh and their free will would not be infringed. On the other hand, the teacher’s command violated Ryan’s free will as the idea of disrespecting his messiah was repugnant to him and the teacher had to know that some would feel this way. This violation of free will puts his command in the evil category.

Let us suppose that the whole class was composed of atheists who didn’t care about Jesus. Would the order to stomp on his name be good, bad or neutral?

In this case it would not be nearly as bad as the violation of free will but stomping on the name of an honorable person is a sign of disrespect. The teacher is assisting in conditioning the students to not respect good people and if this happens on a large scale civilization deteriorates placing such actions in the evil category. It may be slightly evil if done infrequently but could lead to a great evil if people are conditioned with hate and disrespect over and over.

 

March 26, 2013

Good Grief 

As if the university is not making a big enough fool of themselves they are now adding further disciplines to Ryan who was ordered to stomp on Jesus. This kid is providing good PR for Mormons who are looked upon as not believing in Jesus by many Christians.

 

March 29, 2013

Re: Pregnancy (or not) & Intention 

Sarah asks: How can I control whether I conceive or not with no traditional contraception?

JJ First, most are familiar with the Rhythm method. This doesn’t require any extra sensory perception and is not 100% reliable.

What you are referring to is the process of tuning into your body so you can tell when it is ready to conceive or not conceive. If the seekers are tuned into their bodies during sex they can tell when a conception will occur and if they do not want a baby they can avoid impregnation.

There are two problems with this.

First, this method of tuning in is taught nowhere of which I am aware so the seeker is left on his own to perfect it.

Secondly, even if you believe in and like the concept you have no guarantee that you will have control over conception. Before this occurs the seeker must practice tuning into his body. One thing you can do is when you decide you want to get pregnant try to tune into your body when having sex and attempt to registe5r the moment when conception occurs. When you realize what this feels like you have made a large advance in the direction of being sensitive enough to control your time of conception.

Since there are not normally a lot of time periods where one is trying to get pregnant one must practice sensitivity in other areas. One way to increase body sensitivity is to pay attention to all things you eat and take into your body. This includes food, food supplements, vitamins, herbs, beverages and medicines. Shortly after you ingest something, especially if you haven’t had it for a while, see if you can tune into how your body is responding to it. Does it like it or not? Is your sense of well being greater or less?

Until the seeker becomes confidently sensitive he or she is better off using conventional birth control means. If a copper Paraguard IUD is causing problems I would switch to something else.

You might want to talk with your doctor and tell him you want to switch to another method and see what he recommends. Also google something like “safe birth control” and lots of things will come up.

In the coming age classes will be taught hat will assist students in tuning into their bodies and assuming greater control but for now we all have to plow with the horses we have.

Good luck.

 

March 30, 2013

Interesting Articles 

I read a couple interesting articles today. Take a look:

How the Massacre of 40,000 Elephants Could Lead to the End of Global Warming

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

The Principle of Freedom

This entry is part 04 of 98 in the series Principles

Principle Four:  The Principle of Freedom

The principle of freedom is a mystery just as most principles are. Why? Because it takes a certain degree of consciousness to apply the second key of judgment to understand and apply it.

When freedom is discussed among all people of divergent views it is interesting to note that all of them see themselves as struggling for freedom, even those who are enslaving others. Hitler often spoke of freedom. The Taliban speaks of their own freedoms. The Old South maintained they needed slaves to insure their own freedom. Abraham Lincoln noted this and observed that some people have a pretty strange idea of what freedom is.

Some think that freedom can only exist in a state of anarchy, but this is illusion for it takes a number of laws to insure the maximum freedom of the whole.

Others think we need laws to cover every detail of living to insure freedom, but too many laws and rules hinder freedom.

There are those who think life is not fair so they make restrictive laws to make everyone equal thinking greater freedom will result. This usually results in less fairness and diminished freedom for the whole.

The problem with freedom is that people view it from their own restricted vision. Instead of looking at it from its effect on the whole they look at it from the view of their own little isolated world. It may be true that a man could have had a slave and the slave helped him have a temporary increase in his own physical freedom, but the whole was less free.

The problem with freedom is we are looking for the manifestation of maximum freedom for the whole and to obtain this there has to be some restrictions on the individual. For instance, the individual burglar must not be given the freedom to break into homes. On the other hand, too many restrictions will suffocate freedom. Only those who see the fine point of balance in the middle and how the whole is affected will understand.

What is true freedom then? Again, it is the removal of restrictions either imaginary or real, so the power of decision has complete freedom within the sphere of its plan. Thus the true principle of freedom lies in the idea that the soul energy to accomplish is released so its life can flow through the ideas and thoughts of the pilgrim until all desires are fulfilled.

