Science and Scientists are bounded by our reality and their vision is limited by the very rules of science. For example the universe is expanding and as the technology allows them to see to the very edge of the universe the scientists are beginning to see that the expansion is gaining speed and the objects at the very edge are nearing the speed of light. Of course Einstein’s Theories limit mass to the speed of light so nothing can exceed that limit or exist beyond it. But this presupposes that nothing exists outside of our mass oriented reality. The fact that something could exceed the speed of light (and thus demonstrate a flaw in Einstein’s Theory) is limited by our ability to see so if we cannot see it then obviously it cannot exist thus even the possibility that there is an existence that cannot be seen or demonstrated through scientific processes is ignored. Essentially the demands of science limit us to accepted theory which states that an object cannot exceed the speed of light so nothing beyond our mass oriented reality can exist. But science has discovered a whole pantheon of sub-atomic particles which they say exist (momentarily) but in reality all they ever see is the track they leave behind but we never actually observe these particles. The reality of these sub-atomic particles and their existence is based entirely on these tracks – much like the existence of Big Foot is based entirely on tracks. Of course no reputable scientist would dare equate his search for these particles to the search for Big Foot but the evidence for them both is roughly equivalent to tracks or “was’es” because all we know is where these things were but no one has actually seen one although there are more witnesses to sightings of Big Foot than any of the sub-atomic particles. Thus science is trapped in a box which they built and it is a box that prevents them from exploring things that they cannot encompass in their scientific concepts and processes. Consequently, it isn’t only Big Foot that gets cast into the pit of superstition but also ghosts, life after death, psychic abilities, astrology, and any existence beyond the speed of light—and that includes God and your soul.
To be fair there are some scientists who are seriously looking into some of these things that are labeled as quackery by the scientific community and the irony is that these studies are in fact yielding some interesting results – but of course these results generally don’t meet the rigors of science so they tend to be ignored. However, increasingly psychic abilities are manifesting themselves and it is getting more and more difficult for science to ignore them even though they may not meet the demands of scientific proof. Even Quantum Physics is creeping closer to accepting the reality of an unseen Cosmic Force that may be responsible for the Big Bang.
The Age of Aquarius is believed to be the age of “unity” where all of mankind and our existence will come together. The reality is that our entire existence is mass oriented but that mass is actually an illusion because what we perceive as mass – like our furniture and our bodies is in reality nothing but little bundles of energy that we call atoms and molecules. Every atom in the universe is made up from identical components which are combined in different ways to create everything in our universe including our bodies – but are our bodies just a collection of these tiny bundles of energy that are manufactured in the womb or are more than that? Are we simply an accidental creation that defies the law of entropy that allowed us to grow from pond scum in the Pre-Cambrian to human beings who explore space? To people who are born, who live, and who die and that’s it? Is that all there is? Of course the atheists firmly believe that but then we have that anomaly – the scientist who believes in God but doesn’t believe in Intelligent Design or life after death.
But the real issue here is who are we, do we have a soul – and if we do how do you prove that? Can you be a scientist and still believe that you have soul and can you believe in having a soul and not believe in life after death? If you believe you have a soul how can you not believe in Intelligent Design? What does all of this mean? Most people believe in an afterlife and in fact this is true from the earliest man and this belief actually was a central theme in ancient Egypt. But the soul is one of those things that cannot be seen, it cannot be measured – at least scientifically – and there really is no way of proving there is such a thing – yet virtually all people believe there is such a thing and this includes many scientists who don’t believe in ghosts or psychic phenomena. But the Age of Aquarius promises to bring an understanding of many things as our ideas about God, medicine, education, and life are released from centuries of false doctrines, wrong ideas, and misunderstandings about these things.
