6 Sep 1996
Re: Image of God

Hi Trudy

When I wrote "take a look at your own image of God, your theology" I did not intend it to be a heavy-duty assignment, only a review of what you, yourself, believe -- and a sorting or sifting of things others have said. All theologies are theories and often merely assertions. So I believe it is appropriate for each of us to sort and sift, accept or reject or hold in abeyance, anything anyone has said about God. And because I evaluate spirits as I do people, I also believe it is appropriate for us to sort or sift what various spirits have said about God.

Although I don't recommend this very often, in your case I suggest that you use what you feel, as part of your basis for accepting or rejecting various theological assertions. For example, it has been said: "God punishes sinners." How do you feel about that? Then consider the opposite: "God does not punish sinners, He lets them get away with it." How do you feel about that? The purpose of this exercise is to bring your head more in line with your heart, so various theologies don't get in the way when you try to connect your heart to God.

Good reading list! I did not mean to imply that I thought you needed to study more theologies -- far from it. I assumed you are well-read. But these sources cover a vast variety of theologies, hence my suggestion to take another look at what you personally accept, or reject, or hold in abeyance.

For example, my head can say "All is One, God is All," but my heart cannot love that image, so for me, high pantheism is merely an intellectual exercise. (Low pantheism is the worship of all the gods, or all the gods in a particular pantheon, which I simply will not do. Although other people worship them, and some are discarnate entities rather than man-made idols, I don't even *like* the vast majority of gods and goddesses, based on what they do.)

I see the statement that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, but I do not accept it, because all three of those attributes are disproved by scripture and history and personal experience. Except for loving-kindness, wisdom, and graciousness, all other theological attributes are trivial to me. In accepting these three attributes, I have a personal theology that I don't have to rationalize against the evidence, which is the function of apologetics. In other words, I don't have to apologize for my image of God.

As to your dream of the penknife: yes, dreams can be a useful mode of discarnate communication, and they are often presented in symbols that require us to interpret the message. But is exaggeration a good indicator that a message is important? I tend to reduce my trust of any person who habitually exaggerates, because exaggeration is a departure from the truth. But in this case, I'm not convinced that your dream was exaggerated.

The devils were presented as cartoon characters because you had been terribly frightened by the demons and spirits you came in contact with, and the source of the dream was trying to say, "Take it easy. They're not all that scary." A good message -- symbolic, yes, but this is not an exaggeration.

>I believe the significance of the man defeating the devils while he was on vacation was another attempt to help me "relax and take things easier," just as we do on vacation.

Hmm ... maybe ... but it was the man, and not you, who was on vacation when he had to fight the devils. Perhaps there is another meaning here.

>Then there's the tiny penknife, another exaggeration.

I don't see this as an exaggeration. The message basically says: "You don't have to fight battles between good and evil in the spiritual realms, but you can be a useful instrument in some of them. So what if you really are small and apparently insignificant? You are sharp, so God can use you."

>As to your question, what is a penknife good for: In previous centuries a penknife was used to make and sharpen quill pens.

Hah! I shouldn't have missed that one. A penknife is used to sharpen pens, and right now, your incisive questions are sharpening my writing. And I like the over-all interpretation: "You can be used for any number of little jobs."

>How did the man use the penknife to defeat the devils? I've asked for further clarification, and have received nothing yet.

I think he used the penknife to deflate them. Like many evil people, devils have a vastly and falsely inflated ego, and no sense of humor -- and they are full of little dark ones that don't like each other -- so one little puncture can deflate them, and what remains is not very much. I have seen it happen.

>How is it that Simon "can always be reached and rescued" through me at any time? There was obviously some sort of spiritual connection between us when he was alive, but why should it continue beyond his death?

Caring-connections transcend physical time and space and life and death. And it does not have to be a two-way connection: your caring-connection to him will suffice. That's how we have found and rescued many lost souls.

>I barely knew Lisa, and I do not know where she is today. What is the mechanism by which I can still reach her?

