8-27-18

 

10/26/94 #2    HATONN

 

THE FOOLISHNESS OF LIES

We actually have in front of us an advertisement for Mensa (the High IQ Society) for the following:  How to Pass the Mensa Entrance Exam WITHOUT ACTUALLY TAKING IT.

I think this pretty well tells it all.  This means that what is already a boring, dreary, Elite garbage heap--now becomes even deeper in trash and garbage.  Now you can have a SOCIETY OF FUDGERS!  A group based on a "High IQ" assumes that the very ones who set up and activate a "society" like this are Elite status-hounds.  IT IS WHAT YOU DO AND HOW YOU USE that which is in point--not how high you score on your smugness examinations.

It reminds me of "expert" status labels.  Expert??  The joke says that Expert (ex-spurt) simply means a "has-been drip under pressure"!  What it is supposed to indicate is KNOWLEDGE in a given subject--which does not even require a very high "IQ"!  It simply means that someone cares enough to learn all he can about a given subject, talent or focus.

Persons in this "category" of "expert" can study and in finally gaining knowledge regarding a subject--can draw conclusions.  However, I remind everyone that until ALL is KNOWN, the summations and conclusions are STILL but theories.

Why do I turn to this particular subject?  Because in our ongoing legal confrontations there comes a time for "expert witnesses" to testify, with KNOWLEDGE, regarding, singularly, Dharma.  The subject of "religion" must be considered because "religious intent" is supposed to be a "dealing with" the unseen--the invisible universe as relates to a God or Higher Being.  Mostly "religious" deals with which church can get the most members and money into the coffers and SELL the participants (members) on this or that IDEA.  Spiritualism?  No, it is NOT the same and MAN who puts limitations on GOD in his own supreme all-knowing assumptions (usually someone who puts his credentials right up front as being a member of something like "Mensa") is usually chosen to pronounce validity or invalidity on ANOTHER who "believes"--usually "differently" than they.

CHRISTIANS

Readers, I do not want to be labeled in your language and definition as "Christian" according to your PRACTICE of Christianity.  I walk with, talk with, and endeavor to serve and be AS, CHRIST.

Look around you; I KNOW that the so-called "Christians" are going to be destroyed in the efforts of the Elite hierarchy of the Adversary.  Why would I degrade the title of being Christ-like with the doctrined and regulated (according to men) clubs you have?  Why would I, for instance, refuse the "mark of the beast" when not KNOWING, even, what IS the "mark"!?  That would simply put me out front to be destroyed FIRST!  The "mark of the beast", GOD CONSIDERS, is within the heart in the most silent place of being--THE SOUL.  You can get your entire body COVERED in tattoos and marks--and it touches not the soul one iota.

We who are truly "Christ-like" ARE NOT a threat to the physical would-be kings, for our very KNOWING disallows us from rising up in horror or war against the physical expression.  Why would you, when you KNOW TRUTH, do such stupid actions?  Does that mean that we either condone or act in evil manners?  NO!  It means that we DO NOT PRESENT FALSE CHARADE AS BEING GODLY WHEN WE ARE REALLY INTENT ON DOING THAT WHICH IS ACTUALLY AGAINST THE LAWS OF GOD AND CREATION!

Christianity, as a life-style accepted in the physical domain, is what is under attack here.  The enemy and Adversary of God is not brave enough to tackle the TRUE Christ-like beings!  So, he will destroy the false "Christians" and in so doing he will scare the pants off anyone who takes a label resembling "Christian".  As a matter of fact, most terms indicating such intent have already been removed from your "Western" (whatever that might mean) religions.  You nice people go further and stop calling your religions "religion".  You call it philosophy, psychology, or even, God forbid, SCIENCE!  Science and religion are as far opposites as Military and Intelligence!

Worse yet, words which are utilized to have meaning of one focus--are usurped to no longer MEAN IN DEFINITION WHAT THEY "DID"!  I speak here of such as God, creator, soul, faith, salvation, sin, right, wrong, evil, et cetera.  All of these terms are impossible to use unless they be defined.  However, I find that even though, for instance, just me in my sharing, when I carefully and succinctly DEFINE terms I use--the message NEVER reaches the reader in time to stop the wrong idea of the terminology.  Who can read journal number 108 out of context and expect to know what I said and defined in journal number one?