No matter what your belief system there will come trials in harmonizing the Principle of Freedom with personal feelings.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against abortion must allow the woman her freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against gays living together must allow them that freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against illegal drugs must allow the user his freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against Neo-Nazis promoting their doctrines must allow them that freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against cutting down trees must allow others the freedom of choice within their own sphere whether that choice be right or wrong — as long as no great harm is done to the earth.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against rules being laid down in a school, group or business must allow others freedom of choice within their own sphere of activity whether that choice be right or wrong — for the seeker retains the choice to work for another company, join another group or take another class.

Each potential disciple will have some final temptation to support the unreasonable restriction of others in the name of promoting his personal desire to see that which is good triumph. The deception is that true good can only magnify in an atmosphere of maximum possible freedom.

So the principle that the gathered lights will always apply is maximum freedom for the whole. The only time any freedom is taken away from the individual is when it increases the freedom for the whole. Like I say, we take away the burglar’s freedom because the burglar takes away the freedom of the whole so by taking away the burglar’s freedom we increase the freedom for the whole. The principle involved with freedom is the wholeness aspect; maximum freedom for the whole. The seat belt law is a simple little thing but it’s totally unnecessary to have a $200 fine for a seat belt infraction. It may force us to buckle up but on the other hand it creates big brother telling us what to do with outward authority over our lives.

What we need to develop is power to have our on personal freedom and do what is right because we decide to do what is right. We do right because we see what is right; to help our fellow man because we want to help our fellow man. By doing these things we can enhance the flow of the energy of God because the energy of the Holy Spirit operates on total freedom.

Where freedom is taken away, the Holy Spirit does not flow. People have gone to very oppressed nations and visited them, particularly Russia when it was totalitarian and was in full power-it’s a lot better now than it was-but when people have gone and visited these oppressed nations, people look depressed, they don’t talk to each other, there is no flow of ideas. They’re afraid that somebody will report what they’ve said. They’re afraid all the time. There is a spirit of fear. They’re doing what’s right maybe, according to the state, but they have no freedom.

The greatest evil is always generated when people are forced to do what is right. The force to do what is right has so much power behind it because they say, “We need to create a law to make this happen.” People say, “That would be good. Let’s go ahead and do it.” They don’t even think about the principle of freedom involved. They never argue the principle of freedom. When our legislators are talking about passing laws, they never think they’re taking away freedom. The argument is always over making people do what’s right. If they would only argue over what the maximum freedom would be generated. How can we make the law so freedom will not be infringed, freedom of the whole will be amplified rather than held back. There are, like I said, a small handful of laws for robberies and rapes and murders and these types of laws, are good for people but there are so many laws that infringe freedom.

The principle of freedom applies to a lot of things, even teachers, such as myself. If a teacher such as myself didn’t believe in the principle of freedom then he would attempt to set himself up as an authority over a group to control them.

“The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.”

 — Sir William Preece, chief engineer of the British Post Office, 1876

Go to Principle Five

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Kalispell Gathering 2006, Part 31

This entry is part 16 of 24 in the series Kalispell Gathering 2006

JJ: Okay let’s get back to the gathering principle. The gathering principle is that the cream of the crop is gathered and produces something new. The people came out of the kingdoms and came to America and when they got here they did not want a duplicate of what King George, France, or what the rest of Europe had. They wanted a system where there was freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, so they created this system where there was much more freedom of movement. What we did was evolve from the tribal system to the kingdom system to the competitive system and this is what we are in right now and in many ways it is not competitive enough. We have not really lived through it completely but we are foreshadowing the next system and what is the next system?

Audience: Co-operative system

JJ: Correct, the co-operative system. The co-operative system is foreshadowed in a lot business we see among us. For one thing we see that employees are becoming more involved. The suggestion box began how long ago, maybe in the early part of the last century. Now we are at the point where they are listening more to the employees at the bottom. Employees at the bottom are now getting the option to buy stock and this makes the employees owners. And this is the way it should be in the co-op system where everybody is an owner. Boise, as you know, is the headquarters for Albertson’s, one of the largest supermarket chains in the world. Until recently Albertson’s in Boise had a goal to monopolize Boise since it was their hometown. They put a lot work, energy and money to make sure that they controlled Boise. They chased out Safeway, Smith’s, they put just about every competitor out of business and it reached a point in Boise where all we had was Albertson’s and a couple little tiny independent stores.

If you wanted to go shopping you had to go to Albertson’s and the prices were very high. People would come from California and say, the prices are higher in Idaho than they are in California, I would say that is because Albertson’s has a monopoly here in Boise because it is their home turf. Well a chain started and it was called WINCO. It is interesting that all the employees had stock and were co-owners, had good health insurance, were treated very well. And the great part about WINCO was their prices were very reasonable, if you took two shopping carts full of the same kind of food one from Albertson’s and the other from WINCO, the WINCO cart would be much cheaper.

