Saturday, May 31, 2008

Charity's Views on Being Born Again

This discussion with Charity, my Spiritual Professor CIE, took place in 1995, when I was reading several books written by Fundamentalist Christian writers regarding their personal experiences of being “born again.” I do not remember who these writer were, so I cannot give proper attribution to their writings. I trust the reader can forgive me for that and focus on the topic they explained, what they went through in their minds. Then one can see what Charity thought better explained just how they experienced this emotional change in their lives.

I was raised by a father who was a Presbyterian preacher who never mentioned this subject. In my case, he had me prepare to become a member of his church by going to classes and then, when I was old enough (12), saying the creed which allowed me to become a member of the organization. There was no big epiphany or emotional change in my own mind during all this process.

Ralph: He writes regarding TRUTH, and being convicted of having wrong thoughts. It’s hard to know what wrong thoughts, feelings and behaviors are.

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: So he (Holy Spirit) is the one “who indwells me and aids my understanding of the will of the Heavenly Father as well as facilitating a more intimate relationship with God Incarnate Jesus Christ”.

Charity: That is nonsense.

Ralph: The “he” says, “It is Jesus Christ.”

Charity: So which is it? We need a clarification of what he means by “indwells”.

Ralph: Just taking that much, can you give me any clues of what he’s talking about?

Charity: (Laughs) What he is quoting is that he was “born again”. That’s what he has been indoctrinated with. This is his “thoughtform” that has entered onto himself that has indoctrinated him unto the idea of what “the Scriptures” state.

Ralph: Coming from his physical, live teacher?

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: Which is where it has to start in the first place.

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: Here’s where we got that. “It has been given to me upon my request to dwell within me many years ago.” So the writer was a person way past birth.

Charity: That’s what we need to have him understand, that is “of Jesus Christ.” Again that is a part of the Great Teacher, down to any human.

Ralph: All these people who tell me from the pulpit or from testimonials, that they have Jesus Christ living within them and guiding them everyday, are wrong?

Charity: That’s correct.

Ralph: Another sacred ox.

Charity: What guides you is that heard Essence, your Essence, the one who has been taught by The Great Teacher also. ‘To dwell within me many years ago.” When he had “been born again”.

Ralph: This says that they were evil up until that moment, and then they got the purity.

Charity: Which is incorrect.

Ralph: Now I’m just saying I always had a problem with that, since I didn’t feel I was born evil, and therefore I didn’t have a reason to be cleansed of my native evilness because I never felt I had it. Now that, of course, makes me peculiar, because then they say, “You must have because everybody is.” And I say, “No, no.” This writer indicated that it was something horrible and evil within him that he gave up.

Charity: But it was nothing that was “horrible and evil”. It was the parents. Which is totally untrue. You are a perfect human being when you are born and the Essence is brought into you. You therefore have your choice of free will, from that point on, to listen to your Essence.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Charity's Views on God Testing Our Faith

When I spent some time talking to Charity, my Spiritual Professor CIE, about controversial topics in the Holy Bible, one was the idea of God testing our faith in Him, with us being prodded by Satan in the process. Here is what she said on that subject in 1995.

Ralph: Does The Creator test our faith in God? That is a question that is repeatedly brought up.

Charity: Well, first of all, The Creator is not human, so why would The Creator want to test?

Ralph: I really hadn’t figured that out either. What would be gained by that?

Charity: The Creator is not human.

Ralph: You do have a story in the Bible of Job where this seems to be what was going on, and he was being tested.

Charity: That is you humans’ book.

Ralph: That’s right, and Satan was right there to prod Him on.

Charity: Which we do not have.[Satan]

Ralph: So therefore, without Satan there, He would not have done it anyhow. So it was a nice mythology.

Charity: Of course.

Ralph: And they said even great saints die of cancer. How could that be, if they are so great? With all the beliefs they have and the spirituality they have, they eventually die.

Charity: Yes.

Ralph: Their life plans say so. And each one thinks their standards came from God. But God keeps changing his mind every thirty years.

Charity: The Creator does not change.

Ralph: But that is the impression they have to have.

Charity: But of course. And that is understandable. But by following these principles, you can see that The Creator does not change. The Creator is forever. The Creator does not care about social controls.

Charity's Views on Homosexuality

During my discussions of the Holy Bible with Charity, my Spiritual Professor CIE, during 1995, I tried to cover as many controversial topics as possible, to get her view, and that of The Creator, on those subjects. One of them was homosexuality. Here is what she said to me on that topic.

Ralph: Now here they mention homosexuality.

Charity: That is not a mental illness. You have been a homosexual in your prior lifetimes.

Ralph: This we have a political battle about all the time, whether or not somebody is born homosexual or whether they become that way. Would you care to make any statement about why some people are innately attracted to a person of the same sex instead of the opposite sex?

Charity: Each human has to experience all avenues of everything. The ones that are starting now or condemning the homosexuals will be homosexuals themselves.

Ralph: This will be one of their lifetimes, whether they choose it or not?

Charity: Of course.

Ralph: Ten percent of the population are homosexual, if you add them up. In any culture, any group, any nation, about 10% prefer the same sex for their attraction. And they just happen to be the group who have problems?

Charity: They don’t have a problem.

Ralph, Well, we have the religious right who look in the Bible, and it clearly says there that man should not do that. God disapproves of that. It says so right there.

Charity: Show me where it says that.

Ralph: I’m not going to pull the Bible down because I’m not a religious writer, but I’ve heard it quoted, but you can find anything quoted there, too.

Charity: We have already stated –

Ralph: Men wrote it.

Charity: Right. The Creator does not care.

Ralph: In many books I have on Jesus’ teaching, people writing these manuals were writing to large groups, not to individuals, and in large groups, homosexual behavior does not keep children being produced, so that is not good for increasing the worker population. So they wouldn’t want that since you wouldn’t have enough children to do all the jobs you have in an expanding economy. So it’s not good for the group. But for that 10%, it’s true.

Charity: It was written by man.

Ralph: Written by man, OK. We don’t have a God up there that hates homosexuals, is that what you are saying?

Charity: The Creator does not hate.

Ralph: Well, you can hear all these people on TV talking about what He doesn’t want.

Charity: It is what the humans want, and they use The Creator by stating that – they are always using Him.

Ralph: They use him as a bully boy, somebody with a bat who is going to hit you if you don’t do what they want.

Charity: Why would The Creator design some humans with homosexuality and some that are not? Some are gifted in music and some are not. Why did The Creator not design all humans to be the same?

Ralph: Nobody’s figured that one out.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Charity's Views on Sexism

This is another part of a long discussion I had, in 1995, with Charity, my teacher of spiritual matters, who was herself a Spiritual Professor CIE. She told me she had been assigned by The Creator to be the Project Manager for bringing to an end The Great Deception. So she discussed with me the many issues about which we humans had been deceived over the centuries, hoping I would help her disseminate a new set of principles which The Creator wanted us to understand and follow in the future.

