Posted by Roberta Grimes • July 18, 2020 • 31 Comments
Afterlife Research, Quantum Physics, The Teachings of Jesus
Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me.
Let there be peace on earth, the peace that was meant to be!
With God as our Father, brothers all are we.
Let me walk with my brother in perfect harmony.
– Jill Jackson-Miller (1913-1995) & Sy Miller (1908-1971), from “Let There Be Peace on Earth” (1955)
Fifty years ago I had no idea that in trying to understand my experiences of light I was bucking thousands of years of wisdom that mandated how we must study the world. A strict division between the investigation of what is material and the contemplation of what is not material goes back as far as Plato and Aristotle. And by the dawn of the twentieth century, that division was being so strictly enforced that there was in fact no recognized way to investigate any non-material phenomenon. Scientific inquiry was based upon “the fundamental dogma of materialism,” so science was a closed belief-system which assumed that everything that exists is material. And religions cared little about investigating anything, but instead they treasured their various longstanding and often nonsensical beliefs.
In fact, there has not been for thousands of years any accepted way to conduct any kind of open-minded inquiry. Everything – including mainstream science – has been just another dogma-based belief-system. And this materialist limitation is still being enforced by the scientific community, although it is being seen more and more to have been retarding scientific progress. In particular, it is becoming clear that every effort to understand consciousness and the origins of life will come to nothing until the scientific gatekeepers abandon their materialist obsession.
But where working scientists fear to tread, this clueless fool was glad to rush
in. And since I did not for decades imagine that I was doing this research for anyone but myself, I defied all research conventions and considered no potential source of information to be out of bounds. In particular, I used the scientific literature, abundant communications from the dead, and an historical study of the Christian Gospels as equally-weighted sources of evidence. I am skeptical and curious by nature, so I was as rigorous in pursuing my peculiar hobby as any real scientist could have been; and for decades I had no idea that what I was doing was scientific heresy.
My unorthodox method of researching the afterlife was the only one that could have worked. The teachings of Jesus are profoundly reinforced by, and in turn they reinforce, all that the dead have long been telling us; and the principles of quantum mechanics help them both to explain where, when, and how it all happens. Each separate source of information both confirms and further fleshes out the others. The extent of the deep coherence that exists across such very different sources of truth is amazing! Everything I have ever turned up fits smoothly together with everything else to build a single glorious solution to the gigantic puzzle that is all of reality. My very peculiar project has been successful beyond my wildest dreams! Soon after the turn of this century, for the first time in human history I could demonstrate that our lives are eternal, explain where and how that eternity happens, and even make sense of the science behind it.
But for years more I was second-guessing myself. If you knew that you were very likely the only person in history who ever had made some big discovery, you would be second-guessing, too! I was feeling tugged to begin to share what I had learned, so in 2005 I started and briefly maintained a website called jesusisright.com. Obviously that was the wrong approach, but in blogging there for a couple of years and fielding public comments I was toughening myself so we could really go public.
By the time The Fun of Dying was published in September of 2010, I had been made aware that you cannot mix quantum physics with the teachings of Jesus and expect to be taken seriously. So I was then deep into my belligerent phase. I had proven that the religious and scientific emperors are both buck-naked! When you are the only person on earth who has done something so far beyond the pale that everyone knows that it cannot be done, and your error has produced abundant truths beyond anybody’s wildest dreams, you cannot resist the urge to take a victory lap. Since by 2010 most working scientists knew that matter is not actually solid, I saw myself as beating them over the head with the fact that their materialist dogma makes doing much genuine science impossible. After all, even Albert Einstein said, “Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” He also said, “It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing — a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind.” And the great polymath Nikola Tesla said, “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
For years I have been randomly jabbing at mainstream science’s foolishness, but I have saved my worst attacks for the very much richer target that is mainstream Christianity. It isn’t only one Christian dogma that can now be shown to be in error, but it is all of them! Even the core Christian teaching that Jesus died to redeem us from God’s judgment for our sins can be so easily refuted now. Just please read the Bible, Christian folks! Jesus said before the crucifixion, “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father” (JN 5:22-23). Then Jesus tells us He doesn’t judge us, either. And please read all those century-old communications from the dead, where they consistently say that everyone goes to the same afterlife. There is no religion in the afterlife, no judgment by anyone but ourselves, and the death of Jesus on the cross has never made an afterlife difference for a single human being. Constantine’s Christianity is wrong! So there!