It took a while for people to catch on, but now the place is packed with shoppers and now what is Albertson’s doing? They are lowering their prices and coming up with all kinds of schemes, Fred Meyers and Wal-Mart has also come in and so Albertson’s is fighting for their life in Boise where a few years ago they had a monopoly.

What was interesting was what toppled this authoritative grocery store was a small co-operative grocery store. People getting together and deciding to make the employees part owners so they would get more involved. I do not know how this involvement made the prices so much cheaper but you could go to Albertson’s and get oranges for say 90 cents a pound and you would find them at WINCO for 40 cents a pound. The difference was amazing in the price. So this is new system that can come in and beat the competitive system. Now there is competition involved but you have this co-op as the main thrust which toppled this large grocery store chain, Albertson’s.

So co-operation will be the main difference between now and when the new age is fully in. Co-operation will cause the cost of living and expenses to go down so much that we will have a lot more time to the things we like. One of the problems that we have is most people have many creative things that they would like to do but you do not have the time because you are concentrating on making money. Imagine if we could make all the money we needed just working 20 hours a week. If we could do that then we would have the free time to do the other things that we would like to do and when you think about it the products that really add to the value of our civilization are manufactured by about 9% of the people of the world. The manufacturing say of this microphone adds to the value of our civilization. Susan is a real estate agent and she is not adding to the value of anything what she is doing is taking the value and moving it around. Many of us do this in our jobs. We take the things that are backed by hard value and move them around. We have an enormous amount of our employees moving wealth around or working in a bureaucracy that governs wealth. Anyone know what percentage of Americans work for the government? I think it is somewhere around 30%. Do what it is in Denmark Annie?

Annie: More than 30% and those who make $45,000 a year they have to pay 60% to 65% in taxes.

JJ: Probably more than 30% work for governments in most of Europe and that accounts for a big chunk of taxes that is taken out of your income. We are taxed today more than the slaves in the Roman Empire had to pay. It is amazing Annie is so cheerful. So we have about 30% of the people watching, taxing and figuring out how to tax the wealth more and spending the wealth – figuring out how one part of society can benefit another. They do not create wealth or increase wealth. They just try to figure out what to do with the wealth that others create. Many of the bureaucracies are created to just appease somebody. Even in a regular business like HP or Micron could be streamlined and not have so much bureaucracy. The longer a company is in business the more bureaucracy it has. The newer business has a streamlined bureaucracy and the older business operates more like the government does.

Then I think that there is about 5% in farming that are making something that is worth something and about 9% in making something else that is worth something. So you have about 14% of the population making something that is worth something and the rest just moving it around and trying to control it. Let’s say everybody that is moving wealth around or controlling it make something that is worth something and we share that responsibility. We could have double the wealth we have with just working 20 hours a week, especially with the technology we have and new technology is being developed all the time that is decreasing the amount of labor that is needed. If we keep up at that pace then in a few years we would only have to work 10 hours a week. But let’s suppose we only had to work 20 hours a week. Then we could have time to do what we want.

Many people do not want to spend their time writing or reading books, a lot of people would like to contribute to society in another way like using Wayne’s idea of helping with education, or helping with doctors in medical support – doing something that does not require a lot of training. Others could make sure the parks are clean, the point being that if we only worked 20 hours a week many people would be happy to volunteer their time to help in a lot of ways.

Now the Mormon church which I have criticized in the past does one thing that I find very interesting and that is they get a lot of volunteers for labor, and many of the people work 60 hours a week at a regular job. They have these church farms and it is all done by volunteer labor. Teaching is all done by volunteers and preaching is all done by volunteers.

Volunteers do all the jobs of the church, and it is not always efficient but it always gets done. They have a welfare system that is completely volunteer labor so where it might cost the government a dollar to give away a dollar, it costs the Mormon Church zero dollars to give away a dollar. They have a lot of faults in many ways but in this way they have set an example of what can be done with volunteers. These are volunteers that are working like crazy at other jobs. Imagine if we had a society that only had to work 20 hours a week or less and then had all this free time. Instead of having an attorney come in and charge all this money we could have volunteers who could run the legal system and negotiate and settle all kinds of problems. There are all kinds of ways that would save money and would bring our taxes way down and the money that we do give in taxes could be spent more efficiently. That is just a few ideas to start with.

Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Morya School Attitudes

This entry is part 7 of 62 in the series 2010

Morya School Attitudes
Posted July 10, 2010

Way to dig in there Larry with the Morya School.

You will find that over 90% of New Agers as well as DK readers are quite liberal and are unaware that DK supported a number of conservative issues.