In the process, we read parts of the Holy Bible, which Charity referred to as a book written by humans. I countered that the passages we were reading were written by inspired bishops, so I had been taught to take them seriously. Here is one section of the discussion where we talk about the Bible’s teaching on the role of husbands and wives in a marriage.

Ralph: We have this one. This is a good one. “I praise you because you always remember me and follow the teachings that I have handed on to you, but I want you to understand that Christ is supreme over every man, the husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ. So a man who prays or proclaims his message in public worship with his head covered praises Christ. And any woman who prays or proclaims God’s message in public worship with nothing on her head disgraces her husband and there is no difference between her and a woman whose head has been shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she might as well cut her hair. And since it is a shameful thing for a woman to shave her head, or cut her hair, she should cover her head. A man has no need to cover his head because he reflects the image and glory of God. A woman reflects the glory of man because man is not created from woman but woman from man.”
[Note: This is 1 Corinthians 11:2-8, so it is not a quote of what Jesus Christ said, but from Paul.]

Charity: We don’t understand.

Ralph: This is what we call a sexist statement.

Charity: It is putting down another human being. You should not put down another human being. Why would a part of The Great Teacher choose to put down another human being?

Ralph: All I can say is that this is one of the documents that was declared proper to put in The Creator’s own book. And for your information, right now it is being used by certain groups to teach young men how to treat their wives.

Charity: That way?

Ralph: There is a movement right now I read about.

Charity: They will destroy part of the human population by that kind of rule.

Ralph: But they put this in Christ’s own words in her. In quotes, that makes it very powerful. How can they argue with it?

Charity: Why would part of The Great Teacher ever say anything in the avenue of hate – that’s the best word we can think of – and put them on another species that The Creator created? And part of The Great Teacher is supposed to be the Son of The Creator. Why would The Creator deem for his Son to say those things to something the Creator has created?

Ralph: I have no answer, of course.

Charity: We could like to know why.

Ralph: I’ve read those other books, also, and you commented that mankind decided originally to be male dominated. Well, this supports male domination. And in those days when this was existing, two thousand years ago, clearly women were not allowed to have any political rights; they were practically owned by their husbands. All of this I think you can see could well have been manufacture to support that, to keep everyone in their place. Then there would be peace in the land.

Charity: But it does not keep peace in this generation, because the female of the species is rebelling against that oppression, so why are the humans trying to state the same thing and using oppression as a way of putting another species into a control mechanism? First of all, The Creator is not going to put a control mechanism on any other human. That is why the Essences have a difficult time most times to get their message across to the human population So if you can answer our question, please feel free to try.

Ralph: You didn’t find me toting this around as a guide to my living, did you? I’m just pointing out that I think those explorations of the other gospels clearly indicate that Christ probably never said any of this.

Charity: Of course not.

Ralph: As a matter of fact, there is a whole group in California that meets together to decide what’s likely that he said and what he didn’t say. And this I don’t think would pass muster. But that kind of attitude of judging what Christ said or didn’t say is not accepted by these conservative religious people, because everything in there is equally true from their point of view. They have no other standard. You have another standard; they don’t.

Charity: These humans, don’t they use their own thoughts, their own reasoning tools?

Ralph: When you do, you become a heretic, and they kill you.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Charity's Views on God's Rules

We all frequently hear on TV statements by various clergymen quoting “God’s rules” of conduct for us human beings. They believe that God has delivered to them and their predecessors a list of very important rules we must follow to please God, or he just might visit some terrible punishment upon us. This has been mentioned in explaining both natural disasters, like floods and typhoons, and terrorist attacks, like the destruction of the Twin Trade Towers in NYC.

Since Charity, the CIE who was my primary spiritual mentor, claimed to have first-hand discussions with The Creator on all aspects of her supervision of members of the human race, I asked her about The Creator’s attitude on such matters and the rules of conduct He expected us to follow. She had repeatedly told me “There are no rules in Thoughtspace.” By a “rule”, she meant a prohibition which would apply to all individuals for all time in all situations. Thoughtspace is the realm where there is no time or distance, and all communication is by thought. The residents, such at the CIE and Essences, have no bodies, and are incapable of having or expressing human emotions. They can have such states as bliss and watchfulness, and exhibit agape love to all others.

This discussion with Charity took place in 1995. I had been reading various books by Biblical scholars at the time, but I don’t remember just which ones I was referring to in these discussions.

Ralph: Why did the majority of the early Christians reject such writing as Thomas and accept other, possibly later accounts such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Thomas appeals to people engaged in spiritual transformation but it does not answer the practical questions of potential converts who lived in and near Jewish communities scattered throughout the cities of Palestine and the imperial provinces. New converts asked questions like these: “Do you want us to fast? How shall we pray? Shall we give alms? Are believers to follow traditional practices or not?” According to the Gospel of Thomas, when disciples asked the living Jesus these very questions, he refuses to give them specific directions, answering only, “Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are manifest in the sight of heaven.” According to Matthew and Luke, for example, Jesus specifically answers each one of these questions authoritatively and specifically, “When you pray, say ‘Our Father which are in Heaven,’ etc. ‘When you fast, wash your face. When you give alms, do so in secret.’” The rules are laid out.

Charity: Right.

Ralph: The rules of God are stated.

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: In only the four Gospels that were published, and not in the 30 others that were not.

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: As for the cultural laws, Mark says that Jesus proclaimed all foods clean. Furthermore, Thomas says that finding the Kingdom of God requires undergoing a solitary process of self-discovery, which I think you’ve been trying to encourage.

Charity: Of course.

Ralph: The Gospels of the New Testament offer a far simpler message. One attains to God, not by spiritual self knowledge, but by believing in Jesus, the Messiah. Now that God has sent salvation through Christ, repent, accept baptism and forgiveness of sins, join God’s people and receive salvation. That’s much simpler than doing any thinking, I know.

Charity: How is that simpler? We don’t understand.

Ralph: You follow somebody else’s rule.

Charity: So, in other words, it turns into a cult system.

Ralph: You said that, not me. I’m saying that, going back to her other work, it was a matter of the times, and there were the Gnostics who were saying, “Look up to your Essence and listen and pay attention since that is where you are getting all the answers.” Also, they could only deal with highly mature people. They could not deal with baby Essences. Obviously they were not ready for this. Now, when you are doing that, you are dealing with a small percentage of the total population. Like, with multiples, maybe 8% of the population can do that to begin with. A church can’t afford to operate on only 8% of the population. They need a lot more to pay the fees to run those churches and to fill up its congregational seats in the churches. So they, the bishops, decided that we must make it easier to get into our church. So all we need to do is say, “Everybody come in here, say this little ritual, dunk you head under water, be baptized, and you can be a member.” Now it’s a lot easier to get a lot of people that way than to expect them to learn anything while maturing.

Charity: So, in other words, by believing in something that will take care of you humans for an eternity is a lot easier than trying to come to the realization yourself that you are what you are and you need to take care of yourself along with others. Is that not correct?