I have long felt justified in treating Christianity so shabbily. The religion that I still love has always ignored the Lord’s precious teachings while it spreads false ideas that are so fear-based they are contributing to the world’s destruction! But then as I wrote with Thomas last week, he made me step back far enough to glimpse the enormity of what is going on and see that God is in control. It is not up to us to try to save the world, so with joy we can lay that burden down.
In particular, I am being instructed to stop speaking against traditional Christianity. The reason this new restriction troubles me is not so much that the religion does not sufficiently respect and follow Jesus. That part is entirely the Lord’s call. But Christianity as it is presently practiced is so deeply based in fear that all forty-thousand-odd versions of it are feeding the rampant negativity that is demonstrably taking over the world! Thomas now assures me, however, that worrying about negativity is another thing that is not up to us. He tells me that the weakening of Christianity is being carried out with loving care and far above our pay grade, the intention being just to soften the religion and open it to change without killing it altogether. What the Lord intends is just a lessening of emphasis on some of the religion’s most fear-based dogmas, and the founding of one further Christian denomination that is based in His teachings alone. A new but familiar denomination that will be a safe and comforting home for more and more Christians as the century continues, and one which Jesus can use as a base as He works to raise the vibrations of humankind and effect the arrival of God’s kingdom on earth.
I had been assuming that the name of Christianity must be left to the highly splintered religion that now bears it. If you don’t hold to any of Christianity’s dogmas, nor trace your beliefs to the Roman Councils, nor even call your movement a religion, do you have a right to say it is a part of Christianity? I had assumed that what we were supposed to help to start was a modern version of 
what the Lord’s first followers called The Way. Two years ago Thomas even prompted me to write a book called The Fun of Loving Jesus – Embracing the Christianity That Jesus Taught; and then he had me put it aside unpublished. I assume I may have gotten some of it wrong – and perhaps even bungled the title – but I know that at the appropriate moment my devoted friend will help me correct it and oversee the timing of its publication.
But what would a Christian denomination that actually followed the teachings of Jesus even look like? Without all those old, familiar dogmas – baptism, communion, confirmation, confession, the Lord’s sacrifice to redeem us from God’s judgment for our sins, the Holy Mass, and all that music – without the rituals, what remains of Christianity? Is it even a religion at all? I don’t know. And Thomas has made it very clear that we are not supposed to guess! We are talking now about a movement to at last bring the kingdom of God on earth in order to save the world from destruction. If there are any higher stakes than these, I cannot imagine them!
Jesus said to His disciples as He sent them out to begin to bring His truths to the world, “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you (MT 10:16-20). I take this passage as the Lord’s promise given to us today that if we will trust in His leadership He always will show us what we are to do. He
said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations … teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (MT 28:19-20). Next week we’ll begin to consider what these promises from the Lord really mean….
Let peace begin with me. Let this be the moment now.
With every step I take, let this be my solemn vow:
To take each moment and live each moment in peace eternally!
Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me.
– Jill Jackson-Miller (1913-1995) & Sy Miller (1908-1971), from “Let There Be Peace on Earth” (1955)
Hi Roberta, hi everybody! At some point in my formal education — looking back, I’m not exactly sure anymore exactly when — I realized there is no such thing as “Science.” There is what we have been taught to call the “scientific method,” which actually is a method that can be and should be applied to any serious inquiry whose goal is understanding and knowledge. It involves observation of experience, not leaping to conclusions, testing, observation of experience, repeating the test — it’s a good way to prove many constructs of life, including elements of the natural world as well as what we have been taught to call the “supernatural world.”
About this next part I am fairly certain that it was in graduate school that I realized that there was so much overlap in “the liberal arts and sciences” in terms of what we were all studying in our silos and making up our own specific jargons to talk about that by doing so in these silos we were missing everything.