Same as above. I can provide specific instructions, but in this type of work, two people are better than one. See the section on detachment (soul-rescue) operations, in my paper "First Century Progress Report."

>Why can't demon rescue teams do much with "truly independent" entities?

Truly independent entities are not like demons, so what works with demons doesn't work with them. They neither seek the Light nor fear it; they are not attached to anything on earth; they serve no one, and they have few (if any) caring-connections, so they are not easy to deal with.

>In "St. Michael's Manor," you wrote, "Bill was inspired to call the entity's female twin flame." What is that?

"Twin flame" is a theosophical or new-age expression for what others refer to as one's "counterpart" or "true love" -- one's opposite-gender spiritual twin. In the case of the independent entity at St. Michael's Manor, this may have been his only caring-connection, and even so he had to be reminded of it.

>In "Detachment Session, Karen," many spirits had "taken up residence" inside of her. One of them said, "Karen is a safe place."

Karen is a very loving person, a protectoress, so most of these spirits were not infesting her; she was sheltering them voluntarily. Some were attached to her by caring-connections. Many were just hitch-hikers or hanging around. And a few had pushed their way into her aura as uninvited guests. But she was not infested with little buckshot-sized dark ones, as a lot of people are.

>How common is it for people to become "infested" with entities?

Very common. Dr. Baldwin estimates that 85-90% of all human beings have one or more attachees, and my own estimate would be similar. In addition to intelligent entities, there are countless little dark ones that take advantage of any opening, vulnerability or dark place they find, like bacteria or viruses. That's why spiritual sanitation and hygiene are so necessary for all of us.

>Is there any limit to the number that can lodge inside?

Number is not a very meaningful consideration in this subject area. Many are attached to the outside of the spiritual body, rather than lodged within. And the attachees may also have attachees, so it is more like a network or cluster of entities. If there are any numerical limits, I'm not aware of them.

>Why is a soul with a physical body such a magnet for all these entities? I understand about the spirits who are drawn by a strong desire for gratification of an addiction. But what about little people, elementals, and so on? What's the big draw?

For human ghosts, it is *anything* they want that requires a physical body (like the man who was still trying to run his business, through his daughter). Some are trying to gather a following or build a cult, like any would-be guru. Little people are usually just curious. Elementals are reacting automatically. But the biggest attraction is energy -- many mid-astral and low-astral spirits are seeking to draw physical or spiritual energy, as parasites. They feed on it.

>If angels can't see lost souls and demons very well, why doesn't God just tell them where to look?

Because God's angels *are* God's eyes -- they convey information both ways. We can also be God's eyes -- and ears and hands and feet -- here on earth.

>And this begs another question. Assuming God is not omnipotent and cannot see them very well either, just what, exactly, are God's limitations?

I believe God's limitations are those of a loving parent whose children are free-willed and variously creative beings. [See "Why Commandments?"] God communicates guidance for their benefit, but many don't listen, and each chooses whether they will obey. This power of choice is inherent in free-willed beings. The Spiritual Spectrum is a statistical distribution that ranges from perfect obedience to the good-will of God, through indifference, to opposition.

I also believe God works by authority rather than power. For example, God wants a thirsty child to have a glass of water, but He inspires a human being to fill a glass and give it to the child, instead of materializing a glass of water.

>If a demon refuses to be converted, what does a Demon Rescue Team do with it?

I have seen demons and devils encapsulated, immobilized, and taken away for conversion. I understand that time does not matter and infinitely patient counselors are assigned to them. I suppose that, after everything has been done for them that can be done, if they still choose to be cruel rather than kind, God may let them flee again -- from the light into the outer darkness.

>Can you give an example of spiritual scar tissue?

Yes, I had some -- they were thought-forms in my spiritual body, created by my own cherished memories of "honorable wounds" received in some ancient war. One of my friends had a large sickle-shaped thing in her chest, formed from her mixed resentment and admiration of a task-master priest. And we have found several people who had a hard spherical shell in their spiritual bodies, formed by the self-deception inherent in hypocrisy and full of little dark ones.



Home | Listing | Next