Ralph: I’m pointing out that the Gnostics were interested in personal spiritual improvement. And they spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to do this, the same as I have.

Charity: Of course you have.

Ralph: But they became part of the whole worldwide body of Christ this way. Now, that’s quite an accomplishment for people who have been on the outs.

Charity: Right, we understand that.

Ralph: So that was a very practical way to go. You’re not going to recruit into the church very many Gnostics because they are not going to listen to the bishop.

Charity: Right.

Ralph: They are of no use whatsoever in raising money to build a new chapel.

Charity: OK, we understand that. You understand how you can answer him?

Ralph: Not really.

[Now I go to a later part of the conversation.]

Ralph: You have the Ten Commandments here which say, “God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’” Number One.

Charity: The Creator did not make up the Ten Commandments.

Ralph: Really. I thought that was one of our guaranteed basic set of rules.

Charity: No.

Ralph: No? Well, we had better get back and explain the Ten Commandments, then. Moses came down with his tablets and they were written there and he said they were written by God, if I remember the story correctly.

Charity: You can remember the story.

Ralph: That’s all I’ve got.

Charity: It’s a story.

Ralph: Can you enlighten me? Because that is the basic rule for our civilized Christian country. The Mohammedan countries use Mohammad’s rules.

Charity: The Creator does not have rules.

Ralph: That’s important. Let’s clarify that. How come the Ten Commandments are as solid a contribution from the divine powers of the world as we have in our history? You say it is not the way The Creator tells us to do or not to do.

Charity: The Creator – there are no rules, as what you would define as rules.

Ralph: Whoa! You made your blockbuster. Now would you elaborate on that?

Charity: Elaborate on “no rules”?

Ralph: Yes. We have the Ten Commandments that are definitely a set of rules that we are told came from The Creator.

Charity: That you were told.

Ralph: Yes, that is what I am saying.

Charity: Where did the book come from that is telling you humans that this came from The Creator?

Ralph: It was a tradition that was passed on for many eras, whoever wrote the books of the Old Testament that go way, way back. I can’t give you the author, obviously.

Charity: In other words, it was a human.

Ralph: It was a tradition that was passed on through many eras of the Hebrew culture.

Charity: Which is another human line.

Ralph: Obviously, we can only read books written by humans.

Charity: So this is justified as a false word. It could either be a total falsehood, or it could be a rule that you humans needed to have at that time to make their lives justifiable with other cultures. In our lives, what you call a rule is not a rule. It is a fact.

Ralph: Now we are getting to some basic accepted principles that you are calling into question. Rules of God is a basic issue of all religions.

Charity: Can you quote the Ten Commandments to us?

Ralph: Well, number one is “Thou shall not kill.”

Charity: Which is correct. You cannot – there is no justification to ever destroy another Essence.

Ralph: So I could easily say that rule is one of The Creator’s rules.

Charity: It is not a rule. It is a fact. There are no rules in our realm.

Ralph: Well, I don’t want to haggle over the meaning of words. But I have to represent the entire human race this way. We have a concept that is propounded to everyone everywhere, and I heard it last in that Jewish synagogue, that everybody must learn the rules of God, then when you’ve learned them, you must obey them all.

Charity: There are no rules of The Creator.

Ralph: You are going to make a major controversy with just that statement alone. Just to let you know, I am just pointing this out. This is another sacred cow down the tubes. I have to deal with these sacred cows. I just have to understand why you are saying this. OK? But that particular one, number one, thou shalt not kill, we consider a rule of God. That’s the way it’s labeled. Rule Number One. You say it is a principle to be followed. OK. Nobody had a justification for killing any other human in their lives.

Charity: Any other Essence.

Ralph: Well, I don’t have the right to kill Marie.

Charity: No, you don’t.

Ralph: Now, however, in our culture, everyone of those Ten Commandments seems to have a list of exceptions. And one on the list of exceptions, for example, is in wartime. You train people to go out and kill other people as soldiers.

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: On both sides. That’s a sample of an exception. Another exceptions is in self defense. If you are being assaulted by somebody who is sticking a knife in you, and you have a gun, you have the right to shoot him because he’s sticking a knife in you, and you’re defending your life. Very few people would argue about that.

Charity: But the Essences already know what’s going to happen to them, so therefore it is not an exception to the rule.

Ralph: That’s where it gets a little complicated.

Charity: How does it get complicated? It is a very simple, straightforward aspect that we deal with.

Ralph: I’m looking at my lesson to Marie regarding situational ethics versus legal ethics, where you get the problem.

Charity: Right.

Ralph: And a rule is part of the legal ethic. If you write out a rule, this implies there are no exceptions, and you can be punished by somebody who enforces those rules, if you break them.

Charity: But there are no rules in our realm.

Ralph: So you don’t need exceptions.

Charity: There are no exceptions.

Ralph: With no rules, you don’t need exceptions.

Charity: Correct, because there are no rules.

Ralph: You still have a principle to follow – the principle that the Essence must choose when this body is to die.

Charity: Correct. They know when the body is going to cease to exist.

Ralph: They know and they are the ones who would be unhappy if you put them on a life support system beyond the point that they would wish.

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: And that is where we are going overboard because, as a human doctor, if I don’t put someone on life support, I can be accused of killing them and violating the first commandment.

Charity: But you are not.

Ralph: Tell that to our lawyers. They will take my license away for that.

Charity: You are following what the space in which we reside dictates.

Ralph: As I told Marie, when I was on Emergency Room duty, my Essence knew that – all the doctors and nurses know that. It is the other folks telling us how to operate who get in the way.

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: If they would leave us alone, it wouldn’t be a problem. You don’t have people wanting people to die quickly. You are doing everything you can to maintain them, but you are not being foolish about it. You evaluate everything right there and you make judgments. There is nothing wrong with those judgments. The Essences are all there working together. I understand that. Unfortunately, lawyers don’t. Do lawyers have Essences? I’m not sure they do.

Charity: We just told you.

Ralph: I’m kidding, but it seems as if they have forgotten somehow that it’s in there somewhere, because they are not using those principles at all.

Charity: We understand that.

Ralph: Now I do understand a little bit. I remember the history of the Ten Commandments. They had a new city being build there, and there was chaos and disorder. Moses was their leader, and he says, “Behave, folks. Here’s our constitution for running this place. Don’t kill anybody. Don’t steal from people. Don’t go stealing their wives.”

Charity: What are the other avenues of these Ten Commandments? You quoted one.

Ralph: Thou shalt not steal is another one.

Charity: Which means?

Ralph: Don’t take something from somebody that they own. Don’t go steal his horse.

Charity: Why should that be a commandment from The Creator?

Ralph: I’m just telling you it’s listed there as Number Two.

Charity: That does not exist.

Ralph: If the man has a horse to get around and if you steal it, he can’t get around. That’s not right.

Charity: But why should one human have something the other human does not have?

Ralph: Well, if the other human wants a horse, he should earn the money to buy the horse. Or he should ask to borrow the horse. He shouldn’t go and sneak it out in the middle of the night without permission.