PHILOSOPHY

This term is tossed about at random.  But, it is not any better because the terms are so unwieldy as to furnish no insight without becoming a full-fledged and accepted "philosopher"--who probably doesn't KNOW a thing about what he speaks.  Many expressions such as, get this one: "categorical imperative" are not only awkward but tend to impost upon those who are familiar with them the whole perspective of their originators rather than an isolated concept.  Its major drawback, however, is the same as my own problems--NOBODY KNOWS WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE EXPRESSION!  How many of you reading this know what is MEANT by "categorical imperative"?  I thought NOT.  Why do you have to complicate things?  Because each person coming along wishes to make HIS MARK and that is what pulls you further and further AWAY from the simplicity of GOD and into the confusion of MAN human.

SCIENCE

Here you have a real doozy.  The language of science itself is spoken more widely than that of philosophy; it is less confused than that of the religions, but it is almost as dogmatic in its perspective.  And, you have to decide "which" science is concerned or in point.  If you haven't tried to figure out "computer language" then you won't know what I say here.  What, for instance, is meant by "DOSRAM"?  In "Mexican" it would mean "two male sheep"!  So, I guess it probably does not mean that in computer "language"!  By the same token, how can you hope to reclaim a Constitutional way of government IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Well, science may have a more definitive language than does religion for it tends to deal with objective realities, but dogmatically ignores that which it calls "objective" realities which are considered to be concepts in "consciousness" rather than tangible objects.  But SOUL IS essence--and NOT a tangible "object".

You can never fully know the accuracy of your sensory information but, even if you assume it to be accurate, your language, scientific or not, seldom points to objective realities.  "That table" designates an objective reality, but "a table" does not.  Similarly, a language that talks of light waves, pulses, frequencies, mass, velocity, gravitation, LIGHT as ALL, molecules, electrons, etc., is a language of CONCEPTS rather than one pointing to objective realities.  So how can you categorize SELF?  How can you categorize ANOTHER?  You can you shift individuals into categories ONLY BECAUSE they willingly allow that to happen.

Ones wish to identify ME as a leader of "some kind of religion".  No.  I have no religion!  I have Spiritual TRUTH!  Cult?  NO!--there is only ME--and possibly inclusive is my secretary--who does not NECESSARILY EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT WHICH I OFFER.  God has a family group--and ALL of you are searching for that group.  But, you search in all the halls of MAN--and almost never in the TRUTH OF GOD.  Why?  BECAUSE IT REQUIRES RESPONSIBILITY IN TRUTH OF ACTIONS.

DEFINE, THEN, "RELIGION"

A "religion" is a concept of the cause, reality, and purpose of the universe, and a conscious attempt to attain harmony and balance with that reality and aid that purpose.  Note that I am not including what you consider "religion" as expressed through the "clubs" who attempt to sway the will of hypothesized god by prayer, sacrifice, good behavior, prostrate worship, or other propitiation.  These attempts to enlist the power of the universe for selfish interests, rather than attain harmony with and aid universal purpose, must not be included in religion as we define it, unless we are going to simply ABANDON ALL HOPE OF DEVELOPING REVERENCE for TRUTH.  Only in THIS definition can I begin to relate anything I offer to "religion".  This, however, makes it even more difficult to actually define--for my thrust is only toward Lighted Truth and that by necessity CAUSES ME TO CONSIDER GOD AS THE FOCAL POINT.  I can only refer to GOD CREATOR in KNOWING--if I realize HIS / HER REALITY and WHAT THAT "SOURCE" IS.

God is LIGHT and THE CREATOR.  It is only through the actual THOUGHT OF GOD that we ARE!  Therefore WE ARE LIGHT!  Now I must ask the experts, HOW CAN I DISCUSS THESE SUBJECTS WITHOUT USING THE SCIENCE KNOWN THROUGH THOSE WHO CAME FORTH BEFORE ME--TO EXPLAIN THIS TRUTH?