Among them are

(1) The use of nuclear energy for power
(2) The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan.
(3) He was against the inclusion of totalitarian states within the UN or giving them any power.
(4) He put a lot of emphasis on freedom.
(5) He was against totalitarian states
(6) He supported a strong defense and showed a willingness to go to war for the cause of freedom.

He was against orthodox liberals in a number of ways;
(1) He was against compromising with totalitarian dictators.
(2) He thought the peace at any price people were dismally mislead.
(3) He said nothing in support of big government as we have it today.

He did condemn capitalists who accumulated large amounts of wealth and used it for political power. What liberal DK readers overlook is that the most wealthy people in the country now are Democrats, not Republicans – men such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Waren Buffet and many others. The liberals are in bed with the big money power brokers as much or more than the conservatives whereas the conservatives support the small business people and are supported by them. These were not condemned by DK.

Another point is that the big corporations do not have the power they had when DK did his writings. A company like McDonalds could have never been successfully sued by a woman who merely spilled hot coffee on her and the car companies were rarely liable for car crashes. BP could have gotten away with spilling oil to their hearts content.

DK does promote some liberal views, but they are common sense ones much unlike many of the liberals of today. Nowhere does he say we need to be taxed to death and then spend ourselves into oblivion. This process is the hallmark of modern liberal thinking.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Questions

This entry is part 26 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 16, 2010

Ruth:
JJ, you know how you started a list of Principles in the Archives, was there
ever a “Principle of Fasting”?

Or is there one you can write up?

Does this principle circle around Magnetism and Radiance?

JJ
Neither fasting, not eating, or running, or anything else we do is a principle in itself but involve principles. A principle is the concept that brings to the understanding as to why something works. Why do we eat and then refrain from eating? This can be traced back to the principles of interdependence and of cycles. In addition we fast for two additional reasons involving which are cyclic cleansing or rest and communion.

to find the principle you do not look at an action or a piece of data, but you look at the reason for the happening or the cause of the data.

***

Nadell asked, “Well, isn’t freedom simply the absence of selfishness?

Larry Woods says,
That is a very good question.

JJ
Let us know any response you get from your answer.

Actually the unselfish who are in illusion are the first to freely march toward slavery. Freedom from illusion is the key to freedom, not unselfishness.

Hitler was fairly unselfish as he sacrificed all he had for his goals, which he thought was for the good of all.

He was, however, in great illusion as well as his unselfish followers.

It is great illusion to think a forced good will have a good end. Socialism and equality have good ingredients, but when they are forced upon people by leaders who are in great illusion, scarcity and depression are the final result.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

The Second Key

This entry is part 48 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Oct 8, 2010
Dan:
If the freedom of the whole is enhanced, abridgment of the freedoms (free-will) of individuals is just?

If so, then there are no inviolable “rights” specifically apportioned to man by God (Natural Law) and the conception that many staunch “constitutionalists” seem to have that certain unalienable rights are “set in stone”, i.e. defined a priori by God from eternity as unassailable, is incorrect.

JJ
This is a good point to bring up. To understand this as it should be the Second Key of Judgment must be brought into the equation. The use of judgment is difficult for the majority because they want black and white answers, teachings and directions.

To the black and white traditionalist the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is set in stone. They are God-given and that is it. End of discussion.

The words of Thomas Jefferson are very inspiring and true on the level that he meant to communicate them. Within ourselves we all feel a sense of a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But from a larger angle of vision these right have often been violated. Sometimes they are violated for the good of the whole and sometimes for selfish purposes.

For instance, during World War II our soldiers had to take the lives of many Nazis so the freedom of the whole could be enhanced. Many of those Germans fighting for Hitler were living the best life they knew how just as you and I are, but they were caught in a terrible situation. In that situation their right to life was not unalienable and their lives were taken so the quality of the life for the billions could be enhanced.

Now let us look at Chairman Mao who felt that it was fine to sacrifice up to half his people to achieve his goals. Fortunately, he did not go that far but around 70,000,000 Chinese were starved to death, sacrificed in war or murdered by him. It seemed to such souls that they had no right to either life, or liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, outwardly that’s the way it seemed but inwardly it is different. Inwardly it seems that we should have these rights and that God has implanted that feeling within us. Because we have this basic desire within us the words of Jefferson register very strongly and their overall truth is recognized.

It’s a good thing that Jefferson wasn’t trying to be technically correct or he would have written:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident most of the time, that all men are created equal except for various circumstances and some are better looking than others, some are healthier, wiser and richer. They are basically endowed by their Creator with certain Rights that are true most of the time, that among these are Life, except when someone takes it, Liberty, except when imprisoned and the pursuit of Happiness when there are not forbidding obstacles in the way.”