That’s how my realization of what Roberta describes above got started. But this method and these realizations have been going on forever. And as for the humans who have been testing their world with this method, it seems it’s worked when applied without an agenda other than to know and understand. For the other sentient beings on the planet — speaking strictly as a layman here in both “science” and “religion” — I suspect that they have their own, probably more existential method of performing this method of investigation.We humans call it evolution, but it’s a lot more careful and inqusitive than we have been taught to give it credit for being. I look forward to next week’s blog entry, Roberta!
Dear Mike, Science is indeed a word applied to a method of intellectual inquiry, but like so many other aspects of society that we want to think of as objective and community-serving, it also is a fiercely self-protective guild. Physics is the base science, and the reasons why it still limits itself to the study of matter and material phenomena are complex, but I have come to think those limitations now stem primarily from the fact that more than a century of work in physics has been based in and limited by materialism so to break the tradition now would mean having to discard a lot of twentieth-century scientific careers. They backed the wrong horse – their emperor is naked! – and the longer this goes on, the harder it becomes for someone in authority to finally give in and say, “Oops! Never mind.”
As is true in most organized fields, there are in fact people in authority in mainstream science. The university departments and the peer-reviewed journals dictate which areas of inquiry can be considered scientific and which are outside the field of acceptable scientific inquiry, and this power of theirs goes back to at least the early 19th century. So it was easy early in the 20th century for them simply to agree that the scientific study of anything not based in matter was not going to be allowed in universities or published in journals. This seems to have happened gradually and then more definitively after 1910, and in response to the fact that a lot of very good communications from the dead were then being received through physical and deep-trance mediums. When I discovered this constriction in the course of my research – it is obvious in the work of Charles Drayton Thomas, for example, who studied Gladys Osborne Leonard – I found that the term “materialism is the fundamental scientific dogma” could actually be found in print. But what was astonishing was that science has never gotten past it! I was informed in the nineties by a disaffected physicist that physics Ph.D. candidates were even then being told that if they wanted to study “the paranormal” they shouldn’t waste their time in getting a physics degree because they never would be hired by anyone.
For many years I was bitter about this, but at this point I shrug. They are leaving the field of non-material physics – what eventually will be most of physics! – to people like me, who never even took physics in high school. But we know that in the end, truth always wins.
Thank you for giving me a glimmer of hope about the fear-based perversion called Christianity.
And thank you for all your work in this area.
Dear Sue, “The fear-based perversion called Christianity” is a great turn of phrase, a succinct and tragically far too apt term. And the problem for me is that I still love Christianity! I feel about it now the way I would feel about a faithless lover who made all kinds of promises and was so handsome and charming that I couldn’t help but love him… but then it turned out all his promises were dross. I have just told Mike above that modern mainstream science is as closed and self-protective as a medieval guild, and that is even more true of mainstream Christianity in all its forty-thousand-odd versions! But what matters in the end is only Jesus, and the more we study the Lord the more He grows in truth and in faithfulness. He really is all we need.
Enjoyed this weeks article. I am an old lady trying to figure things out. I have never been involved with any organized religion. the last couple of years i attended a Unity Church and enjoyed it. Last year I attended a Christian Science Church and have read most of Science and Health. The teachings are similar and
a bit comforting to this old girl. It boils down to a complete diet of forgiveness,
and non judgement which at least to me is the definition of Love. You might have written about these belief systems before and if so please tell me where to find the articles. your fervent study and expertise mean so much to me.
Dear Susie, I was part of a Unity Church for almost a decade. I thought for a time that it was going to be the ideal home for disaffected Christians, but then perhaps seven or eight years ago it began to trend away from “New thought, ancient wisdom” and an emphasis on the teachings of Jesus and toward becoming a kind of shrine to its founding generation, primarily the Filmores. It was a tragic thing to watch, and a cautionary tale: I saw a very promising and deeply alive spiritual movement turn into just one more religion – another fly in amber – right in front of my eyes! But I see it now as a wonderful cautionary tale about what not to do in building the Lord’s own Christian denomination so it will stay forever free.
And yes, I have written here often about forgiveness, freedom from judging, and other spiritual strengths. If you will put whichever key word interests you into the search bar at the upper right on this website, a list of suggested blog posts will appear.
We are glad to have you here with us, Susie, and wish you much joy in your efforts to figure things out!
Two comments, and the first here for Roberta.