Here I must refer to the injunction against some of the journals produced through these "hands" at this keyboard.  If there be a valid representation of TRUTH--does it lessen the first presenter by focusing on his GIFT TO SCIENCE AND HUMANITY?  Does any group or man have claim to TRUTH?  IS IT NOT BETTER TO OFFER THAT TRUTH IN PURE FORM WHERE POSSIBLE IN HONOR OF THE GIVER GONE BEFORE--OR DO WE MAKE SILLY REVELATIONS, DANCING ABOUT ON PIN-HEADS WHICH OBVIATE AND NEGATE THE VERY TRUTH WE SET FORTH ORIGINALLY TO SHARE?

Further, if the gifter, gone before, is disallowed the right of passage of information--how can those left behind have right to bury the information or hold for material gain and yet go forth and sue, for money, the ones coming forth with that information--AGAIN.  If, in fact, that first receiver of the concept in truth--even CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED IT FROM HIGHER SOURCE--THIS IN ITSELF INDICATES THERE IS A SOURCE HIGHER WHO CAN RECREATE THE INFORMATION AND PRESENT IT. ...

 

10/26/94 #3   HATONN

 

Thank you for sitting a third time today.  I have need of getting some more information to hard copy before our meeting on Friday with guests.

I am going to speak about "religions" in furthering the topic of earlier this day as well as allow perception of what goes on as we communicate.  It is not that ones do not know "their" subject, but rather to give validity to possibilities not yet considered carefully.  This includes one, Dharma's, need for receiving.  I also want it well understood that she clears her space meticulously and ONLY accepts input from we who ARE who we claim to be--in service to our ONE SOURCE, in Truth. ...

RELIGIONS

I have to use the plural of "religion" because there are as many religions as you have sheeple.  I certainly DO NOT ask you to "follow me"!  In fact, I am commissioned to present the WORD--not lead a flock of sheeple anywhere!  If you believe as I KNOW Truth to be--you are welcome.  If not, I prefer you get thee from me.  I do not accuse or defend--it simply IS as it IS.

To even begin to understand that of which I speak--you have to begin to look at facts and what, exactly, comprises or is the nature of, religions.

In deciding on a "religion" (I don't speak of Truth here--simply a "religion"), what need you have in a "proper" religion?

Well, firstly, I recognize that there should be an offering of some type of origin, reality, and certainly a purpose--in religion since it deals with greater things--within, for, and of the universe.

Secondly, it needs an ethical concept (good or bad) for man's relation to the universe as a whole; and for man's relation to each of its parts, including other men, it should be explicitly derived from its concept of the universe and be in harmony with that concept (good or bad in perception).

Thirdly, the practical results of its ethical concept should aim at aiding the purpose of the universe.  (I probably am over-defining "ethical" for the term indicates "good", and "unethical" indicates "bad"--however, it has no longer such definitive meaning as to just pass on by the topic assuming your comprehension of MY meaning.)

In the third instance, the practical results presumably would consist of determining man's function in the universe, and creating a culture whose effect on man's evolutionary development would produce a man even BETTER fitted to that function of aiding the universe.

Considering the first of these, the second and third would probably present no difficulty.  However, very little poking in the awesome aggregation of religious concepts is necessary to show us that we are going to have difficulty in finding a fully satisfying explanation of the universe among them.  Certainly when we toss in the concept of a duality of the universe and all things within it, and relate all within it to LIGHT--(an electric universe)--we have problems, don't we?  So we effort to fit bits and pieces together into a coherent whole in 30 second sound bites.  So, it appears that you might well want to toss out the whole of the baby, bath water, and all--AND START FRESH.

With that distinct possibility kept in mind, let us here consider HOW this aggregate of concepts came into being.  HOW DO RELIGIONS START IN THE FIRST PLACE?

HOW AND WHY RELIGIONS BEGIN

Men perceive things about themselves and the universe.  They assemble these perceptions into patterns which fit together (even if conceptually incorrect), with a seeming cohesion, or at the least, an apparent significance, and these patterns are called "concepts".  The all-embracing pattern, which includes all knowledge of self, all knowledge of everything in the universe, gives total significance to all other concepts and conscious purpose to one's life, is properly one's religious concept.

It must now be noted that most religious concepts show a remarkable tendency towards instability as KNOWLEDGE progresses.  Their patterns are disturbed by and unable to accommodate NEW FACTS.  A stable, well-thought-out concept of the universe is an essential factor of a sound religion, and all one's actions, and his sense of right and wrong should properly derive from it.  However, as one must continue to act even while his concept of the universe is forming, or has begun to disintegrate, he often makes ethical decisions whose basis, the total concept of the universe, is incompletely defined in his conscious understanding.

I CANNOT offer a "religion" for I understand the workings, intention, and actuality of the UNIVERSE!  I can only offer information and data and hope you comprehend it enough to consider possibilities.  Therefore, I neither offer nor suggest "religion", but communication with that which you ARE in GOD and The Creation.

After the act, one often finds himself justifying the act to himself or others, and what is conceived as being credible is frequently given preference OVER what is conceived as being valid.  This is true in the thoughts of men whose thoughts have been conditioned by convention with others, and it is especially true in justifying acts to other adults, and in teaching children.  This being the case, understanding the diverse religions of the world is greatly aided by understanding the conceptual climate in which they were formed, or came to be forces.  I marvel that man can somehow CLAIM to conceive God, and yet denies the possibility of God's follow-through in actualization of HIS promises and commitments.

No people have ever been known withOUT a religion.  Man has been on earth lo millions of years but somehow earlier than some 6,000 years ago his history is barely known and that, only very hazily.  Religion is obviously much older than the recorded history of man so we can make conjectures regarding the unpressured beginnings of religion.  You can be reasonably certain, however, that three streams met, blended, and distorted each other, so early that the distorting effect of the past must ALWAYS BE CONSIDERED IN ALL RELIGIONS that are the "heritage" of peoples, as distinguished from the fresh perception of individuals.  I like an example in mental picturing, which has been offered before, where we can conjecturally reconstruct the probable beginnings of those first three streams of religion.

LET'S GET PERSONAL

In the remote past of prehistory, say, when there was the first beginning of words and gestures to express the thoughts that were forming behind increasingly expressive eyes, savage man bent over the lifeless form of his mate, looked for a movement, listened for a sound, and there was none.  He had seen death often, but now, as tears welled up in his eyes and his heart pounded and his throat ached, he refused to accept his old objective observations, and called upon the depth of his being for the meaning of this thing called "death".  "Something had gone out", he thought in pain and sorrow, "the part that directs movement in the body and makes sounds in the mouth.  It was real, and it is no longer here.  Where did it go?"

He looked about him for that something, without knowing what form to expect, but there was nothing which his senses could find.  "Where did it go?"  He kept asking himself.  And when he looked everywhere, without finding it, he thought, "Maybe up into the blue-yonder where together we tried to go one day when we climbed the mountain.  Why and how?" he asked, and perhaps glimpsed some possible idea of a spirit land from his remembered world of DREAMS.

Then with much pointing, and many gestures in imitation of life and death, he conveyed the thought to those of his kind who squatted around the mouth of their common cave.  At that time, or later, when they, too, made a similar intense search for explanation, they accepted the strange fantasy.  And so came into being a concept of a world that was not earth, and spirits that lived where no man could see.  It was the beginning of a religion born of emotional need.

Another man, who lived in mortal terror of his chief, continued to see images of his chief in his dreams.  He explained the chief's mysterious and persistent being to his fellow cringers, who had also experienced visitations of the chief's spirit, and lived in constant terror of a chief who could appear and disappear in a dark closed cave in the night, to observe and impress with his omnipresence.  The chief heard of the stories and recognized their political value.  And so the verbose cringer, who spread the stories, was elevated to the status of a tribal medicine man, or high priest.  The strong father-image of the impressive chief, who kept order, bestowed favors, and imposed punishment, continued in the thoughts and language of the tribe after his own death.  It was found useful to his less impressive successor and was transformed by him into a tribal god.  Thus a religion born of POLITICAL expedience came into being.

Another type of religion was birthed in the calm observations of men whose need was for "understanding".  Certainly, they reasoned, there was a spirit, a being, an entity, manifest in the invisible but very powerful wind, that pushed over mammoth trees and whipped the sea into a terrifying fury.  Certainly there was a spirit, a god, or something to which they should give some name, manifest in the mysterious cold that turned the water of the lakes to ice and covered the world with snow.  If they called that perceived force god, then certainly the formless, twisting blazes of fire were a god incarnate, mysterious and ungraspable still, but a visible being that could be observed, studied, fed, and perhaps made into a friend or ally.  Certainly the sun that rose each morning giving of its life and warmth and comfort and, not the least, allowing LIGHT that "things" might be "seen", was a kindly god to be loved, admired, and yes, worshipped.  And the moon was a lesser god, not so powerful, but gentle, kindly, at times altogether lovely, and deserving of some worship--not so much as the sun, but some.

So a religion that attempted to explain the universe by analyzing and giving names to the motives incarnate in its forces came into being.

Various men developed preferences for different gods, and the tribal chief, to keep harmony in the tribe, and to keep harmony among the gods, felt that it was somehow his duty, as leader, to state the order of greatness among the gods, and to establish how much and what kind of worship should be granted unto each.

Thus long before the oldest story transmitted in picture, or told in song, the religions born of (1) emotional need, (2) political expedience, and (3) attempts to explain the universe, became intermingled in the language of each people and, to some extent, lost their identity as to type.  This intermingling has continued.

When the people from the mountains came into contact with, say, the people from the sea, they found it strange that the sea-god, whom they, the mountain people, considered a very minor being, had a place second to, or even above the sun-god.  And the people of the tropical jungle could only call the people of the north infidels and unbelievers, when they learned that their supreme deity was some ridiculous being called a frost-god.  Then came other unheard of gods, born of the father images evoked from long-forgotten tribal chiefs.  To the objective observer the most incomprehensible gods were the pure fabrications of the dream world, born of emotional need; but these gods satisfied emotional needs in others, and so survived in ever-changing forms.  Conquest; intermarriage, with its compromise and amalgamation, and consolidation of power by chiefs [who were] as ready to annex more gods as more subjects, soon created a religious complex that gave survival preference to ever more clever priests and medicine men.

As people became civilized, which generally seems to mean, "became craftsmen", they produced idols which represented their concepts of their gods.  Good craftsmanship and sculptural imagination became a strong factor in selecting religious concepts for survival and so civilization began to overrule perception, as language had already done.  Ah, but idols can be desecrated and, if they do not conspicuously punish those who publicly violate them, a great part of their claim to godhood is lost.  So, after idols had been tried and found wanting--abstract, nebulous, invisible gods of words, who could not be ridiculed so dramatically, were again set upon the place of the tangible idols.  As always, they were not new gods but only modified concepts of the old ones.

NO PROGRESS

The thread runs continuously through this pattern, in that there ARE certain obvious mixing and replacement patterns of religions, but the patterns make no obvious progress.  The triumph of an abstract god of words over a stone idol, for instance, has no virtue unless the abstract god of words is a clearer concept.  Some men express themselves better in words, some with a chisel.  Thus, at the dawn of history we do not find religions at a particular stage of evolution.  We simply find, in different areas, different aggregations of religious concepts.  Always these have been built up over countless years and they continue to be built upon.  Not once throughout all recorded history of religious thought will you find that there has been a complete house cleaning of the religious concepts carried forward in the language of peoples.  You find changing doctrines in the "CHURCHES" but only gradual fluctuations of the ongoing theme in the religions themselves.

You can see that existing religions are nothing but aggregated concepts and since you can see that existing religions are nothing more than those aggregations of concepts, your original classification of religions by impulse of origin is no longer applicable, except in factoring each religion.  In trying to divide the whole field into smaller fields that can be more easily studied, it becomes necessary to consider some other classification that just "might" be useful.

It is known that religions have been largely accepted at sword's point or by social pressure.  It was in this very way that the Khazarians took up Judaism and decided to call themselves "Jews".  The chosen pre-existing "religion" had no such name.  This was "simply chosen" in preference to the more limited teachings of Christianity.  These people taking up a necessary line of religion were merchants, warriors, and barbarians in the basic make-up.  Christianity was totally conceptually WRONG for their purposes--no more and no less.  As current times have evolved the Christian movement--it matters not a wit except in the projected facade (LIE) of intent.

Looking again at the choices you will find that you end up again with three classifications.  There are no clean divisions, but if you remember the fuzziness of the lines you might make some tentative use of them.

One type of religion is based upon a belief that an individual, other than oneself, has, or had, access to special information not available to everyone.  This special person then interprets, for all others, the cause and purpose of the universe, and lays down rules for man's action.  His interpretations, and the authority of his commandments, are to be accepted on faith.  The apparent demonstration of powers not natural to man, or the making of prophesies that turn out to be correct, are the only substantiating evidence.  These religions which are dependent on faith in an authority for their acceptance on faith in an authority for their acceptance have to be classified as dogmatic religions.

A second type of religion is evolved from a purely objective study of the religions of the world and acceptance of one for its PRACTICAL VALUE.  Faith and mysticism are smiled upon by the sophisticated pragmatist, as he chooses the one that most nearly fits his purpose, and subtly insinuates changes in it to make it better fit those needs of his own.  To those who have been conditioned to the "objective" thought patterns of what you refer to as "Western civilization" (see how silly it gets), this appears to be the rational approach to religion, and so in the West you will find an increasing number of adherents to religions who consider the basic concepts of their religions foolish.  They merely wish to take advantage of the popular momentum in the direction of their choice that the religions have built up through the force of accumulated dogmas.  Religion for them is simply a code of ethics.  The irrational part of their "rational objectivity" is that it accepts, without examination, the innate or acquired criterion that chooses the code of ethics.  This religion, of unexamined or unstated motives, is called expedient ethics.

A third type of religion now comes along which is rooted in an intense examination of what one knows, and how, and why.  Self-discoveries can be compared to the self-discoveries others have recorded, but the final criterion is always self-examination of how one came by knowledge, and why he thinks it valid.  Because of the widely divergent methods of examining knowledge and the popular concepts that have grown up regarding these methods, there is a sharp line between the records of the Eastern and Western civilizations.  See, you have to even divide yourselves into hemispheres to practice or accept your religions.  So, I look at this pottage and have to realize that you HAVE RELIGION but you have no understanding of FACTUAL TRUTH!

EAST VS. WEST

Consider the foolishness of such bifurcation.  You cease to work on the basis of fact or probability in evidence--but according to "druthers" and those even worse--the "druthers of somebody else".

The East looks upon this self-examination as a religious pursuit and calls it mysticism.  In the popular language of the West, the word mysticism implies mystery and magic.  With GOD in actuality there is mystery but NO MYSTICISM AT ALL--and, there is "mystery" only until TRUTH is revealed or discovered.  To the word "mysticism" there is an immediate forming of a barrier, which then precludes further Western study of the records of self-examination which have been made in the East.  The Western world, because its most widespread religion Christianity based on faith in dogma, has imposed a coloring of dogma and faith on the word religion.  That is the reason the self-examiners in the Western world have not called their studies of what the self knows, and how, and why, religion; they have called them science, philosophy, psychology, aesthetics, and thus and so.  Without regard to this play of words, a religion, evolved by self-discovery, can be as profitably compared to the records made by Newton, Kant, Jung, or Wagner, as to those made by Buddha or Zarathustra.  The name for this class of religion should combine the thought expressed by the West in science and philosophy and that expressed by the East in mysticism.  This is called by type of religion, analytical and introspective.

 

Now, readers, does the label OR the demonstrated bases of each--rest on FACTUAL TRUTH--or assumption of and a compilation of a conglomerate of ACCEPTED components.  Does this make something right or wrong?  No--it simply presents the multiplicity of problems when another realization comes along to show the INVALIDITY of components of such acceptance and unbased reality assumptions.  Looking back you will probably IGNORE the first two categories of religions.

WHY DO YOU IGNORE?

Your inclination to ignore dogmatic religions is based on a single but compelling consideration.  You recognize that various persons obviously have special capabilities and abilities.  You might well believe that a person could die and rise from the dead, go into Nirvana without leaving a physical body on Earth, make accurate prophecies, or perform all kinds of miracles.  BUT you cannot believe that any person has been CHOSEN to bring messages from the Creator of the universe to all other men in the contrived, feeble, inexact, changeable, and usually misconstrued language of men; when the universe, made by the Creator, is, itself, a language that is immeasurably more precise and more eloquent.

The reason for your inclination to ignore religions of expedient ethics can also be easily stated.  When you look for the reasons why the followers of expedient ethics, as a religion asserted in words, do not bring their basis of opinion into waking consciousness and display it, you find three possibilities.  Either (1)  the pressure of living does not allow them the opportunity, (2) they do not have the perceptive ability to discern it, or (3)  they deliberately wish to hide their motives to gain a strategic advantage.  In none of these cases can their hidden concepts be of much value to you in helping you to determine the validity of your own.

That leaves only the analytical and introspective religions as a probable value.  They should be highly useful.  But when you look a little more closely at the reasons why an individual accepts such concepts as valid, you become greatly disappointed.  You find strong factors that do tend to pervert all analysis and introspection.

You remember that none of the existing religions have ever been cleansed entirely of the awesome pile of mutilated concepts and you ask yourselves to what extent even of those religions that appear to be accepted of analysis and introspection are actually so accepted.  Are not most men's innate predilections overlaid so early in life with concepts carried forward by a people as a perception-coloring language and as a motive-distorting social force that their predilections cannot be trusted?  How many of the adherents of institutional religions, even those that might be called the analytical and introspective religions, might you say that they truly accepted the religions to which they adhere because they found them acceptable to their innate perceptions of validity?

I always enjoy simply inquiring of the "rapture-bound" Christians--"WHERE ARE YOU GOING AFTER YOU GET TO THE CLOUDS, AND HOW?"  REALITY MUST SET IN SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY IF ONE IS UTILIZING THE GIFT OF GIFTS GIVEN BY CREATOR--REASON!

When you stop to consider these things, it is recognized that acceptance of a cultural environment, itself, constitutes acceptance of a dogma.  You then begin to wonder to what extent acceptance of a religion on a basis of conscious analysis and introspection might be construed as more unbiased than acceptance of one that was dogmatic in utterance but could well have been embraced by the subconscious as valid.

You face, always, the temptation to take the easy way and conclude simply that statistics showing broad acceptance of a concept indicate its wide appeal to innate predilection.  But does that make it actually VALID?  That is simply a "majority vote" mechanism based on nothing.  It is soon realized that that sort of lazy, indifferent rationalization does not fully SATISFY for you recognize it, as well, as merely a dogma of another aggregation of unexamined concepts, a present-day cultural pressure.  Some will actually come within my circle to find TRUTH, but still partake of the wondrous comfort of the mystical or dogmatic comfort of not making decisions.  In other words, glean that which is comfortable from each one.  Is this "bad"?  There is no "good" or "bad".  Each is experience and each offers something or you wouldn't continue to partake.  This IS THE WONDROUS FREEDOM OF CHOICES GOD OFFERS.  Then, moving on, as you consider pressures, subtly distorted bases of appeal, and other factors that would affect statistical evidence, you find a major factor that would invalidate the significance of any religious statistics.

Known religious history is not the religious history of man, but only a particular type of man--an incomplete man, one who is dependent on others for his motivating forces, or essential purpose of being, as well as his physical sustenance.

This discussion could move from topic to topic and example to example in endless expression.  I wanted to make a full distinction between that which is CALLED "RELIGION" and ACTUAL SPIRITUAL TRUTH for as long as you claim ME to have some kind of RELIGION--you have missed the very purpose of my presence and the connections with self (yourself) and your Creator Source.  You cannot open into realization of universal TRUTH without looking at the shackles placed on self by RELIGIONS.  Further, if you KNOW TRUTH--you can play socially in the "religions" in your fun and contentment (if the church doctrines don't toss you out as with Gritz).  Just do not mix the TWO as into ONE--for they are OPPOSITES.

With this message in mind, let us close this writing, please.

Thank you,

Hatonn to clear.  (Yes indeed, I use a radio frequency and it IS gracious to clear the frequency when through.)