You have to admit that the way the Declaration was actually wondered is a whole lot more inspiring than the technical truth.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Freedom

Book Of Quotes

Inspirational, Spiritual & Metaphysical Quotes From The Discourses Of JJ Dewey

1  People must have a say in deciding their destiny.

2  The good that comes from freedom far outweighs the bad.

3  There are two kinds of freedom:   Freedom FROM and Freedom TO.

4  A lot of causes that unnecessarily restrict freedom sound very benevolent but the hidden result is always a good intention turned into a more negative result than if things were just left to educating the people of the ideal good and letting them make up their own minds.

5  In truth we will probably never talk about a more important principle than that of freedom. Nor will we find one that is more illusive to the understanding of seekers.

6  Many are tricked by illusion and do not see or understand the true principle and thus are unable to follow the path of freedom that that leads to understanding of pure truth.

7  Only by creating a sense of personal responsibility and a consciousness of freedom can we insure that our world will not slip back into slavery.

8  As the seeker progresses on the path adherence to freedom is always increasing and never decreasing.

9  Any decrease in the embracement of freedom signifies retrogression in progression.

10  Truth and freedom interplay and create understanding from the soul.

11  He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against illegal drugs must allow the user his freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

12  The act of going forward with risk for a personal ideal and going to risk for the benefit of freedom for all mankind is vastly different.

13  The only benevolent rule is that which allows the maximum freedom of the individual and the various groups of which he is a member.

14  If the good and freedom loving people of the earth stand by and wait for God to change things, then God will stand by and allow the selfish people of the planet to set up rule until the lazy religious ones see the error of their ways and begin to forge their own destiny with the help of the Spirit of God.

15  Only through touching the Spirit of God through the soul can two become one in the understanding of freedom.

16  All steps toward the liberation of the soul are proceeded by a greater sense and power of freedom in the life of the disciple.

17  In an atmosphere of freedom that which is truly good and usable will manifest as a plant growing from a seed; but in an atmosphere of restriction even the most wonderful of all seeds cannot sprout and grow, but will suffocate and die.

18  Freedom is an essence at the core of our very being and evolution, and terrible karma awaits he who supports a reduction thereof which results in an overall diminishing of this greatest of the gifts of God.

19  The principle of freedom is not widely understood in the world today – and even if it is understood by some, it is not trusted.

20  When we choose freedom we always take a risk. But of course in not choosing freedom we are assured a bad ending, even though the few may benefit for a short time.

21  He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against gays living together must allow them that freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

22  Many proclaim freedom and walk into slavery. Others, a very few others, proclaim and live the principle of freedom and walk into the very heart of God, drawing many behind them.

23  The important thing to remember is to keep the spirit of freedom burning within our breasts and allow those with whom we disagree to have their say.

24  Security is often offered by giving up freedoms.

25  After deciding on a choice and placing value upon it, one must see through the illusions that will trick him into freely giving up his freedom.

26  In the end, the only way freedom can be lost is by giving it to another through your own free will.

27  Once the true path of freedom is seen, this path must be followed. If it is not pursued and time passes, the night will come and the vision of the path will dim.

28  Where freedom is enhanced life is magnified and grows in power and purpose.

29  Where freedom is restricted there is a reduction in the force and quality of life.

30  Without freedom there is no life.

31  The problem with understanding the principle of freedom is each of us has our ring-pass-not at a different level. One person will get very upset at restrictions of freedom within his ring; but another, who does not see himself as affected, will not care. If we attempt to restrict freedom outside of our ring then the time will come that we ourselves will find our own freedoms restricted. If we attempt to restrict freedom within our ring, but in an area where we have no personal interest, the time will come that an area of interest for us will be affected.

32  Most natural restrictions can be overcome by the individual and made to disappear for life. Unnatural restrictions cannot be overcome by the individual and hang around to thwart him with no end in sight.

33  He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against rules being laid down in a school, group or business must allow others freedom of choice within their own sphere of activity whether that choice be right or wrong – for the seeker retains the choice to work for another company, join another group or take another class.

34  The sad fact is that many who see themselves as representing Light are deceived into accepting and even promoting diminished freedom and thus become unwilling servants for the Dark Ones, until the truth makes them free.

35  He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against abortion must allow the woman her freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

36  An essential part of practicing the Principle of Freedom – a dividing sword between the philosophies of light and dark brothers – is a tolerance for the freedom of others to pursue their dreams in areas where we ourselves have no interest – or perhaps even distaste for.

37  The real test of the application of this principle [of freedom] in the life of the seeker is when one is faced with the decision of tolerating the behavior of others that you would never yourself endorse – proving that behavior does not produce great risk to the whole of the group.

38  Freedom will be a concept espoused by all who seek the cause of Zion.

39  As it is the few are always eager to take away freedom from the many because of distrust. The few with influence always fear that the many will not use freedom wisely and therefore they do not deserve it and should not have it.