I appreciated this message which is really powerful. This was such an important point to make about having faith: ” But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you (MT 10:16-20). ”
My second comment is a reply to the one from Mike on science. I have myself become jaded about the honesty of science. The incestuous behavior of so many scientists to feed at the trough of politicians and their bureaucrats to use Global Warming–oh that did not work so well, so–Man Made Climate Change to impose Socialism is sinister.
Kuhn was right also about the reluctance of science to drop bad theories when invalidated, because of careers entrenched by their old theories. Recently, I’ve collected four good experiments on the “weak” observation of particles which demonstrate they have real existence, not the infinite superposition haziness required by the Schrodinger wave equation as follows from the Copenhagen Interpretation of reality.
By “weak” observation what is done is to allow energy fields that are too weak to change the momentum or location of particles to register their existence. When Heisenberg theorized that particles must have a hazy existence, his available technology for observation and measurement operated at or above the energy level of the particle to be observed; so the Copenhagen Interpretation, which dismayed Einstein’s, generalized Heisenberg’s conclusion to declare that particles necessarily lacked any definite reality until impacted by the energy of observation. Given that particles instead always have a definite, real existence, that finding invalidates the need for any mysterious entanglement signalling between paired particles (what Einstein objected to as “spooky action at a distance”), because the pairs had their required symmetry when created. It also invalidates the silly “many worlds” interpretation of the Schrodinger wave equation, and the paradox of Schrodinger’s cat in the box being alive and dead until observed.
You can imagine the stiff resistance of standard physics to this conclusion that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Copenhagen Interpretation of reality were both wrong, based on sophisticated modern experiments. In practice, the Schrodinger wave equation is useful for engineering, but lacks veridicallity with the physical world that it attempts to model.
Jack Harold Hiller, what an excellent comment about the honesty of “science.” Thank you!
Dear Jack, what a great dissertation you’ve given us on the self-protective Luddite tendencies of science in general, and of physicists in particular! I have subscribed to Scientific American, New Scientist, and from time to time other popular science magazines for almost three decades, and I have marveled at the absurd certainty that those magazines (and later their websites) have shown about so many things that I could have demonstrated to them were flat-out wrong!
For example, until just a few years ago they all were certain that the way life first emerged from just the chemically perfect primordial goo struck by iust the right lightning was going to be sorted out any minute, and someone was going to get a Nobel Prize for creating life under laboratory conditions. They were certain, too, that the exact mechanism by which our brains generate our consciousness was going to turn up momentarily! I used to call them humor magazines. They really were precisely that absurd, and I was for a long time certain that they soon would get a clue. Then eventually the humor wore off as it became ever clearer that – as you say about the Heisenberg and Copenhagen models – being wrong in science doesn’t mean that you will be eager to correct those wrong ideas. But rather, being wrong in science means that you will have to stonewall until you can get the kids through college and save enough to retire.
Again, thank you for this!
I really enjoyed this week’s share, especially the “above my paygrade” remark. I have been reading Steven Pinker’s “Enlightenment now”, which, although it is a reasoned and thoughtful exploration of the way that reason, science as applied reason and humanism have helped to improve the world, he stops short, in error, at the notion of phenomena beyond materialistic theory. Because he has not had such experiences himself, nor presumably have his friends, he makes the unreasonable and unwarranted assumptions that such experiences are either 1) non-existent, or exist as the product of delusion, or 2) are not susceptible to human investigation and understanding, and therefore constitute a permanent ‘cloud of unknowing’, if you will. It is as if he is saying because a deaf man cannot hear music, that man can confidently assume that music does not exist, or if it does, it is not knowable. On the contrary, Jesus said, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:15) Such experiences serve to encourage those who are deeply willing to listen, that there are realities and truths available for investigation to those who, in the authentic and humble spirit of the investigator, accept the existence and possibility of such. And that they may, indeed, find to their delight they DO have ears that can hear!
Dear Sha’alah, thank you for this. I think the comments this week are especially helpful, and I’m sure that readers are enjoying them! Dr. Pinker’s attitude as you express it here is the classic materialist thinking of traditional scientists. Just think about how juvenile it is! Because I haven’t experienced it, it cannot be real? Fortunately, you can see right through it!