Charity: What’s the difference between stealing per se and taking it without asking?

Ralph: without permission. And therefore depriving him of something he rightfully owned in the first place.

Charity: But still there is not a commandment per se or as a rule from The Creator in our realm. We don’t take something without asking. Why would it therefore be a rule of The Creator when The Creator knows what’s – we all have the same aspects as all in our space.

Ralph: Excellent point. I’m just bringing it up as another reason why so many people get to California Men’s Colony and Avenal State Prisons, for stealing things.

Charity: That does not equate.

Ralph: That’s where we get the message that this is a no-no thing to do, and The Creator disapproves of it, so therefore we should pass laws against it.

Charity: First of all, The Creator would not exercise that rule at all because The Creator knows what we have in Thoughtspace; we’re all the same for all of us. Therefore no rule would be passed or created by The Creator to make note of a human aspect. So that is not from The Creator.

Ralph: Well, I think you can see it is a reasonable principle for a tribe of people setting up a little town.

Charity: That would be a reasonable explanation for another human to put that as a rule, but then use it as stating, “It is not my rule,” but God’s or the Creator’s rule. That way he enforced why that rule was written down. Therefore, as you say, it is not The Creator’s rule.

Ralph: I think you are quite logical about that. I’m just pointing out that was the second one that Moses brought down to his tribe from the mountain top where he said God gave it to him.

Charity: That makes two of the Ten Commandments. What’s the third?

Ralph: I don’t have the book here, but I do know others – thou shalt not covet other gods before me.

Charity: Thou shalt not covet?

Ralph: There shall be no other gods but me.

Charity: The Creator does not care who or what you worship, as we have told you. Just so long as you feel comfortable in your aspect and you have your spiritual growth. The Creator does not care. Therefore, that is not another rule of The Creator.

Ralph: Well, we have that rule as being proposed by everyone of those religious groups. We discussed this earlier that there were earlier times when the Romans and Greeks were worshiping a whole raft of gods. Jews, Hebrews, Israelites objected to that and said there is only one God and stop worshiping all these other Roman and Greek gods This would enforce that.

Charity: What you are listing again is another rule that is brought down by a human that stated that you cannot do this, that there is just one thing that you can worship, and that is the only thing you can worship; that is not my law, but The Creator’s. Therefore The Creator would not have said that.

Ralph: The Creator did not care if they worshiped Zeus, and those other gods the Romans had?

Charity: Just as long as it helps your spiritual growth and you listen to your Essence.

Ralph: Didn’t The Creator support this change over to the one God idea which is pretty general right now?

Charity: No.

Ralph: Didn’t that make a difference on how people behaved?

Charity: No. The human population is still behaving the same way.

Ralph: OK, it has not been an important factor in their improvement, which would hopefully happen, and you would want improvement over the decades.

Charity: Well, of course. But anything that will make the humans feel more comfortable in their longing and finding a way of communicating with their Essence is fine with The Creator. The Creator does not worry about how you come about with spiritual understanding or with your communication with your Essence.

Ralph: Whether or not it is something The Creator would have laid down is another issue.

Charity: As we have said, The Creator created the human population. The Creator is not going to lay down these rules of conduct to the human population. All these are done by the human population to control the population.

Ralph: Well, they’ve been used for that for a long time. Well, the next one beyond that is “Do not desire another man’s wife; do not desire his house, his land, his slaves, his cattle, his donkeys, or anything else that he owns.”

Charity: OK.

Ralph: That’s next to the “do not steal” – do not want them. So I would think you would have the same reasoning as the “do not steal” issue. You are not concerning yourself with owning these things.

Charity: No, you humans are.

Ralph: A good social rule.

Charity: Of course, you are going through these somewhat fast.

Ralph: I’m just trying to make sure we cover all the items, because these are all laid down as God’s rules of conduct and every church goes by these things in what they preach. And then they stand up there and make you feel guilty if you have failed to follow them all. And that is a major control mechanism in our culture.

Charity: Again, it is a control feature that you humans have applied to other humans.

Ralph: That's what it says. “These are the commandments that the Lord gave to all of you when you were gathered at the mountain when you spoke with a mighty voice from the fire and from the thick clouds. He gave us these commandments and no others.” No amendments allowed, I guess. “Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.”

Charity: Is that not what –

Ralph: There they were, written all out on the stone tablets.

Charity: Why would The Creator want to write out something that He delegated to the human population on fixed rules? There are no rules in our realm. Why should the Creator choose to have rules for the human population? Why would He need to change the avenue of the way things are run?

Ralph: I’m looking at the setting of this, you see. Because, “Moses give God’s laws and teachings to the people of Israel. It was after they had come out of Egypt and were in the valley east of the Jordan River, opposite of the town of Bethpore, that he gave them all these laws. This was in the territory that had belonged to King Shechan, and the Amorites, who had ruled in the town of Heshban. Moses and the people of Israel defeated him when they came out of Egypt. They occupied his land and the land of Kind Og of Basham, the other Amorite king who lived east of the Jordan.” So they came into this territory, conquered the people who lived there, and were setting up their own civilization.

Charity: Why would The Creator want to destroy another population?

Ralph: I have no answer to that. I just quoted what it said here in this holy book. That they defeated him and occupied the land, which I assume the armies got in battle, and the Israelites –

Charity: Why do they quote this?

Ralph: Because they have been told that The Creator practically hand wrote it.

Charity: Why would The Creator want to write this book?

Ralph: These were documents that were as true a version of the Israelites’ relationship to their God as existed.

Charity: This is what the humans believe and go by and live with. It makes no sense.

Ralph: You have two parts, the Old Testament before Christ was born and then the New Testament of Christ’s birth on after that. What do you see?

Charity: (She reads and says “angels”) First of all, The Creator would not have angels because The Creator does not identify ourselves as that.

Ralph: They are all over there.

Charity: (reading the Bible) “but if I have no love, I am but a gong, however, I am a clanging bell.”

Ralph: St. Paul.

Charity: (reading the Bible) They are talking about Faith [the Spiritual Guardian CIE]. “All the faith to move mountains, so if I have no love, I am nothing.” What is he trying to do here? It sound to ourselves that he is –

Ralph: The general principle is the conflict between God and Satan.

Charity: (reading the Bible) “I may give away everything I have and even give up my body to be burned, but if I have no love, it does me no good.” Why would anyone want to do that?

Ralph: I think we are talking about a formal religious sacrifice.

Charity: (reading the Bible) “Love is patient and kind, it is not jealous, or conceited or proud. Love is not ill mannered, selfish or irritable. It doesn’t keep any records of wrongs. Love is not happy with evil, but is happy with truth. Love never gives up and its faith, hope and patience never fails.” This just sounds like –

Ralph: Charity is the traditional phrase there: Faith, Hope and Charity.

Charity: (reading the Bible) “Love is eternal, there are inspired messages, but they are temporary. You speak in strange tongues.”

Ralph: What section is that?