40  Let us encourage freedom among our brothers and sisters and give a little trust to the ultimate goodness of humankind.

41  It is impossible to take away the freedom of a person who finds the God within.

42  It has been said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and this is indeed true, but we must be vigilant for all freedom, and not only for our own liberty in a limited area of interest.

43  We must be prepared to defend the principle of freedom for all lives within their “Ring Pass Not” and areas of interest, as long as that free expression does not take away more freedom than it gives.

44  The principle of freedom will generally be manifest if one consistently asks this question: Will my action increase the freedom of the whole or decrease the freedom of the whole?

45  An increase in benefits takes away from freedom if the reception of those benefits comes by way of force, or the taking away of the freedom of one to increase the freedom of another.

46  One of the main problems with the understanding of freedom is that the correct exercise of this principle is not black and white.

47  We can’t say that he who loves freedom will never use force because force is sometimes necessary to insure freedom for the whole.

48  You can’t say that he who loves freedom will live a life completely free from discipline, constraints and law.

49  In the name of goodness, protection, mom and apple pie almost every freedom we have is under attack from one source or another.

50  Discipline limits a person in certain areas, but has the advantage of expanding freedom in other desirable areas.

51  For the worker of light, every decision, every thought and every action should support that energy that moves in the direction of greater freedom for the whole of the group as well as for the individual.

52  A reasonable and logical degree of risk is accepted by the disciple in the quest for expansion of freedom.

53  The use of force and the application of the principle of freedom is the core dividing difference between the Brotherhood of Light and the Dark Brothers.

54  Freedom is more important than any marginal risk of accident or even death on the physical plane.

55  All of the leadership among the Dark Brothers seeks to maintain power within their sphere and fear their power is threatened whenever the principle of freedom abounds in the hearts of mankind. They, therefore, project their objectives as the “good” and seek to accomplish that good by force.

56  It is appropriate to restrain someone from disrupting the freedom and peace of others.

57  True freedom is increased only when the benefit, seen as increased freedom, extends to the whole and is supported by the whole.

58  Restrictions in freedom are made where the majority has little to say about it.

59  If we desire to live in a situation of maximum freedom we must all be willing to accept changes that affect ourselves as well as others.

60  There are many who claim to be advocates of freedom who are merely deceived. If their own benefits are enhanced at the expense of the many, they are deceived into thinking that freedom is enhanced.

61  Allow people the maximum freedom of choice possible and have faith in the divinity that is in us all.

62  Freedom of speech does not allow you to come into my house and force me to listen to you reading the dictionary.

63  The use of force is only justified when the force prevents the loss of freedom or life for an individual or group.

64  Even in an atmosphere of prosperity and freedom those who do not wish to lose their livelihood will fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo.

65  He who understands freedom will not support a lower speed limit to save one life in a million. To him life is freedom and the freedom of 999,999 is worth more than a single life or even several lives.

66  The principle of freedom is always where the battleground is, my friends.

67  There are indeed many things allowed under the Principle of Freedom that would be distasteful to me but the loss of freedom of one who is opposite to me in point of view would eventually lead to a similar loss of freedom for myself and that would be much more distasteful still.

68  Disciples must always look to the side or cause where the greatest freedom for the highest number will be manifest and go in that direction without thought to party or dogma.

69  I would suggest that that when we take a stand on one side or the other on the principle of freedom that we take a look at people who have been a force for good or evil and see who we align ourselves with.

70  He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against Neo-Nazis promoting their doctrines must allow them that freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

71  When freedom rings things often appear to get worse before they get better and the temptation is to go back to restricting freedom. If, on the other hand, people will let freedom play out in all cases except where great harm will occur, then a sure progress is made toward the ideal.

72  People still want to over-control because they see illusionary danger in guns, gays, free speech, free trade, freedom to buy or market herbs and vitamins, freedom of medical marijuana, freedom to state your belief that a disease can be cured, a free internet and many others.

73  The path of light is that which allows the greatest possible freedom of choice for the maximum number of people while allowing for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

74  Freedom always revolves around decision and not endowment of goods and services.

75  The Dark Brothers try and convince us that true freedom comes by receiving an endowment of goods or favors.

76  The Brotherhood of Light promotes the idea that freedom comes with the enhancement of the actual power of decision and the removal of obstructions thereof.

77  Without freedom there are no equal rights for as soon as you infringe on the freedom of one to enhance the rights of another then equality rights are destroyed. This makes freedom, not equality, the foundation principle.

78  The principle of freedom deals with an endless benefit that will resurface again and again until the seeker is finally one with it and will never lose it.

79  He who sees freedom as belonging to the power to possess will not see himself as being free in relation to money until he has possession of it.