Of course there is some controversy over precisely when the Age of Aquarius begins but generally it is believed to begin sometime between the years 2000 and 2100 although many believe the changes have already begun. Certainly many ancient people, particularly the Aztecs and Mayans, predict the world will end Dec 21, 2012. Naturally what is meant by the end of the world is open to interpretation with many thinking in literal terms, that is widespread destruction and the ending of civilization, but then perhaps the end of the world as we know it may mean the destruction of old beliefs and the ending of these false doctrines and rigid inflexible science that denies the existence of things that will become manifest in the new age. It seems obvious that humanity is evolving and changing into a more spiritual form. Already we see the growing number of people who are psychic, who have greater vision, and who recognize that there is an indwelling spirit in us all, but more importantly they recognize that everything in our reality is linked. We are all joined to each other, to all of the animals, to the very rocks, and stars that make up our reality.
In the Aquarian Age we will break free of those beliefs and false doctrines that characterized the Piscean Age. In this new age everything becomes unified and all of our differences and dualities will mix together to bring us together as never before. This means we will truly begin to understand our relationship to God, to understand energy, the universe, and the limitations of modern science. The Age of Aquarius and the predicted end of the world may only mean the destruction of these limitations and it in fact it will be the beginning of a new age and stage in man’s eternal evolution into a more spiritual being.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Intelligent Design On Trial
The PBS NOVA program has recently broadcast a program called “Intelligent Design On Trial” which was a documentary and re-enactment of the Dover School Board trial regarding whether Intelligent Design was science or religion. Naturally the outcome of the trial was a foregone conclusion because scientists are only exceeded in their close mindedness by University Professors. Nevertheless, it was interesting to watch because once again we are treated to the belief of scientists that if you can name something you understand it. Gravity being one of those things which everyone can observe, science has named it, and to a large extent it can be described operationally, but precisely what it is and how it works is not totally understood. Suppose I stated that gravity is simply an example of “Unity” where unity is the tendency of things – all things – to unite and to be drawn together and that this Unifying force could be applied to everything including people? Even though this is saying virtually the same thing as the Theory of Gravity, the challenges would be to prove that this unifying force even exists because magnets repel as well as attract, whereas gravity always attracts. The fact that no one really knows how magnetism or gravity operates or at what speed is simply ignored because it has been named and studied by science but Unity has not. This is a very simplistic analogy but it essentially describes how science operates -- no concepts not sanctioned by the scientific community are allowed.
The crux of this trial, which resembled the Salem Witch Trials, really revolved around Michael Behe (an addmitted religious man and thus guilty at the outset) and his postulation of the irreducible structure. Behe based his postulation on a flagellum which he has studied for most of his career. Essentially he stated that if any part of this simple organism was missing the flagellum wouldn’t work and the organism would die – ergo – it could not evolve. The trial lawyers offered a similar organism that looked similar but did not flagellate. Because these were similar in appearance they were cited as proof that the entire theory of an irreducible structure was wrong – not flawed – but wrong. Behe had used the simple mouse trap as a case in point –showing that if any part was removed it would not work. The scientists immediately disproved this analogy by showing they could remove the base plate and attach the remaining parts to the floor and it would work just as well. Of course this proof came from a Harvard professor so it was not surprising that he missed the point that the floor was simply a larger base plate. A less prestigious scientist attempting to recover from this logical failure, removed TWO parts of the mouse trap and demonstrated that it could now be used as a tie clip so the concept of an irreducible structure was wrong. What was ignored of course was that this was no longer a mouse trap but something totally different with a totally different functionality and purpose. The second attack rested on Behe’s statement that there is no scientific explanation for how the immune system developed. The lawyers jumped on this and produced a mountain of books written by prominent scientists explaining how the immune system MIGHT have developed. The fact that they offered scientific POSSIBLITIES was enough to prove intelligent design was wrong.
This has been the problem with evolution all along – scientists use words like could, may, might, and possibly but because the caveats are surrounded by technical jargon and are pinned to the coveted title of Professor, then no further proof is necessary. Things change but essentially remain the same -- academia is as much of a belief sysem as religion. Darwin never explained how species came to be and his seminal work “The Origin of Species” doesn’t address this at all but like all studies on Evolution it simply describes adaptation and none of the tests he described have been met yet science accepts Evolution as a fact and the scientists refuse to even consider any flaw much less and alternative.