And more and more others can as well. The Scientific American article linked above that posits that materialism might be wrong seems to me to be a kind of milestone, as do Dr. Bernardo Kastrup’s wonderful Scientific American posts on consciousness (he has become a frequent Seek Reality guest). Even ten years ago, although many scientists were already thinking that a lot was wrong with the materialist approach, the popular science magazines still were putting up a conformist front; but that is slipping now, and more and more quickly. I really look forward to watching the light at last begin to broadly dawn!
Roberta, We are going to get as new denomination based on Jesus ‘s teachings!!!! Can’t wait to see and experience that process materializing and hearing what you have to tell us in the coming weeks and months!!
Dear David, you always make me smile! To see you expressing as much delight about a new, dogma-free Christianity as a kid in a store full of free candy is delightful ;-). The problem is, of course, that even though we might call it Christianity, it can’t really be a religion since it is the fear that religions generate that gives them the coherence to stick together and survive. For years I have felt called to do this, and for years the fact that if you are no longer afraid to sleep in on Sundays the new Christianity will die in its cradle has seemed to me to be an insurmountable problem. We’ll be saying more about this next week.
Great blog! Can you recommend me some great literature to read about the afterlife, spirit guides and more about Jesus’ teachings? The truth about his teachings. I’ve been having less faith in anything anymore especially what is going on in the world today. I just have so many questions and need to search for so many answers. I pray a lot and feel that they are not being answered. I guess I’m searching for proof more or less. Any help you can grant me would be deeply appreciated. I love your blogs and please keep Keeping us informed and enlightened. We all need to hear some positive and loving news. Thank you. You are a godsend.
Dear Tony, the fact that you and so many others have especially enjoyed this one makes me feel the need to say yet again that I am not really the author – I just get to put my own spin on some of these, but they are Thomas’s work. All I ever have when each week begins is the proposed title and the topic; then he lets me flounder with the writing until Friday morning (or even sometimes Saturday), when I will wake up with his version ready to flow out onto the screen. He tells me he is teaching me to write on my own, but the whole process just reminds me ever more forcefully that I have never written anything on my own! And this one was especially difficult, for some reason. Not even my original introductory sentence survived. So I am very grateful for your plaudits! But it is Thomas you are praising, and he deserves it.
As for some research suggestions, If you go to the top of this website page, you will find that Resources is the third tab from the left. When you click, you get the bibliography that is in almost all of my Fun books, with a few more recent books added. There is a list of topics at the start, and the seventy-odd books are organized by those topics; you will find, too, if you google some of the older books that they are available for free on the internet. I have read and can recommend every one of these books! And if you have questions as you read, simply email them to me using the green Contact block to the right. We are working now on developing a more organized way to teach these topics, but in the end we each have to convince ourselves – all that I can do for you is help you get easier access to all the information that I had to seek out for myself!
Dear Roberta, I admire the intensive research you have done. You have had some amazing experiences! I look forward to reading your books. I do have a question regarding the entity of Thonas Jefferson. You have had a close connection. I have not read “My Thomas”..did he ever express regret over the relationship with Sally Hemmings? More recently I noticed a couple of references to the situation that seemed rather awful for Sally. Of course I realize that 250 yrs ago the patriarchy treated many females- not just enslaved women- poorly. The times were though-! Thank you.
Dear Beth, I don’t blame you for believing the lie, but I do blame all the people who knew the truth and lied to you anyway. The irony is that Thomas doesn’t care! He is so completely over that one lifetime, which he considers to have been not even his most important one (he tells me I have also lived more important ones, which strains credulity). I learned the truth by doing the research before I wrote My Thomas, but after he “came out” to me in 2015 I wanted him to confirm what I knew. He would do that only after months of my importuning, and then only because I promised him it would be our last-ever mention of her name. He said during a nightly meeting that he allowed me to recall the next morning: “I could not have been intimate with Sally Hemings because she was my property so she could not have consented.” Spoken like a gentleman. When I then begged him to let me defend him, he told me that we will soon have general electronic communication with the afterlife (“soon” to someone not living in time might mean another hundred years!), and “all they have to do is ask the lady.”
I’m sorry that I am about to shout! And dear Beth, I am not shouting at you. This is very-protective me talking, and not a being who is still trying to protect his long-ago earthly brother. The truth is this: THOMAS JEFFERSON NEVER HAD SEX WITH SALLY HEMINGS. THE FATHER OF ESTON – HER ONLY JEFFERSON CHILD BY DNA – WAS HIS YOUNGER BROTHER, RANDOLPH.
I have written a bit about Thomas Jefferson’s life, and about the Sally Hemings question. And these are not just my views! Every Jefferson scholar knows that there is at least a great deal of doubt that Thomas had a sexual relationship with Sally, and most of them dismiss the whole idea as the baseless political attack that it was and it remains. The following is taken from a recent column by Ann Coulter:
We know from the DNA that Jefferson couldn’t have fathered Hemings’ firstborn, Tom. Only her lastborn son, Eston, had the DNA from some Jefferson male, of which there were at least a half-dozen living at or near Monticello when Eston was conceived.
So it all comes down to Eston. There is zero evidence that Jefferson fathered him and boatloads of evidence that he didn’t.
1) Five years before Eston was born, a muckraking journalist, James Callender, furious with Jefferson for not making him a postmaster, started the rumor the president had fathered Hemings’ son Tom, which, again, the DNA proves he did not. So the theory is: Five years after being falsely accused of fathering children with Hemings, Jefferson went out and fathered a child with Hemings.
2) Eston was born in 1808, when Thomas Jefferson was 64 years old and in his second term as president. His brother Randolph was 52, recently widowed and unmarried. After Randolph remarried, Hemings had no more children.
3) Randolph’s five sons, aged 17 to 24, were also frequent visitors to Monticello when Eston was conceived.
4) While Jefferson was entertaining diplomats in the main house, Randolph would typically retire to the slave quarters for the evening. One slave, Isaac Granger Jefferson, described Randolph in his dictated memoirs thus: “Old Master’s brother, Mass Randall, was a mighty simple man: used to come out among black people, play the fiddle and dance half the night.”
5) There is not a single account of Thomas Jefferson visiting the slave quarters.
6) Nor did Jefferson take any interest in Hemings’ children. Randolph did, teaching all of Hemings’ sons to play the fiddle.
7) None of the private correspondence from anyone living at Monticello credited the rumor about Jefferson and Hemings — but several pointed to Randolph.
8) In private letters, Jefferson denied Callender’s claim, while admitting to a sexual indiscretion that would have been more shameful at the time: his seduction of a friend’s wife.
9) Jefferson’s private papers reveal his extremely negative views of miscegenation in terms so brutal they will not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that the idea of his fathering a child with Hemings is inconceivable.
10) Jefferson did not free Hemings in his will, despite freeing several other slaves.
The domed monument among the cherry blossoms that is featured in this week’s blog post is the Jefferson Memorial, erected to honor the one man who – more than any other – is worldwide the intellectual father of the blessed personal freedom that remains your most precious birthright. If anyone deserves to be free from cheap political lies, it seems to me to be this very good man.
Makes a lot of sense- thank you so much! Even given the era Jefferson was looking beyond those accepted behaviors. I look forward to reading your books, Roberta💟
Oh dear Beth, I did worry a bit after I left that answer that it might feel personal to you, which of course it was not, so thank you so much for coming back and saying this!
I wrote My Thomas at the end of the eighties, and I learned just four years ago that this sudden obsession I developed then with researching and writing the story of Thomas Jefferson’s marriage was my audition: my guide had volunteered me to channel Jesus, but first he had to prove that I could do directed research and then be an accurate written channel. Researching that book was so easy – every answer was right there! And when I sat down at my computer, I vividly recall that the first sentence wrote itself and was followed by every other sentence until the last one. It was amazing. The first agent who saw the manuscript signed to represent it, and the first acquisition editor who saw it was the head editor at Doubleday and she bought it at once and never changed a word. It is, objectively, a fantastic story – as it should be, given that Thomas and his team where the authors. But then, of course, I tried to write about another historical figure’s personal life, and I never was able to compose one coherent sentence!
My only stumbling-block in writing from the viewpoint of Jefferson’s wife was slavery. How could any good man worthy of her love own slaves? So I dug deep into Jefferson’s writings – and I’m sure that Thomas was teaching me at night as well – and I came to understand just how good these people were, and just how intractable was the mess they had inherited. The current look back at that period and condemnation of people for not solving a problem they were stuck with at the same time as they were trying to form a nation is incredibly dull-witted and juvenile. All of these modern self-important and self-righteous people are going to get to watch the way they will in turn be judged by their own descendants 200 years hence, and it will be only then that they will deeply regret not having first walked a mile in knee-britches and a tricorne hat before ever presuming to judge anyone!
Dear Roberta. I must admit I’m also a bit troubled by the idea of just another Christian denomination. I wonder why the idea of bringing back The Way is not what those on the other side want. I can get the idea that The Way of 2000 years ago may not quite be The Way of today. Do they feel that the term would sound too much like “my way or the highway?” Reengineering and smoothing out Christanity to make just another denomination sounds like a tough row to hoe, but maybe they’re looking for a kinder, gentler, more stealth approach? I wonder what the strategy is.
Scott, a thought: imagine a Christian “denomination” that had no rituals or sacraments, no formal prayers, no clergy, no rules or sermons. Maybe even no building other than whichever building you happen to be at the time. In this Christian denomination you just live your life consciously, joyfully, loving everyone, forgiving everything, aiding people you’re equipped to help (many of us need help ourselves but remember the parable of the poor woman who could only give a little of herself), and rooting for those better equipped than you when they help even more people until the well of help to all becomes infinite. All the while quietly calling this way of living Christianity.
Hi Mike. It feels right to see you put “denomination” in quotes. It is indeed about the substance, not the name, a substance that would be much closer to the original vision and teachings of Jesus. This would be more than a tweak here and there – and there is so much history, so many people’s desires, opinions, and expectations all over the world to deal with. I don’t envy those tackling the problem. There must be a lot of minds focusing on this on the other side, and they would all be needed. The image I get is that this project is like a locomotive train with many train cars on a glide path down from heaven, with all of them on it. If it can be safely landed on the tracks is still a very uncertain thing, but I’m getting the impression that things are indeed “on track.” I had a feeling of joy and terror all at the same time when I read Roberta’s blog for the first time, like the suspense of a cliffhanger in an epic movie.
Hi Scott! It’s safe to say there is One Mind focused on this.😀
PS-I love the landing of the locomotive metaphor!
Dear Scott, in sharing this answer to Mike’s thoughts I think you are closer to what is going on. We go right back to Jesus Himself, centuries before there even was a Christianity, and we walk with Him then and there. We never leave Him. Nobody can ever know better than the Lord, so nobody presumes to build on His teachings; we are back before Saint Paul as well. Um, and even long before locomotives!
This is beautifully said, dear Mike. I am working through it now with our upcoming post, and I won’t get Thomas’s input until Friday but I think I’m understanding it all better this week than I did last week!
Oh dear Scott, I think that all of us who have put aside the Christian fears and dogmas and drawn much closer to the Jesus of the Gospels feel as you do! The last thing we want is more “Christianity.” We want to follow the genuine Lord! And having joined a Unity church maybe fifteen years ago, and thought for a time that I had found the solution and I just had to recommend that everyone find a Unity church, but then having watched that free movement based in the Lord’s teachings devolve over the past decade into just another fly in amber, revering its founders, the corpse of what it had been at its height, has made me doubly wary.
Ever since Liberating Jesus was first published five years ago, I have been hearing from many people who were all saying some variant of “Okay, I finally get it. Now what?” But I have had no “what” to give them! Still, I was soon getting hints from Thomas that an answer was coming. My whole relationship with him over the past five years has been one of hurry-up-and-wait, then unexpectedly now-is-the-time, for everything we have done in this field. He is taking direction from a team of advanced beings who are coordinating a lot of moving parts in a gigantic spiritual machine, of which our whole effort is only one gear. What we are doing is important, he insists to me now, but there is redundancy so he comforts me that if we screw up they can make substitutions and corrections.
But still, all of us very deeply don’t want to screw up in doing something we are being called to do for God! And Thomas has let me know that these decisions are not being made primarily for our comfort or enjoyment, but rather they have a much more important purpose that we will be talking about next week. We are foot-soldiers, Scott, in the army of the Lord! That seems pretty clear now. And there can be no human role more joyous than this one!
Hi Roberta. I love this metaphor of the giant machine, and how we down here are such a small part. On friday, my guides gave me the image of a tiny little brass machine screw. When I asked what it meant, they said that is what I “put in.” That’s a great illustration of how far above our pay grade this all is. I just hope I don’t “screw up” with whatever I’m doing. 😄
Dear Scott, I love it! Your guides have quite a sense of humor. Fortunately, when I have had the same concerns and expressed them to Thomas, he has assured me that I will not be allowed to fail at this – to screw it up, as you so graphically put it. First, there are so many people at this work now that there is considerable redundancy, so if a meteor lands on my head and I fall prematurely in this battle to save the world, there are others who will come forth and take up my banner. And second, he tells me that this is our shared task, his and mine. And for so long as I will trust and follow him, it will be impossible for me to fail. I cannot sufficiently express to you what a comfort that is!
None of us can! That’s the beauty of it. The work belongs to God. Here is an important point from an interview Michael Tymn did with Matthew McKay, who lost his son Jordan and reconnected through automatic writing:
About the communication, Matthew says this about a communication he received:
“I knew, for example, that the purpose of life was learning. But I had no idea that the wisdom each individual soul acquires contributes to the wisdom/ knowledge of collective consciousness (the divine/god). I had no idea that each lesson in our lives allows – ultimately – collective consciousness (god) to make the next, more perfect universe.”
Dearest Roberta,
I too am struck by the possible naming of this new movement ‘Christianity.’ I consider myself as kind of a Nazarene; following The Way of Jesus of Nazareth. People it seems, need a label. I’m often asked, ‘What are you? Aren’t you Jewish and aren’t you are a follower of Jesus? So what religion do you follow?’
It’s funny because I don’t feel the need to ‘follow a religion’ or have a label, other than explaining that I follow The Way. It’s just not the label or the concept that’s important.. It is a deeper sense of Oneness.
Scott and Mike J-R discuss an important question: My sense of it is, the name ‘Christianity’ for this movement may involve going back to the essential truth and kind of ‘setting the record straight’ as to what the Way of Jesus is meant to be. This word holds the title of the Christ, the Anointed One, without descriptors such as ‘Roman’, ‘protestant’, ‘Lutheran’, ‘Anglican’ or anything else. The single word ‘Christianity’ by comparison, seems pared back to the original truth of Jesus. And isn’t that what is happening here? And the “beauty part” (as American’s say) is that The Way actually works, and by its own effectiveness it is validated.
As our vibrations rise and we become beings of more perfect love, then it will become evident that this is what Jesus meant to happen in the first place.
To live consciously (as Mike J-R has just said) is the point: We love and help all those we can with love. We forgive deeply and learn to do so in all ways. We’re grateful for even little things and can actually feel joy. We have a natural set point that is compassionate and we don’t want to build a name for ourselves. Pride becomes a dead zone and holds no allure. We even begin to drop off old, self defeating, outdated ideas that previously defined us or fostered self loathing. We choose our own pathway and know that we are loved by Spirit and are free of external judgment. What was a convoluted life becomes simple and clear. Indeed the burden is joyful and light….
I look forward to the day when we value each other soul-to-soul and there is no hierarchy. Each person is equally valued as an eternal soul who is loved perfectly by God. And each of us is part of One Mind that knows it’s eternal. Hence, whatever name is chosen for this movement by the Godhead, it is going to signify something wonderful.
Oh my dear Efrem, once again you have advanced all our understanding! We are Christians because we follow Christ, but we have gone back to before the Roman Councils first codified a Christianity that has had from its beginning little or nothing to do with the meaning and message of Jesus the Teacher or Jesus the genuinely risen Christ. One of the things that Jesus came to do was to remove religions as the barriers between God and God’s people that they always come to be, so we are Christians who follow no religion. Instead, we seek to ever more deeply follow Jesus. We have found that the Lord is enough!
And as you point out, we seek first our own transformation. The great mistake that all religions make is that they are aspirational – they give us orders and directions – while what Jesus sought to do was to help us transform internally. He knew that perfect love and forgiveness had to come first, and then all the rest would flow naturally.
This is exciting, isn’t it?