80  He who comprehends and accepts the principle of freedom does not see the principle playing out in the temporary possession of money, but is happy to have the opportunity to decide in that direction if he wished.

81  The true principle of freedom lies in the idea that the soul energy is freely released so its life can flow through the ideas and thoughts of the pilgrim until all desires are fulfilled.

82  If freedom is allowed to flow through individual entities, corporate entities, and group entities then water will reach its own level and the end will be good even though there are problems in the middle.

83  Some of the most intelligent people demand freedom for themselves above financial security.

84  True peace comes from the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of freedom or the soul.

85  Freedom is a principle that is worked out in practice rather than speech only.

86  The principle to look for is always maximum freedom, not a free-for-all.

87  The principle of freedom expands when man sees the Christ in his fellow man and develops a basic trust in the general goodness of people.

88  Because the right to bear arms helps the principle of freedom (as well as responsibility) more than it hurts I wholeheartedly endorse it.

89  I always support the principle of freedom unless that freedom turns into some type of boomerang that takes away more freedom than it gives.

90  The life of freedom should be allowed to flow in all directions and should only be restricted for the purpose of protecting or manifesting a greater freedom, or for freedom affecting a greater number of people.

91  Gun control is seen by some as a way to enhance freedom, but the truth is that gun control does not enhance freedom any more than the ownership of slaves brought freedom to the Old South. The mistake in vision is very much the same.

92  Gun control is a method of enslaving the desires of many law abiding citizens to bring an illusionary freedom for those with an opposing ideology.

93  The Principle of Freedom dictates that we must allow the freedom of opposing points of view, even if they are repulsive to us – if that point of view does not restrict or diminish the freedom of the whole.

94  Freedom can only triumph when there is complete openness to both sides of a question.

95  Before any freedom is restricted there should be ample proof that the problem is a major one and that the restriction of freedom is absolutely necessary for the freedom of the whole.

96  If mankind will learn to judge wisely, and use their power of decision, then unjust powers and authorities will no longer hold humanity imprisoned.

Return to Quote Index

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Good and Evil

Book Of Quotes

Inspirational, Spiritual & Metaphysical Quotes From The Writings Of JJ Dewey

1.  “There is nothing too good to be true.”

2.  “You can change the name of good and evil, but you will still wind up talking about good and evil, just using different terminology.”

3.  “The basic difference between good and evil is this:  Good is that which takes us forward on the path of Spiritual evolution toward greater freedom, livingness, intelligence, light and love. Evil is that which takes us back into the past to lesser freedom, lesser livingness, lesser intelligence, light and love. “

4.  “The number of bare breasts available for the public gaze is far from an effective measuring rod for evil.”

5.  “Both labor and money are only evil if they are directed toward a destructive end.”

6.  “All energies and creations vibrating in their pure state are good.”

7.  “Evil is the inability to let go of the past which has filled its purpose and to move on to a new state of Becoming.”

8.  “Lower magic is like money through which is neither good or evil in itself, but can be used in either direction.”

9.  “If you speak softly the words of the soul and return good for evil, in other words, follow the basic teachings of the Master, I know that you will discover that you are among friends, just as I have discovered it for myself.”

10.  “Every organization, no mater how good and pure its origins, will experience cycles of corruption and could justly be called evil if only a snapshot in time were observed.”

11.  “If we judge good and evil merely because some authority proclaims it so, we will be lead astray time and time again.”

12.  “A desire to achieve abundance is not inherently evil and often has nothing to do with greed.”

13.  “The reason our definition of good and evil changes over the ages is because our capacity to understand and experience freedom changes.”

14.  “Now in this age, our ring pass not has expanded; and our view of good and evil has also moved to a higher level. Today, the closest thing to an ancient tribe would be a cult. A cult, which is tightly controlled by a leader who makes all personal decisions for members, is considered evil. In this age, controlling your own evolution and destiny is considered good.”

15.  “Sex, as with any energy, can be used for good or evil. Even a revelation from God can be used for good or evil.”

16.  “Escape from an unfair prison into greater freedom for service is never evil.”

17.  “All good becomes a great evil when implemented by force.”

18.  “That which assists in furthering the creation of God is good and that which works against the creative purpose is evil.”

19.  “If we want to be on the side of good we must discover the Will and Purpose of God and work in harmony with it.”

20.  “The only good that came out of World War II were the lessons we learned because the forces of good were triumphant.”

21.  “To say that there is no evil is to say that a creation cannot be destroyed. To say there is no evil is to say that there is no friction. To say there is no evil is to say that all progress is smooth with no hindrances ever showing up. To say there is no evil is to say that we are not living in a world of dualities, that there is no day or night, no form or space, no feeling or thought.”

22.  “Both good and evil serve as part of divine purpose.”

23.  “All the ancient scriptures from all faiths have been very consistent on the teaching of good and evil.”