Charity: It looks like 1st Corinthians 13 & 14. “Faith, Hope and Love.” What kind of love are they talking about? This makes no sense. It sound like The Creator gives “speaking in strange tongues” (looking at the Bible) “Meanwhile these three remain, Faith, Hope and Love, and the greatest of these is Love.”

Ralph: In the original one, it was Faith, Hope and Charity.

Charity: Do humans go by this book all the time?

Ralph: Not really. I’m just pointing out that those rules that you read there are the core ten rules of the whole religion. And you didn’t care much for nine of them. Not killing was the only one that you could fully agree that would have been written on the stones.

Charity: Of course.

Ralph: All the others were social control mechanisms a government should lay down for their people.

Charity: Of course

Ralph: And that’s what they have done. They take that and it becomes our criminal law. But all I can say is that the people who are Bible Toting Christians, they carry their Bible with them all the time, so they can look in a page and quote anything they want to support any idea they want to. Anywhere in here you can find a page that you can use to support any concept you want to.

Charity: Why would you want to do that?

Ralph: It’s a sacred book that you can’t argue with. Because God wrote it, we are told.

Charity: The Creator would not like that.

Ralph: Well, that is what all the churches teach all their members. I have to face that belief. My dad stuck pretty much to the New Testament, to things that Christ is quoted as having said. Though we have these other books here which indicate quite likely he didn’t, that many of these things were made up by the writers several hundred years later.

Charity: Of course they were.

Ralph: Again, as a use of Christ as the person saying things they wanted people to hear.

Charity: It is part of the Great Deception, as we have explained.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Charity's Views on Jesus Christ

Before I report what discussions I had about Jesus Christ with Charity, the CIE who was my Spiritual Professor and teacher, I must clarify a few terms she used. One is “The Great Teacher.” While I have covered that under my Course Manual on The Human Essence, I would like to repeat some of that here.

In the process of reincarnation, certain individuals were asked by Charity to be her students, so that they could progress over many lifetimes to be the experts on their subjects of interest in their time and place. If they agreed, then they ended up being such an expert in their last incarnation. Charity reported that Jesus Christ had been one of those chosen individuals. This life we know about in Israel was his last incarnation, and he was then destined to not reincarnate as another human being. He would join the group of Personalities who had already become part of the “Think Tank in Thoughtspace” called The Great Teacher. Prior members were Plato and Aristotle, among many other leaders of their time and locality. Their Personalities had been upgraded to be like Essences, so they no longer needed bodies to function, and they gave advice to the CIE, such as Charity, based on their extensive knowledge of living on Earth in many incarnations.

Charity also told me that the CIE supervising the Essence of Jesus were totally in charge of his body, therefore his speech and action, during the three years of his ministry, from age 30 to 33. They had to make sure he did not use his free will to deviate from the schedule and script which The Creator had laid out for him to follow. He was not allowed to make any mistakes, due to his own emotions, in what he was needed to do during those three years. However, there were no recording devices, such as tape recorders, video-recorders, or cameras to accurately record what he did and said during his ministry. Unlike today, there were no reporters on duty to listen to him and write daily reports of his sermons. Whatever he did do and say was perfect, and according to the Life Plan he was needed and expected to play at that time and place.

The other term one must understand is “Free Will.” When Charity uses that term, she means making choices which deviate from one’s Life Plan, as laid out by The Creator. Free Will is used primarily by the emotional Personality of an individual and leads to talk and action which might upset others, or lead to actions which will hurt the individual or others. I often call it “Free Will To Mess Up,” as it will often lead to results that are not pleasant and orderly. The Creator designed it as a teaching device for us humans, as a trial and error method of teaching. Without making “mistakes,” we cannot learn very much. But this type of Free Will must not be confused with the political definition, which is freedom from domination by any government agency on what we can do or say. That has a positive connotation and could be construed as “obeying a Higher Power.” In that case, an individual exercising his free will to speak the truth in a politically sensitive situation might be following his Life Plan, and therefore not exercising his Free Will to Mess Up.

Also, in this conversation, which took place in 1995, I quote some passages in the Bible, and also in books written by biblical scholars. I do not know exactly which books by which authors I was reading in those days, except for the reference to a female author. That one is Elaine Pagels, a biblical scholar at Princeton University. So I can’t give accurate references and hope the reader will forgive me. I would like readers to pay attention to the words which are quoted, as that is what Charity and I were discussing at the time. The one group I can be sure of were The Jesus Seminar group of scholars, who were located in Santa Rosa, California, when they wrote their books on what they thought Jesus really said and did. Robert W. Funk is the primary editor of those two books, “The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do?” and “The Five Gospels.”

So now I will start reporting on that conversation with Charity about the life of Jesus, and it seems that I had read something from these biblical scholars’ works just mentioned. I believe that I implied that the CIE were operating in Jesus’ day through religious leaders.

Charity: What you have quoted in terms of us as priests or pastors or reverends or bishops, the Pope, there was none of that. Our teaching was direct at that point in time, when part of The Great Teacher came down onto your Earth.

Ralph: The one called Christus.

Charity: The one that has been called Jesus Christ.

Ralph: Known as Christus to the Romans, who claimed to be King of the Jews, which is why they executed him.

Charity: At that time, humans had basically stopped listening to us. There was a movement on foot that our teaching was not giving the humans a free will to go about with what they needed to do. By bringing down part of The Great Teacher at that time was to have the humans realize that, with their free will, the world was not destined to survive because of the attitude of destruction, of hatred, of not following and listening to Essences, by doing their own free will. Before that time, when we were doing our aspect of teaching, and they were most cooperative, they enjoyed and were beginning to revere ourselves. We did not want that to happen.

Ralph: That’s when we had all these gods to worship?

Charity: That was what you humans had to have to – What we basically had to do, because of the reverence that they were showing unto ourselves, we had to take away that reverence and submit it into, as you would quote, the gods. They had the serpents; they had the Apollo, Mercury; they had Zeus, I think is another aspect. You had Aphrodite, as another. You had Diana. We gave them that part of it to take the reverence away from ourselves. We did not want that. That is not our teaching method. We are not to be revered, no matter what. We are not to be worshiped. That is not our responsibility. The Creator is to be worshiped. The Creator is to be revered. We are not. We are to carry His message.

Ralph: But there was this conflict then between those groups who had this god of this and this god of that, and they had these gods living as human beings.

Charity: Correct

Ralph: The gods were mating, having children, coming down to earth, and breeding children who were half gods.

Charity: That’s correct, because humans needed that aspect unto themselves to make the gods more personable unto themselves and brought them bodies they needed to have, to make themselves feel the same as The Creator would feel. That would be what you would call the beginning of The Deception.

Ralph: The other conflict then was the Jews and the sect that became the Christians, which was not anywhere else in the world.

Charity: No.

Ralph: There is only one God. But the Jews had labeled this as a vengeful God that would punish people that didn’t obey His rules, and I have heard that in the Jewish temple since that time, which seems like a bad, hostile parent.

Charity: Right.

Ralph: It doesn’t match. And Christ said it’s a loving God that loves all of you even though you are a doing awful things. Which is a more positive thing which is what my father was teaching, as an improvement over the Jewish God. But there is still only one. Nobody debated that, and they would not have a god of this and a god of that and a god of the other. But then they also prided themselves on sacrificing themselves. Like Christ was killed, so if they were killed, they were like Christ, and you end up annihilating a large portion of the population that way, which is not a very productive way to proceed.

Charity: No, it is not.

Ralph: I couldn’t quite see why they were all laying themselves open for execution.

Charity: What they saw in part of The Teacher was the aspect of a forgiving nature which most of the humans up until this time also did not have. They saw in The Teacher something that they wanted to have. Therefore that is why they were sacrificing themselves to be the same as what The Teacher was.

We don’t care what kind of religion they care to worship, just as long as it does not indoctrinate or change the role of the human at that time. We chose for them not to be a follower of things and follow blindly.

Ralph: Instead of listening to their own Essences, listening to the turned Essence of a cult leader.

Charity: Most correct.

[I will now skip to a latter part of the conversation.]

Charity: The term “Jesus Christ” is part of The Great Teacher, OK? He’s not the son of God.

Ralph: He said so.

Charity: He may say so.

Ralph: I’m just telling you they’ve got it quoted.

Charity: In what book?

Ralph: I can show you here [in the Bible]. Really, she went through this. If I can find that part. Because that was an issue. That was one of the battles. OK, it depends on which Gospel you’re reading.

Charity: Again, it’s from the book you call Bible.

Ralph: That’s correct, and what I am saying is –

Charity: And it’s a man made concept.

Ralph: Correct, that’s what she is pointing out here. You’ve got four different men writing four different books about the same general area and subject matter, written at different times from different perspectives, from different regions. Now when it comes to “the son of God” statement, here is one which is written in the Gospel of Thomas, which was not approved for the Bible, and where it is stated, “The kingdom of God symbolized a state of transformed state consciousness,” and not some physical place where Christ will be the legal ruler.

Charity: Right.

Ralph: Which is something he could not get over to his disciples.

Charity: Correct

Ralph: Nor to the Romans who executed him for saying, “I’m the King of the Jews.”

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: [Here is describe how each Gospel writer had a different view of just who Jesus was.]

Charity: We have a question for you. If the Creator had created a son, why would he send His “son” down when he has ourselves to do His work?

Ralph: I don’t know.

Charity: The Creator is eternal. Therefore The Creator does not need to fashion a son to replace The Creator, because The Creator is forever.

Ralph: When, that’s why I have been a bit confused. Here is the quote out of John which we hear, John 3:16-18. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believed in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Whoever believes in him is not condemned but whoever does not believe in him is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God.” Now that’s quoted over and over again.

Charity: We are sorry, but again our question is: if The Creator is to live forever, why would he fashion a son to take over when The Creator is no more?

Ralph: Which only lived 33 years.

Charity: Right.

Ralph: Well, now Thomas has a different message.

Charity: Answer our question.

Ralph: I don’t have an answer to it. I’m just saying we were talking about –

Charity: That long statement that makes no sense.

Ralph: There is a lot about human mother Mary and about what they had to – Thomas offers a different message. Far from regarding himself as the only begotten son of God, Jesus says to his disciples, “When you come to know yourselves, and discover the divine within you, then you will recognize that it is you who are the sons of the living father.”

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: “just like Jesus”

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: Now the Gospel of Philip was not approved for the Bible.

Charity: Of course.

Ralph: It makes the same point. One is to become, not a Christian, but a Christ. This I believe is a symbolic meaning, the writer says, attributing the Gospel of Thomas to Jesus’ twin brother. In effect, you, the reader, are the twin brother of Christ, when you recognize the divine within you. Then you will see, as Thomas does, that you and Jesus are, so to speak, identical twins.

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: Now that is something I can relate with.

[Here I go to a later part of the discussion.]

Ralph: Let me point out here and maybe you can clarify this one, as he mentions that “the angel of the Lord”, he is talking about Jesus “being given flesh in union with his human mother Mary and the spirit of the living God.” Now, here again, we have the immaculate conception idea.

Charity: Is that the term, is that the one that they state that The Creator entered a human and created a baby?

Ralph: That’s exactly what it says here.

Charity: That is impossible.

Ralph: Let me clue you in on the why of that one. That’s covered in here, too. The concern was that, again, that was a part of the terminology of the day, the translation. It is unclear whether or not Mary, mother of Christ, and Joseph, listed as his father, were married or not at the time of his birth. If they were married, there is no problem. But one translation of the word that they use for Mary, which was basically “young woman,” was as a “virgin”. She had not had sexual intercourse. And therefore, when she became pregnant, it was an illegitimate pregnancy. Now the writers could not support a person with an illegitimate pregnancy to be King of the Jews.

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: So they had to make a story that she was not illegitimately pregnant, she was pregnant by God. Joseph never had sexual intercourse with her. Therefore it was not an illegitimate pregnancy, because they weren’t married yet. It was a divine pregnancy. And I’m saying that’s the way they wanted to cover themselves in case the translators made this an unwed woman having a baby.

Charity: First of all, that’s incorrect. Because The Creator cannot do that.

Ralph: I didn’t think He needed to. If He wanted to make a baby, He could make a baby. It would be right there.

Charity: The Creator has created everything. Why should He bother to create another human being when the human beings are creating themselves?

Ralph: I’m just saying that this was the political cover of the possible illegitimacy of Christ. They were very concerned about his physical heritage. It’s like kings. You’ve got to be the son of a king and the grandson of a king to become a king. If he wasn’t the grandson of some great people, then he was not eligible.

Charity: Right.

Ralph: I don’t think there was any guarantee that Mary and Joseph were or were not married. Nobody know that.

Charity: Right, but the term that we are stating here is that, first of all, The Creator does not need to do that. The Creator is not going to do that. If the Creator chose to make another human being, He would make another human being and place it onto the world.

Ralph: He made the first ones, anyhow.

Charity: Right, so why would The Creator bother to have a human carry a so-called seed of The Creator when The Creator has no gender basis anyway?

Ralph: He wouldn’t have any sperm hanging around anywhere, either.

Charity: The Creator has no body parts.

Ralph: Right, He’s got nothing to contribute.

Charity: So that’s our question. How can that be, when The Creator is not a gender based entity?

Ralph: Well, let me ask you then bluntly, was Jesus the Christ the bona fide regular child of Mary and Joseph who were listed in the census as his parents? Born, just like I was with my parents?

Charity: I don’t know if you are ready for this.

Ralph: OK. That sounded like a simple question.

Charity: It might blow your belief system away.

Ralph: Look, I’ve already lost every belief system.

Charity: Yes, it was their child. Pure and simple. It was their child. It was nobody else’s child but theirs.

Ralph: They came to Bethlehem, and the child was born while on the trip.

Charity: That’s the normal aspect. They were married; they had a baby.

Ralph: They planned the whole thing?

Charity: Right.

Ralph: OK, because also, we talked about Essences having control of the pregnancies, so if there was no need for a baby, Mary’s Essence would have stopped the pregnancy.

Charity: Right, that’s correct. But you have to remember that part of The Great Teacher had to be born and that was part of The Great Teacher.

Ralph: And that was the last incarnation. He had been born many times before building up to this one, right?

Charity: Yes.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Charity's Views on Infant Baptism

I was raised as the son of a Presbyterian preacher and do not presume to be an expert in theology. But one time I discussed the meaning of infant baptism with Charity, my spiritual professor, and tried to clarify with her what it might mean to those involved. I had attended one Roman Catholic infant baptism, where the priest clearly said that their understanding of baptism was that by sprinkling water on the head of the child and performing that ritual, the Spirit of God would come into that child. I asked Charity what that ritual did accomplish, since I didn’t see any difference in the child afterwards, in contrast to the child before baptism.

Charity: From the Catholic point of view, they consider that the child of less than six weeks of age had been deposited on this earth as something which was wrong from the very start. Therefore it must be made to be perfect. To perfect it is to baptize the child into a new existence and a new way of being viewed in the custom of the church.

Ralph: I had a hard time understanding how a newborn baby could be imperfect.

Charity: It cannot be. We don’t sanction this.

Ralph: It always seemed illogical to me. What did the poor kid ever do? He was just lying there drinking his milk.

Charity: He was born.

Ralph: He was born and he didn’t have a chance. Even though he may have had free will, he didn’t have much of an opportunity to exercise it. Adults were telling him what to do every day.

Charity: That’s correct.

Ralph: In the Protestant church, they do not have that concept. It is the parents who are given instructions on how to raise the child in the religion, and it is neutral for the child.

Charity: They have the choice for the adult later if they choose to be baptized.

Ralph: To join the organization.

Charity: And becoming baptized is their way of understanding that they have been born defective, but they do not realize it until they have reached a certain age. Then they come to realize it. Once they realize they were defective, they felt there was another avenue that could make them perfect.

Ralph: Is this idea of being born defective part of The Great Deception?

Charity: Yes. It is all the grand design from The Creator which is what we must emphasize to the humans – no human is born defective. There is no avenue of the word “evil” as that does not exist in our language at all. Because there is no evil in our realm [Thoughtspace].

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Charity's Views on Adultery

To get Charity’s views on the importance of the Ten Commandments in our Holy Bible, I went through them, one by one, and she gave me information about how the CIE and The Creator thought of each one of them. According to my understanding, they were sent by God, through Moses, to the Israelites who were leaving Egypt for Israel. I am no Biblical scholar, so all I could use was what I had gathered as the son of a Presbyterian preacher in my day-by-day living experiences. Here is a sample of one of my discussions with Charity on one of those commandments.

Ralph: One of the Ten Commandments is “You shall not commit adultery”.

Charity: What is adultery?

This was surprising to me, to have Charity not know the meaning of adultery! I explained that it is when a married person has sexual intercourse with someone besides their mate, while they are still married to their mate. I also mentioned that this is the most clear cut definition, but some marital counselors include less intimate definitions as well, such as meeting and talking over meals, e-mail correspondence of personal problems, and other such personal interactions.

Charity: Why would The Creator be concerned about the human’s personal life? The Creator wishes for you to listen to your Essence, grow and learn, so that when it comes time for you to move forward, you can. The Creator does not care about such personal behavior. If we understand this correctly, this is a moral judgment that the human population has set upon the human population. We don’t, in our realm [Thoughtspace] have bodies, so why would we be concerned about adultery? Why would we be concerned on that type of avenue? It makes no sense.

I then disagreed, with the mention of someone we both knew who had been in and out of other men’s beds while married to her husband. I stated that such behavior was a moral sin, and in violation of this code. I felt it to be an important principle in our society. Thus it should be of concern to the CIE.

Charity: The human population considers that as something that is not acceptable.

Ralph: If you didn’t have something like that which people agreed upon, then families would be disintegrating and children would be having no parents at home.

Charity: But families are disintegrating without that rule.

Ralph: I’m not debating that people are not breaking this rule every single day, and have been for years. I’m just saying that it is still a good theoretical rule for a society to follow.

Charity: Yes, for a society, yes. But in our realm, in our space, no.

Ralph: It may not apply to you and your associates, correct, but aren’t you involved in what we do?

Charity: Of course.

Ralph: If we did adultery without limitation, your job would be a lot more difficult.

Charity: How would it be more difficult? You don’t know what we do all the time.

Ralph: Then you would have so many other people involved with strong emotional ties.

Charity: Not necessarily.

Ralph: You have to realize that in those days [of Moses’s time], they had no contraceptives, no birth control. So they would have babies who do not have parents taking responsibility for them. You would have babies without a family. I think that is an important issue here. Who’s going to raise them?

Charity: The same ones who are raising them now.

Ralph: That makes for a chaotic culture.

Charity: For the human population, that is another rule that the population at that time laid down as “law”, stating it was from The Creator, and therefore humans have to follow it. It is a very good rule. But for ourselves, we are not going to dictate to the human population that they should not do that. What we are concerned about is the matter of destruction of the Essence.

This is the major point which Charity made to me time and again. There are good rules which any organized society needs to follow for its own benefit. But these rules are not laid down by The Creator. They are laid down by the leaders of that community. In this case, Moses had a bunch of undisciplined Jews following him to a new homeland. Only he had been raised in the home of their leader, the Pharaoh of Egypt. Only he knew the rules of conduct in a civilized group of that time and place. He had to instill order in his group of misbehaving freed slaves. The best way to do that was to use their belief in a judgmental and punitive God on High who laid down the rules and could punish those who disobeyed them. So Moses, helped by the CIE, used their God as a bully boy to proclaim the rules of conduct, as he had no other way to do it. He didn’t have a constitution and bylaws to enforce, no police department to arrest miscreants, nor jails in which to incarcerate offenders.

I continued to debate with Charity the CIE’s involvement in enforcing such human-made rules of conduct.

Ralph: Since you are not in a position to act like a human as you are without a body, and you cannot have sexual activity, you can’t scratch your nose, you can’t put on shoes, OK, I understand that. But this commandment is for those people who do put on shoes, can scratch their noses and have sex. Now why wouldn’t it be proper for you CIE to do whatever you could to encourage humans to follow that kind of a rule? It would seem to be in their best interests to follow this kind of a rule. Why wouldn’t you want them to?

Charity: When we don’t even know what the term “adultery” is, how can we expect to keep the human population from doing it?

Ralph: I thought you had all those dictionaries stashed away there. You could look it up.

Charity: We have some, we have lots. But some we deem not important enough to put into our database.

Ralph: This fits into the area of sexual morality. Just because you don’t have any sexual activity, you don’t have any issues with it?

Charity: Right. All humans have their Essences. Your Essence can choose to negate a pregnancy, stop it from ever happening. We don’t judge the human population. That is not our avenue. We try to make sure that the humans are listening to us and doing what they need to do for spiritual advancement. If adultery is not going to help the human advance, then of course we would be concerned.

Ralph: And the Essence would be warning them not to do it?

Charity: Yes.

Ralph: But you would consider there would be times and situations where adultery would be spiritually improving?

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: In those conditions, you would not be warning them to stop?

Charity: Correct.

Ralph: That gets into the issue of rules versus a situational judgment of that person in that time and their place. And rules don’t allow for that.

Charity: You have to remember that each human population, and each human in that population, is different in their spiritual development. So what we say for you, for instance, is entirely different from what it would be for another human.

Ralph: I understand that.

Charity: And we cannot blanket a response on this avenue by quoting a general rule because there is no general rule.

Ralph: I understand your general principle, and I agree with you. But I’m trying to point out that it would seem to me an issue you would want to spread among human groups that they are not to hop in and out of other adult’s beds, get themselves shot by jealous husbands, or break up marriages. It would seem to me you would have an interest in stopping those kinds of destructive activities.

Charity: The Essences control their charges.

Ralph: So you don’t need any blanket condemnation like we have here. You wouldn’t take that tack anyhow. You pass the instructions down to the Essences on how to handle the individuals when they are tempted.

Charity: Correct.

This is about as clear an explanation of the point of view taken by the CIE, who inhabit Thoughtspace, where they have no emotion, no bodies, no sexual desires, and no rules. They are used to making decisions on the basis of the situational facts at the time, who is doing what with whom in what setting. Is it for their spiritual improvement or not? If not, the CIE can stop the action immediately. Certainly, there will be a karmic debt to pay if someone gets hurt in the process.

But the CIE, and the Creator, according to Charity, do not have a blanket set of rules they expect all humans to abide by. Charity told me over and over again, “There are no rules in Thoughtspace.” All of the rules said by religious leaders to be from God were invented by the bishops of those religions, as a means for controlling the behavior of their parishioners. The Creator has His way of influencing each and every human by communicating at the moment to the CIE, who communicate to the Essence, who tries to influence the Personality in Physicalspace. The Creator and the CIE have the power to strike us dead on the spot, if they see no better option. They seldom do, but they can. Usually, they see the current problem situation as a teaching opportunity, a time for trial and error. If we don’t make any errors, we can’t learn anything.

Elsewhere, I have written about the two ways of dealing with new problems. One way is the Situational Ethics Way. The other is the Legal Ethics Way. The Situational Ethics Way is what is always used by The Creator, the CIE and the Essences. They look at the current situation and try to figure out what is the best way to achieve a win/win solution. They ignore what happened yesterday to anyone involved, as now is now. Creativity is favored over tradition. In each human, this is the way of the Essence, as it does not involve emotions. Remember, the Essence is not capable of having or displaying any emotion.

The Legal Ethics Way, however, is favored by the Personality, which does have emotions. The Personality feels much better to have a written rule to follow for each and every new situation. Churches are great for providing such lists of rules, as is the criminal law. In the military forces, they are the Rules of Engagement. We feel safe if we follow a rule, even if everyone suffers as a result. We are looking for a win/lose answer to the current problem, where we are the winner and our opponent is the loser. That makes us feel good, to exercise our power over those “bad guys” out there, who are evil and so different from us. We want “justice” even though it looks like “revenge” to the other guys.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Charity's Views on Abortion

During the 1990's I had many long discussions with the three CIE I knew, Faith, Hope and Charity, some of which I tape recorded. Here I wish to put down the concepts they endorsed on various controversial subjects. The first one is on abortion.

Basically, the CIE do not approve of elective abortions being done on pregnant women. They say that each woman’s Essence is capable of taking care of what needs to happen with each pregnancy. The Essence decides when the woman is to become pregnant, by which mate, and with which sperm and egg. This is all part of fulfilling the Life Plan of both her and the potential child. However, not all pregnancies are destined to result in full term perfect babies. The mother may need to become pregnant, but is not deemed ready yet for motherhood. In that case, the CIE will not allow the infant’s Essence + Personality to enter the body on delivery. This is called a “stillborn” fetus. It is not caused by any physical defect in either mother or child, but the choice has been made by the mother’s Essence and the CIE that, in this case, the child is not meant to be born.

When is a child a “person”? This is the great debate which is behind all the arguments about the mother’s right to choose to have an abortion. Charity has said, over and over again, that the Essence + Personality of the infant is implanted by the CIE into the infant at the moment after delivery when the child takes his/her first breath, not before. Before then, the mother’s Essence is fully capable of handling all the duties of an Essence for the fetus as well as for the mother. I have likened it to an automobile factory, where the robots in the factory are in charge of the car on the assembly line until it is completed and send out onto the parking lot outside the factory. Only then is a driver (the Essence) needed to operate the car. If an operator were to get into the car and start trying to operate it while it is still on the assembly line, there would be major problems for all concerned. The factory devices must be allowed to keep in charge of the car until it is complete and ready to roll on its own power.

The big problem in society is that women do not believe that they have an Essence and, if they do, they do not have faith enough to let their Essence do its job. To trust that “the right thing will be done” while a young girl is pregnant is extremely difficult, and it is easier to turn the decision making over to someone else, like their frightened and ashamed mother or an abortion clinic staff. If all of the pregnant women had faith that what was best for them would happen, without surgical intervention, that would be ideal, in the view of the CIE, But such a state of affairs does not exist in our culture. The Essence is capable of producing a spontaneous miscarriage and terminating the pregnancy, and my medical school professors taught that 90% of fertilized eggs were spontaneously expelled anyhow. But our society does not have faith in the idea of Life Plans existing for all of us, so those infants who will be born should be born.

In discussing this with Charity, she talked of those religions which support killing of doctors who do abortions. She said,“Some religions state if a human performs abortions, they are wrong and should be destroyed. There have been churches that state it is wrong to do that [perform abortions], and any human who does that should be destroyed. They use the quote from the book [Holy Bible] “Thou shalt not kill” as a justification for bringing about change.”

I also discussed with Charity the various criteria doctors and others use for deciding when a fetus is a “person.” Charity said, "What they see is what the humans have decided to be the avenue of taking pictures inside the human female and seeing the heart beating.” This refers to believing that life begins when the heart can beat. Charity continued, “That is what the humans judge as life; they only see it as a physical sign. They do not know what happens to make the human a whole human. How do they think the human is when the soul comes in? When is it physically explained when the soul enters?”

I explained that the union of egg and sperm is the original starting point for the fetus. Then at some point along the line development is sufficient, if the child were to be born, for it to be able to live outside the mother, to have its heart beat and to breathe. Many doctors would consider it a person when its development is such that it could live outside the mother. Charity said, “In other words, it is a physical carcass. It’s not a full individual if it is still inside a human being. They can see the physical symptoms, the physical parts, but they cannot understand what they cannot see – the energy level coming into the human being.”