The argument then progresses to the study of chromosomes and how in the process of reproduction chromosomes become damaged and the resulting organism is modified. This can be demonstrated in various examples of adaptation and is generally unchallenged. However, given this accepted fact, the scientists then show how the chromosome pattern for apes is telomere – centomere – telomere but for humans – who have one less chromosome it is telomere--centomere – telomere – centomere – telomere. The result is that humans have 23 chromosomes while apes have 24. This poses a rather interesting point and that is chimpanzees and humans cannot reproduce and this is a problem with most of these mutations – they are not all positive, the mutant does not always survive, and those that do may not be able to reproduce. So precisely how apes evolved into humans is really left unanswered and there is no proof one way or another that they did and really this is no different than intelligent design which cannot be proved either.
Of course this is the problem with the entire Theory of Evolution. Species come and species go and according to Darwin the losers could not adapt to changing conditions – fair enough and it seems logical that species change through adaptation, thus we have horses, donkeys, and zebras – but they are all the same species and thus capable of interbreeding. Dogs are an even better example of this kind of adaptation but at the end of the day they are all dogs and how one species becomes another remains unanswered. Another unanswered question is the explosion of life between the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian. In the Pre-Cambrian the life forms were soft bodied animals like worms and pond scum but at the beginning of the Cambrian – the very beginning – we find an explosion of complex life forms like Trilobites complete with mouths, eyes, hard bodies and digestive tracts but no plausible explanation as to where these came from, how they evolved without leaving any trace of a predecessor or any transition fossil showing the development of the eye, mouth, foot, or hard shell -- so whatever it was WE KNOW it was random and not planned -- don't we?
The discussion branches off to the Big Bang and scientists KNOW that the Big Bang is a FACT and that all of the energy in the universe was initially contained in one teeny tiny dot, which instantaneously expanded into the universe as we know it. Where this teeny little dot came from is left unanswered, how long it existed before expanding no one knows, and since the big bang actually created SPACE where was this dot in the first place? Every proton, electron, and neutron in the universe is identical. In the chaos that followed the big bang we are told that these universal building blocks collided into each other and formed all of the elements and these elements combined to form planets, which then produced seas through other natural processes. The seas were filled with these random molecules which were bombarded with cosmic rays which created carbon atoms, which combined to from reproducible atoms that led to pond scum, then to humans and then to scientists and all of this was done through some sort of random process – there was never a plan it was all just an accident. God must be rolling with laughter at the sheer chutzpa of our scientific community.
The crux of this trial, which resembled the Salem Witch Trials, really revolved around Michael Behe (an addmitted religious man and thus guilty at the outset) and his postulation of the irreducible structure. Behe based his postulation on a flagellum which he has studied for most of his career. Essentially he stated that if any part of this simple organism was missing the flagellum wouldn’t work and the organism would die – ergo – it could not evolve. The trial lawyers offered a similar organism that looked similar but did not flagellate. Because these were similar in appearance they were cited as proof that the entire theory of an irreducible structure was wrong – not flawed – but wrong. Behe had used the simple mouse trap as a case in point –showing that if any part was removed it would not work. The scientists immediately disproved this analogy by showing they could remove the base plate and attach the remaining parts to the floor and it would work just as well. Of course this proof came from a Harvard professor so it was not surprising that he missed the point that the floor was simply a larger base plate. A less prestigious scientist attempting to recover from this logical failure, removed TWO parts of the mouse trap and demonstrated that it could now be used as a tie clip so the concept of an irreducible structure was wrong. What was ignored of course was that this was no longer a mouse trap but something totally different with a totally different functionality and purpose. The second attack rested on Behe’s statement that there is no scientific explanation for how the immune system developed. The lawyers jumped on this and produced a mountain of books written by prominent scientists explaining how the immune system MIGHT have developed. The fact that they offered scientific POSSIBLITIES was enough to prove intelligent design was wrong.
This has been the problem with evolution all along – scientists use words like could, may, might, and possibly but because the caveats are surrounded by technical jargon and are pinned to the coveted title of Professor, then no further proof is necessary. Things change but essentially remain the same -- academia is as much of a belief sysem as religion. Darwin never explained how species came to be and his seminal work “The Origin of Species” doesn’t address this at all but like all studies on Evolution it simply describes adaptation and none of the tests he described have been met yet science accepts Evolution as a fact and the scientists refuse to even consider any flaw much less and alternative.
The argument then progresses to the study of chromosomes and how in the process of reproduction chromosomes become damaged and the resulting organism is modified. This can be demonstrated in various examples of adaptation and is generally unchallenged. However, given this accepted fact, the scientists then show how the chromosome pattern for apes is telomere – centomere – telomere but for humans – who have one less chromosome it is telomere--centomere – telomere – centomere – telomere. The result is that humans have 23 chromosomes while apes have 24. This poses a rather interesting point and that is chimpanzees and humans cannot reproduce and this is a problem with most of these mutations – they are not all positive, the mutant does not always survive, and those that do may not be able to reproduce. So precisely how apes evolved into humans is really left unanswered and there is no proof one way or another that they did and really this is no different than intelligent design which cannot be proved either.
Of course this is the problem with the entire Theory of Evolution. Species come and species go and according to Darwin the losers could not adapt to changing conditions – fair enough and it seems logical that species change through adaptation, thus we have horses, donkeys, and zebras – but they are all the same species and thus capable of interbreeding. Dogs are an even better example of this kind of adaptation but at the end of the day they are all dogs and how one species becomes another remains unanswered. Another unanswered question is the explosion of life between the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian. In the Pre-Cambrian the life forms were soft bodied animals like worms and pond scum but at the beginning of the Cambrian – the very beginning – we find an explosion of complex life forms like Trilobites complete with mouths, eyes, hard bodies and digestive tracts but no plausible explanation as to where these came from, how they evolved without leaving any trace of a predecessor or any transition fossil showing the development of the eye, mouth, foot, or hard shell -- so whatever it was WE KNOW it was random and not planned -- don't we?
The discussion branches off to the Big Bang and scientists KNOW that the Big Bang is a FACT and that all of the energy in the universe was initially contained in one teeny tiny dot, which instantaneously expanded into the universe as we know it. Where this teeny little dot came from is left unanswered, how long it existed before expanding no one knows, and since the big bang actually created SPACE where was this dot in the first place? Every proton, electron, and neutron in the universe is identical. In the chaos that followed the big bang we are told that these universal building blocks collided into each other and formed all of the elements and these elements combined to form planets, which then produced seas through other natural processes. The seas were filled with these random molecules which were bombarded with cosmic rays which created carbon atoms, which combined to from reproducible atoms that led to pond scum, then to humans and then to scientists and all of this was done through some sort of random process – there was never a plan it was all just an accident. God must be rolling with laughter at the sheer chutzpa of our scientific community.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Surprisingly Rich
Imagine my astonishment today when I found out precisely who the politicians mean when they say we need to tax the rich. I have always wondered precisely who these rich people are they need to be more heavily taxed. Well I nearly fainted when I found out that virtually everyone I know is “rich” in the eyes of the government. It seems the Federal Reserve Board is very diligent in tracking the financial wealth of Americans – apparently excluding all of the illegal immigrants. According to the Federal Government 40% of Americans are poverty stricken (family income of $25,000) with another 30% falling into the middle class with a median family income of $65,000. What is astonishing is that the remaining 20% are “rich” with the top 10% showing a family median income of $170,000. This means a husband and wife each earning $85,000 are rich, which I’m sure would come as a total shock to them. Looking at this from another perspective if you take average salaries a husband and wife team of a teacher and a policeman their combined incomes would place them in the top 75% or upper middleclass. In fact any family whose median income is in six figures, they are in the top income bracket targeted by the politicians who are always trolling for votes on the basis that the “rich need to pay their fair share”.
Income Level Percentile Median Family Income
Rich 90% - 100% $170,000
Upper Middle Class 80% -- 89.9% $99,000
Middle Class 60% -- 79.9% $65,000
Lower Middle Class 40% -- 59.9% $40,000
Poverty 20% -- 39.9% $24,000
Level II Poverty Less than 20% $10,000
So after looking at these numbers it is easy to see why the politicians are so vague about precisely whom they mean when they are on their annual electoral crusade to “tax the rich”.
But as we all know what you bring in goes out pretty much as fast as it comes in and the real test is how much can you keep after the government takes as much as they can because after all the rich should pay more because they make more – I think this is the precise position of the American Democratic Party and the Socialist Parties of various European countries. So does making over $100,000 a year make you rich? The reality is that very few people in these upper income levels feel rich or even consider themselves rich.
Of course income really doesn’t mean much in defining where you stand overall. The better measure would be net worth, that is the total sum of a family’s assets minus all outstanding liabilities. When viewed from this perspective it seems that the national median net worth of the average American Family is $86,000 and this includes all assets like home equity, jewelry, savings, autos, collections, furnishings, etc.
Income Level Percentile Median Family Income
Rich 90% - 100% $833,000
Upper Middle Class 80% -- 89.9% $263,000
Middle Class 60% -- 79.9% $141,500
Lower Middle Class 40% -- 59.9% $62,500
Poverty 20% -- 39.9% $37,200
Level II Poverty Less than 20% $7900
At first glance it would appear that the top 10% (approximately 30 million people) have more substantially more money than the remaining 70% of the population. But included in that top ten percent are Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Warren Buffet, all of those professional athletes, and most assuredly all of those actors in Hollywood who command multi-million dollar salaries while crusading for the poor and demanding that the rich should pay their fair share. Of course at these multi-million dollar income levels, taxes are for the “little people” because batteries of accountants and lawyers insure that little to no tax is paid. These tax loopholes are carefully protected by judicious political contributions (to both parties) while the recipients beat the drum for higher taxes on the rich.
If you would believe what you see on television there is a whole segment of society living the high life in retirement communities. You see them every night as they dance the night away on their Caribbean vacations, where they jog, they fish, they bike, and in general live a great life in retirement because they are rich. Well I think if you would talk to most seniors you would quickly discover that few – very few – can live like these advertisements. In fact even those people in these median income brackets can not afford to live lavishly. Suppose the entire income tax structure were abolished and instead a flat tax was installed with no deductions whatsoever. Everyone and all businesses would simply pay a flat tax on their gross incomes. Do you think the people in the very top brackets, those who support the various politicians would ever allow this to happen? Can you imagine a George Soros, or George Clooney, or MicorSoft paying a flat percentage of their gross incomes to the government? Not a chance! These people want to tax the rich – not themselves. It is important that all of us rich people keep this in perspective when we go to vote for those candidates who think the rich should pay their fair share – that my friend is YOU and you clearly aren’t paying your way. Think about that!!
Income Level Percentile Median Family Income
Rich 90% - 100% $170,000
Upper Middle Class 80% -- 89.9% $99,000
Middle Class 60% -- 79.9% $65,000
Lower Middle Class 40% -- 59.9% $40,000
Poverty 20% -- 39.9% $24,000
Level II Poverty Less than 20% $10,000
So after looking at these numbers it is easy to see why the politicians are so vague about precisely whom they mean when they are on their annual electoral crusade to “tax the rich”.
But as we all know what you bring in goes out pretty much as fast as it comes in and the real test is how much can you keep after the government takes as much as they can because after all the rich should pay more because they make more – I think this is the precise position of the American Democratic Party and the Socialist Parties of various European countries. So does making over $100,000 a year make you rich? The reality is that very few people in these upper income levels feel rich or even consider themselves rich.
Of course income really doesn’t mean much in defining where you stand overall. The better measure would be net worth, that is the total sum of a family’s assets minus all outstanding liabilities. When viewed from this perspective it seems that the national median net worth of the average American Family is $86,000 and this includes all assets like home equity, jewelry, savings, autos, collections, furnishings, etc.
Income Level Percentile Median Family Income
Rich 90% - 100% $833,000
Upper Middle Class 80% -- 89.9% $263,000
Middle Class 60% -- 79.9% $141,500
Lower Middle Class 40% -- 59.9% $62,500
Poverty 20% -- 39.9% $37,200
Level II Poverty Less than 20% $7900
At first glance it would appear that the top 10% (approximately 30 million people) have more substantially more money than the remaining 70% of the population. But included in that top ten percent are Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Warren Buffet, all of those professional athletes, and most assuredly all of those actors in Hollywood who command multi-million dollar salaries while crusading for the poor and demanding that the rich should pay their fair share. Of course at these multi-million dollar income levels, taxes are for the “little people” because batteries of accountants and lawyers insure that little to no tax is paid. These tax loopholes are carefully protected by judicious political contributions (to both parties) while the recipients beat the drum for higher taxes on the rich.
If you would believe what you see on television there is a whole segment of society living the high life in retirement communities. You see them every night as they dance the night away on their Caribbean vacations, where they jog, they fish, they bike, and in general live a great life in retirement because they are rich. Well I think if you would talk to most seniors you would quickly discover that few – very few – can live like these advertisements. In fact even those people in these median income brackets can not afford to live lavishly. Suppose the entire income tax structure were abolished and instead a flat tax was installed with no deductions whatsoever. Everyone and all businesses would simply pay a flat tax on their gross incomes. Do you think the people in the very top brackets, those who support the various politicians would ever allow this to happen? Can you imagine a George Soros, or George Clooney, or MicorSoft paying a flat percentage of their gross incomes to the government? Not a chance! These people want to tax the rich – not themselves. It is important that all of us rich people keep this in perspective when we go to vote for those candidates who think the rich should pay their fair share – that my friend is YOU and you clearly aren’t paying your way. Think about that!!
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Life and Death
It is worth noting that reincarnation is a common concept and is found in many religions, with the exception of modern Christianity. But modern Christianity is founded on the Bible which was canonized at the Synod of Nicaea in the 4th Century and reincarnation per se was officially stricken at the Synod of Nice in the 6th Century, where the teachings of Bishop Origen were declared heretical. Origen was one of the early powers of the Christian Church who believed in reincarnation and rationalized it on the basis that if we are created at conception and upon dying we become an eternal spirit then that implies that we existed prior to birth, live, die, and live after death and thus logically are reborn, otherwise the entire process seems pointless. Bishop Origen was defeated in a power struggle with the Church Hierarchy as were the Gnostics who didn’t believe in a priesthood. The decision to outlaw reincarnation was driven by the desire of the early priesthood to secure their power because if our souls have an unlimited opportunity to live and evolve spiritually, the priests could no longer threaten us with damnation and hellfire if we do not do as they dictate.
Prior to this purging of the Bible it was still part of the Christian faith and remained part of the Gnostic beliefs and is found in the Druze Christians today. However, remnants of this philosophy remain in the Bible:
And the disciples asked him, saying, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?"
But he answered them and said, "Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand."
Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist." (Matt. 17:10-13)
Then there is this passage:
This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist ... And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He, who has ears, let him hear. (Matt. 11:11-15)
But the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts are being translated and with these translations some of these purged teachings and beliefs are coming to light once again. Recent translations from ancient scrolls contain text that points to reincarnation, for example:
"Jesus said, 'If they say to you, From where have you originated? say to them, 'We have come from the Light, where the Light has originated through itself.'" The Book of Thomas, Nag Hammadi Texts.
This passage has some interesting points in that it tells us that we come to the Earth from the Light but more interesting yet is the implication that Light is God and that God was self-created. This is addressed in early Jewish texts collected in the Kabbalah and paralleled in the Nag Hammadi texts under “The Origin of the World”. This is a very lengthy text but begins by noting that everybody both gods of the world and mankind say that nothing existed prior to “chaos” or the beginning,and that they are wrong. That chaos was derived from “darkness” which existed always and before the creation of chaos. That all of the immortal beings (souls) had been created out of the infinite and that it was “Wisdom” that divided mankind from the things above.
This concept of an eternal all knowing and always existing God is at the root of most religions, but beyond that lays several other equally interesting concepts. First that the Heavens and Earth were created for man and that all of our reality is essentially a thought projection, that all of the souls in the existence were created at the same time and are eternal, that our physical bodies are actually prisons for out energetic spirits, and that we come to Earth repeatedly to learn and expand out spirituality. However, we are given free will and this means that whatever we do individually and collectively is our responsibility and not driven or willed by God. Our individual conditions are self-determined and the result of decisions made in this lifetime as well as others.
Science and scientists are busy attempting to demonstrate that science has all of the answers and that God doesn’t exist. Unfortunately the evidence for Karma and reincarnation as well as the evidence for God continues to grow as science moves inexorably to the only logical conclusion that science cannot disprove God and that God may be the only answer. It seems logical that reincarnation exists and that we come to Earth repeatedly.
Prior to this purging of the Bible it was still part of the Christian faith and remained part of the Gnostic beliefs and is found in the Druze Christians today. However, remnants of this philosophy remain in the Bible:
And the disciples asked him, saying, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?"
But he answered them and said, "Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand."
Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist." (Matt. 17:10-13)
Then there is this passage:
This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist ... And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He, who has ears, let him hear. (Matt. 11:11-15)
But the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts are being translated and with these translations some of these purged teachings and beliefs are coming to light once again. Recent translations from ancient scrolls contain text that points to reincarnation, for example:
"Jesus said, 'If they say to you, From where have you originated? say to them, 'We have come from the Light, where the Light has originated through itself.'" The Book of Thomas, Nag Hammadi Texts.
This passage has some interesting points in that it tells us that we come to the Earth from the Light but more interesting yet is the implication that Light is God and that God was self-created. This is addressed in early Jewish texts collected in the Kabbalah and paralleled in the Nag Hammadi texts under “The Origin of the World”. This is a very lengthy text but begins by noting that everybody both gods of the world and mankind say that nothing existed prior to “chaos” or the beginning,and that they are wrong. That chaos was derived from “darkness” which existed always and before the creation of chaos. That all of the immortal beings (souls) had been created out of the infinite and that it was “Wisdom” that divided mankind from the things above.
This concept of an eternal all knowing and always existing God is at the root of most religions, but beyond that lays several other equally interesting concepts. First that the Heavens and Earth were created for man and that all of our reality is essentially a thought projection, that all of the souls in the existence were created at the same time and are eternal, that our physical bodies are actually prisons for out energetic spirits, and that we come to Earth repeatedly to learn and expand out spirituality. However, we are given free will and this means that whatever we do individually and collectively is our responsibility and not driven or willed by God. Our individual conditions are self-determined and the result of decisions made in this lifetime as well as others.
Science and scientists are busy attempting to demonstrate that science has all of the answers and that God doesn’t exist. Unfortunately the evidence for Karma and reincarnation as well as the evidence for God continues to grow as science moves inexorably to the only logical conclusion that science cannot disprove God and that God may be the only answer. It seems logical that reincarnation exists and that we come to Earth repeatedly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)