24.  “When we see evil as a form of error I think we must admit that we all make mistakes now and then, so good and evil in this context certainly does exist.”

25.  “Cycles of good and evil effects runs through all organizations such as the Knights Templars, The Jesuits, labor unions, governments, The UN, big business, and even the Red Cross.”

26.  “Perhaps we seekers have a kinder and gentler view of evil than the many hard liners, but as humanity as well as the Masters define the term, both good and evil exist.”

27.  “The concept of the religious ones today toward the word evil and numerous other Biblical words is quite a bit different from the original people who used them.”

28.  “All the translations I have seen of Buddha’s teachings have him speaking of both good and evil with about the same fervor as the early Christians.”

29.  “Evil does not manifest as a killer demon tearing everything in its path from limb to limb, but evil can manifest in all spheres and places.”

30.  “Evil means to reverse direction from progression to retrogression and a heavenly being can do this as well as a worm. If a heavenly being does this we may notice no lack of love and light from him or her from our vantage point.”

31.  “The reason that evil is associated with death and good with life is that death is generally seen as the breaking up of a form or forces because the attention of the soul has been withdrawn from it.”

32.  “Eternal good is eternal BECOMING or eternally moving forward to greater life. Eternal evil is to cease becoming and “to be” that which was in the past.”

33.  “A cashless society by itself is not good or evil. The nations should not be forced to become cashless, but neither should they be forced to not go this direction if they so choose.”

34.  “Good eventually dominates because intelligence gravitates to good more than evil.”

35.  “When the good prevails the majority benefit, not only among those who win in the conflict, but among those who lose.”

36.  “When evil prevails only a handful in power benefit on the winning side.”

37.  “The evil that the higher lives have to deal with is beyond what we lesser brothers could comprehend as even being a negative thing.”

38.  “Good must co-exist with evil to have meaning, just as light needs darkness to be seen.”

39.  “Even the Masters, the Christ and the Ancient of Days himself have to deal with good and evil on their own plane.”

40.  “The problem with humans discerning evil among the greater lives is that what is backwards in evolution for them appears far ahead for us. Their evil is our good.”

41.  “The Bible itself says evil was created by God.”

42.  “Freedom is the defining principle, determining the division between good and evil as we move from age to age.”

43.  “In the grand scheme of things good and evil has a very practical application.”

44.  “Because all form is created from the dualities – and we are the power of Decision to “know good from evil” – to say evil does not exist would mean good does not exist also.”

45.  “Whoever is sent on a mission for the Christ will usually be seen as evil rather than good by the masses until the time of understanding comes.”

46.  “To discover whether a teaching is true that you do not search out the evil that may be therein, for until the truth is discovered it is difficult to sort out the good and the evil, the true and the false.”

47  “The first evils that the workers in the light must overcome are the established authorities set rigidly in place upon the earth.”

48.  “Imperfection is one thing and you can find that in anyone if you look closely enough, but for evil one has to look at the intent of the heart.”

49.  “The dominating good lies in the invisible purpose through the door of the midway point and is not one of the extremes of the dualities.”

50.  “If there were such a thing as a dominating evil neither the universe nor we humans would even exist.”

51.  “Good and evil exist because creation exists, or we could say BECOMING exists.”

52.  “Evil is that which pulls us backward in evolution and good is that which pulls us forward.”

53.  “Good intentions are not enough to be on the side of good.”

54.  “The greatest evil which has existed on this planet has not been advanced by people with evil intentions or lust for blood, but by people with good intentions.”

55.  “Good and evil means something going on now as humanity understands it, not a vision from an ultimate reality that we no nothing about.”

56.  “The interplay of good and evil does eventually result in the outcome of what is called the “dominating good,” but in between there can be much unnecessary evil, pain and suffering because we did not use our free will to bring the dominating good.”

57.  “Because good is dominating and the Will of God takes us toward the good, Divine Will always prevails in the end; nevertheless, many setbacks and detours occur before that end is reached.”

58.  “When free will is minimized through tyranny and fear neither the good nor the evil within the individual is allowed demonstrate themselves.”

59.  “The pendulum of material existence continually swings back and forth between good and evil, but the key to the understanding of the principle lies in the knowledge of the fact that the pendulum itself is in horizontal motion from left to right, thus causing the concepts of good and evil in the mind of man to be continually readjusting.”

60.  “The ultimate criteria for defining good and evil in the affairs of man is the final outcome of the directions taken.”

61.  “All forces, powers, and energies are neither good nor evil in themselves. They are completely neutral, but only become good or evil when they are intelligently directed.”

62.  “One of the reasons the powers of darkness can gain a foothold on the earth is because of the ignorance of other people concerning good and evil.”

Return to Quote Index

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE