Author: AMSlogin

TOPICS: Do you want to learn through understanding or hard knocks? – nation has a right to make gay marriage legal – only the middle way beyond extremes gives proper understanding – the flourishing of sexual perversions – unbalanced tolerance creates social problems – basing a nation’s laws on divine principles while upholding the separation of church and state –

Question 1: In light of what you said about the cause of homosexuality, what do you think about the United States or a single state recognizing homosexual marriage on par with heterosexual marriage?

Question 2: I wondered if you could comment on the subject of homosexuality. It’s a very hot issue in Sweden today because the church is going to decide whether homosexuals can be married in church or not. I know that you have commented on this earlier on the website but can you please clarify it a little more, because I think it would help a lot of people. Why is homosexuality not God Truth, so to speak?

Answer from ascended master Jesus through Kim Michaels.

The issue of gay marriage is a good example of the dilemma faced by modern people, and I will talk about the situation in both the United States and Europe.

As we have said, everything is created out of the two polarities of the expanding and contracting forces. We have also said that you can create something that is sustainable only when you have a balanced interaction of the two forces, and this can be attained only through the Christ consciousness. If you are unbalanced, you go into the consciousness of duality, which perverts the two polarities by taking them into their extremes. This is the consciousness of anti-christ. Although for a time this state of consciousness can seem to have some power on earth, it will eventually cause the unbalanced creation to self-destruct.

The Law of Free Will is the ultimate law in the material universe. This law gives people the right to make any choice they want. Yet there are no free lunches, as the popular saying goes. The Law of Cause and Effect will make sure that everyone will receive as they have sown. So the choice faced by all human beings is simply this: how do you want to learn your lessons in life?

Do you want to learn your lessons by doing whatever you want and then reaping the consequences of your actions? Or do you want to use certain guidelines which enable you to learn from the mistakes of others so that history does not have to repeat itself in every generation? In other words, do you want to learn by seeking a higher understanding, or do you want to learn through the school of hard knocks?

If you read my teachings on the spiritual cause of homosexuality, you will discover that homosexuality was not created by God, and therefore it is not a natural or necessary part of creation. Because of the Law of Free Will, a nation has a right to create civil laws that recognize homosexual unions. Yet can a nation truly make a free choice without understanding the inevitable consequences of its actions? How can you exercise freedom of choice if you do not have a proper understanding of the consequences of your choices?

Throughout history, God has attempted to give people an understanding of the consequences of their choices. This has been done through a variety of spiritual teachings that describe the Laws of God. I am aware that many religions, such as the Catholic Church, have perverted these teachings and created a culture based on fear and judgment. I am aware that many truly spiritual people recognize the fallacy of this judgmental approach, and therefore they have become accepting and tolerant. Yet I must tell you that being overly tolerant is as incorrect as being overly judgmental. Only the middle way between the two extremes will give you the proper balance and understanding.

Although the United States is an older democracy than the nations of Europe, it is a younger nation. One effect of this is that the U.S. is still more affected by black-and-white thinking,  as can clearly be seen by the fact that fundamentalist Christianity has greater power in the U.S. and in fact largely originated there. So although we have a nation that in its constitution guarantees separation of church and state, a fear-based form of Christianity still has a greater influence on the national psyche and on politics than the founding fathers and the ascended masters intended.

One way in which this can manifest is an imbalance in the fear-based tendency to feel threatened by those who are different. This has caused America to see itself as being in opposition to Muslim fundamentalism, and in an unspoken way even to Islam as a religion. This has caused the U.S. to engage in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have already stretched the armed forces to the breaking point. If the U.S. was misled into one or several other such wars, it could wreck the economy.

In contrast, many nations in Europe have a long history of warfare amongst each other, and of course Europe has seen two world wars and the Holocaust on its soil. This has forced most European nations to move out of black-and-white thinking, but some of them have been caught in gray thinking instead. And this is, of course another form of imbalance. Black-and-white thinking takes the expanding force of the father too far into the extreme, and gray thinking takes the contracting force of the mother too far.

As an example, consider the nation of Holland which has very lenient laws towards drugs, prostitution and pornography. The inevitable consequence of this lenience is that these practices will flourish. As one consequence, you have children who at a very early age are literally sold into sexual slavery (homosexual and heterosexual) either through pornography or prostitution. You have children who grow up among adults who use drugs on a daily basis. To cope with the abuse, many of these children begin to use drugs at a very early age. Simply consider what kind of adults such children will grow up to become. Simply consider the amount of social problems that this can create for a nation.

Then consider that the nation of Holland has a very elaborate welfare system in which the state pays for all manner of social problems. Is it difficult to predict that there might come a point when the cost of social problems is so great that the tax base can no longer support it? When people are so burdened by psychological problems that they can no longer hold a job and pay taxes, what will happen to the economy? Then what will the nation of Holland do to find the money to attempt to solve the social problems that it has created through its own leniency?

So as the U.S can be bankrupted through wars, Europe can be bankrupted through social problems or the economic woes you have seen in Greece, Spain and Portugal, which also spring from the unbalanced mother consciousness, where people are not willing to take responsibility for their lives and multiply their talents. Now consider how this influences how societies deal with the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage. Again, the U.S. tends to be too INtolerant and Europe tends to be too tolerant. But now consider how this relates to the issue of balancing the father and mother element.

Again, the Law of Free Will is the most basic law of this universe. And as I explain in my discourse,  there are some people for whom it is part of their process of transcending human sexuality, that they end up going through homosexuality for one or several lifetimes. As I said, this is not necessary, but it is the result of people’s choices, and a free society must allow people to learn their lessons their own way, as long as it does not unduly interfere with other people’s free will. Thus, it is simply a fact of life, that a certain percentage of the population will be homosexuals, as has indeed been the case in every time period in known history.

The real way to transcend homosexuality is through the Christ consciousness, yet in today’s society that is not a short-term solution. So for a person who is in tune with the mother element, it is obvious that homosexuality will be around for the foreseeable future, so society needs to find a balanced way to deal with it. And the past approach of ignoring it simple will not work in this new age.

Again, if people are unbalanced in the father element, they will tend to be intolerant, and thus they will resist that society recognizes gay unions of any kind. And if people are unbalanced in the mother element, they will say that homosexuality should be recognized as natural and thus gay couples should be allowed to marry, even in churches, in order to have the same recognition as heterosexual couples.

Yet the balanced perspective of the Christ mind would find a middle way. The exact way to deal with the issue can vary, and it will vary from the U.S. to Europe. Yet the bottom line is that since homosexuality is currently part of life, it is necessary for society to recognize a legally binding union between two homosexual people. If they desire to have a more committed relationship, society should afford them the same practical, legal and tax-related benefits as heterosexual couples.

The question left is what a society calls such a union: marriage or something else, such as “civil union.” In the U.S. the federal government should – for now – leave this up to the states, and also leave it up to them if they will even allow homosexual unions. In Europe, this will obviously be up to individual countries.

However, I do suggest that it is a reasonable approach to say that marriage is a religious institution, meaning that only when the ceremony takes place in a church, do you call it marriage. For unions – hetero- and homosexual – that take place in a government office, you call them all civil unions or a similar word. This allows for a distinction between church related unions, where people are then free to uphold a traditional Christian view of homosexuality and marriage, and a new type of civil unions. This will then afford homosexual couples the same legal and tax benefits as heterosexual couples.

I am aware that some will want homosexuality to be recognized by society and even by religions as natural, and thus they will want to use the word marriage. Now, as I have said, homosexuality truly is not natural, but again we must bow to free will. If some people want to create a church that allows homosexual marriage, then that must be allowed to outplay itself. Indeed, in the U.S. the government can do nothing about this because of the separation of church and state.

In Europe the situation is slightly different because some nations have a state church or a church that is supported by taxpayer funds. In such a case, a government does have the constitutional authority to require a church to perform gay marriage.

However, I would consider it unfortunate if a government would make this a mandate. A church should be aligned with the reality of God, as it is defined by the church’s doctrines, and a civil government should not interfere with this. Thus, I suggest that some nations in Europe might consider enacting the same kind of separation between church and state as seen in the U.S. Stop having one church that is the state religion. A nation could still allow a certain percentage of taxes to go to support religious institutions, but this could be distributed among many organizations based on their membership. This would be far more democratic than the present situation, where the majority supports a state church that is only a attended by a small and rapidly shrinking minority.

If you have a church that recognizes homosexuality, allows openly homosexual clergy and allows homosexual marriages within the church, then you have already proven that you have a church that is separated from God’s reality and now has become an entirely earthly institution—as I have said is the case for the Church of England after the king made himself the head of that church.

This, of course, is allowed, if the people want that kind of a church—then they get the church they deserve. And the people have a right to choose whatever they want for their society and then, as they experience the consequences of it, have another opportunity to rethink their former choice. This is how the law of free will outplays itself. And as we have said before, if people will not learn from Divine Direction, they must learn from the school of hard knocks, and some will not learn until the knocks become very, very hard.

Yet I hope some will begin to see that there is a fundamental difference between seeking a balanced approach and allowing society to be held hostage by people in either extreme. If you apply the unbalanced father approach and become very judgmental of others, a nation will indeed make a severe karma. If you go to the other extreme and say that homosexuality is natural, is according to God’s principles or even created by God, then you will also make severe karma. The only way to avoid making karma is to find a middle way, where you recognize the purely practical need to give homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples without requiring society to recognize homosexuality as natural or ordained by God.

I am not saying hereby that there is only one way to deal with this – or any – issue. You currently have a situation on earth where everything is heavily influenced by the consciousness of duality. Thus, in most cases, there is no one ideal approach. It is a matter of accepting where society is at and then striving to take society to the next step above its present level. That is why laws should be based on this balance between the mother – based on what is here now – and the father—the vision that we can indeed go higher. When that balance is found, a society can indeed find a way to deal with any issue that is not karma-making, because it keeps that society in the flow of self-transcendence.

 Copyright © 2012 by Kim Michaels

TOPICS: Rethinking our attitude to nature – the view that we have the right to subdue nature – separation means no regard for life – the view that we should withdraw from nature – humans are connected to nature through consciousness – no conditions in nature that are not affected by humans – the earth created as a schoolroom for humans – multinational corporations are mindless machines – questioning the mindless quest for profit – can corporations become so big that they are unmanageable – is the United States too big to be manageable – no structure will survive without leaders with Christhood – involving the public in a new way – in Aquarian age, nothing will remain hidden – transparency is an absolute must – transcending the force-based mindset – independence of oil – overcoming the image of the remote God in the sky – the material universe is a feed-back machine, a cosmic mirror – people will now reap the full karmic consequences of their actions – time to awaken from the collective insanity –

Question 1: Does Jesus or others of the ascended masters have any thoughts on the big oil spill in the Gulf Of Mexico?

Question 2: Right at this time a huge amount of oil is leaking into the Gulf of Mexico, killing wildlife and fishing beds, and fouling beaches. Do you have any other suggestion for a powerful and intense way to deal with this situation?  Any specific rosary which would be best for this?

Question 3: Ted Turner recently said that he thinks the Mexican Gulf oil spill is God telling us, “Don’t drill.” Do the masters have any comments on that?

Answer from ascended master Saint Germain through Kim Michaels (May 28, 2010).

Given that we have now entered the Aquarian age, everything has changed, as I said recently. And that means that everything needs to be re-thought.

You cannot simply take things for granted, you cannot continue with the same mindset that you had in the previous age. You cannot assume that what worked well and what seemed right in the previous age is also going to be right in the Age of Aquarius. This would indeed be a misunderstanding of the shift that has happened with the planet entering the Aquarian age.

Concerning the oil spill, the first thing that needs to be completely rethought is the attitude that human beings have to nature. This attitude is indeed a complete product of the consciousness of separation, whereby human beings have come to see themselves as completely separated from God above and from the material universe here below—and also separated from each other. This, of course, is the cause of the conflict and warfare that you have seen on this planet, but it is also the cause of many other behaviors and actions that can at first seem to be perfectly normal—but are actually not what should be normal, if human beings had a deeper connection to the inner reality that they are spiritual beings and not material beings.

You have – as is always the case in the duality consciousness – two extremes when it comes to people’s view of nature. On the one hand you have the view that people are completely separated from nature but that they – either because they are created by God or because they are the most sophisticated life forms produced by evolution – have a right to forcefully subdue nature. This is obviously an aspect of the consciousness of separation, where man sees himself separated from nature, sees himself in conflict with nature, and therefore thinks he has the right to do whatever he needs to do in order to subdue nature and make it do what man thinks nature should do

This is the viewpoint that you see, in this particular situation, represented by the large corporations, such as BP and other oil exploring corporations around the world. They believe that they have a right to do whatever is technologically possible and economically feasible in order to secure the greatest possible profit for the corporations and their shareholders, regardless of the potential risk it has for nature. These corporations do not consider nature at all; they only consider nature in a secondary way in terms of what economic risk it might represent if there is a spill and they have to spend money cleaning it up. In other words, the corporations have no regard for nature whatsoever, as they have no regard for the lives of their own employees—as is also witnessed in this disaster.

The opposite extreme is, of course, the viewpoint taken by the environmental organizations and by many people who over recent decades have become more sensitive to nature but have not found the middle way. Instead, they have been pulled into the opposite dualistic extreme, represented by the environmentalist movement. This is the view that nature is something pristine, something almost sacred—although most of these people are not religious. Therefore, nature existed as some Paradise that was pure before man entered the stage and started messing things up. And thus, it is somehow wrong that human beings have any impact on nature and they should preferably live completely separated from nature and in a way that has minimum impact on nature—whatever that might mean.

Now, on the one hand you will realize that this does represent somewhat of a respect and reverence for nature, yet it is still a respect and reverence that springs from the consciousness of separation, because it again affirms man’s separation from nature. Nature is something “out there” that should be kept in some condition that – whether real or imagined – existed before man, especially modern man, entered the stage. Both of these positions sprang from the consciousness of separation, where man sees himself separated from the environment in which he lives, from the planet upon which he lives.

None of these attitudes are sustainable in the Age of Aquarius; none of them will survive in the Golden Age. They must both be transcended before the golden age attitude to nature can become widespread on this planet. What, then, is the middle way that is not between – as a compromise between the dualistic extremes – but transcends the dualistic scale? Well, it is to recognize one simple fact: man is not separated from nature because the connecting link between man and nature is indeed consciousness.

As scientists have begun to realize, the underlying reality beneath all material appearances is consciousness. Everything is created out of consciousness. Therefore, the entire planet is created by an image being superimposed upon the Ma-ter light by self-aware beings, called the Elohim. Yet since human beings first started taking embodiment, the consciousness of human beings has indeed had a major impact on the conditions currently found on this planet.

This means that there are absolutely no conditions on this planet that are pristine in the sense that they are not affected by the consciousness of man. Did you hear what I just said? There are no conditions whatsoever that are not affected by the consciousness of humankind! It is a complete fallacy, a complete creation of dualistic imagination, that there is such a thing as nature untouched by man. It may seem so on the physical level, but it is not true when you consider the reality that everything is consciousness.

Another fallacy promoted by the environmentalist movement is that it is wrong for human beings to influence the environment. This, of course, is not true. Why is there a physical planet? Do you think that the Elohim just created this planet in order to have it sit here in some huge empty space for an indefinite period of time? No, they created it for one purpose only: to serve as a schoolroom for the self-aware beings that would be embodying here. There is absolutely no other purpose or justification for the existence of the earth than to serve as a schoolroom for humankind.

That means that nature, as far as it has consciousness, knows that it is here to serve humankind. It is not here to outpicture some Edenic, pristine state; it is here to serve as a mirror that reflects back to humankind whatever they project out with their consciousness. Do you see: nature is a giant biofeedback machine for humankind. Nature is perfectly content – the Ma-ter light is perfectly content – to serve in this role. Elemental life is perfectly content to serve in this role. All animal species, as far as they have group awareness, are content to serve in this role.

It is not the purpose of nature – or rather the spiritual beings who manifest nature – to create or to return to some pristine state. It is the purpose exclusively to serve as a learning environment for humankind. With this in mind, you realize that this latest oil spill is simply a lesson from the cosmic schoolroom. It is another example of humankind seeing a reflection of a certain state of consciousness.

Thus, let me comment first on the idea that you might use the violet flame or rosaries to mitigate the effects of this disaster. Is this necessarily the right approach in the Age of Aquarius? Well, yes and no. You see, we have not commented on this particular incident earlier because it was never our intent to prevent this incident or to stop it at the earliest possible stage. There are many times where we of the ascended masters simply realize that even if we can stop certain events, it is not in the best interest of humankind to do so. It is indeed sometimes necessary to allow people to see the physical consequences of their actions and their state of consciousness.

Thus, we have no desire to see our students use their time, attention and energy on decreeing or giving rosaries in order to mitigate something that is a learning experience—and therefore must be allowed to unfold. That being said, now that the event has unfolded and now that humankind has received its opportunity to learn a lesson, then it is appropriate to use spiritual tools in order to make it easier for nature to reestablish the environment after the disaster. It can therefore be appropriate to use violet flame decrees and the invocations given through this messenger as a way to lighten the burden on elemental life, so that they can more quickly restore natural conditions to the areas that have been or will be in the future affected by this oil spill.

It is also appropriate to give invocations and decrees in order to help humankind learn the lessons that need to be learned. And so, let me move on to comment on those lessons. The first lesson that needs to be learned here is that this oil spill is the next lesson – lesson number two – in the process that began with the financial crisis and the so-called meltdown on Wall Street. I have the earlier commented on the economic crisis, and I have also raised several questions, including the fact that one cannot allow corporations to become so large that they can manipulate nations or even the entire world economy.

I also said that one cannot, in the Golden Age, allow free enterprise to run completely free without transparency and therefore government oversight and regulation. This holds true for the financial industry, but it holds true for any area of business. And another area of business where you see very large multinational corporations – that due to their money can buy influence – is of course in the oil industry. There is hardly any industry that has a greater impact on the global economy than the oil industry. Therefore, it is only a natural part of the process of exposing what needs to be exposed for society to enter the Golden age, that the oil industry has now been exposed for exactly what it is: huge multinational corporations that have no respect for human life and no respect for the environment. These corporations are concerned about only one thing: profit, profit and profit.

These huge corporations are simply mindless machines, mindless structures, that will grind to dust any individual, any nation and any natural condition that stands in the way of their never-ending, mindless quest for greater and greater profit. Nobody has the capacity to ask why a corporation needs to make such huge profits. Nobody has the presence of mind to ask when there comes a point, where this is no longer in the interest of humankind as a whole or a particular nation. No one, for that matter, has the presence of mind to ask whether this really is in the interest of the corporation and its shareholders in the long run.

For you can look at this particular incident, and you can very clearly see that it started with certain managers at the BP oil company who wanted to shut down the well in a way that was the least costly and therefore seemingly would generate the biggest profit. Yet given that they have now lost an oil platform that cost a quarter of a billion dollars – and that the cleanup will cost even more than the company’s quarterly profit of the last quarter – was this really in the interest of profit? And so, you see that even from a strict profit viewpoint, there needs to be some way to provide a greater perspective into the corporate world.

This would, of course, ideally come from enlightened CEOs and shareholders. Yet for decades now, the profit machine has systematically eliminated any CEO or shareholder who would question this mindless quest for profit. And thus, it simply is not possible for the industry, for the corporations, to regulate themselves. And this, of course, leads to only one practical solution, namely that the government must step in. However, this should be seen as a short-term measure, for in the long run the reality is that the people must step up and become more aware and more involved and put greater demands both on their government and the corporations that operate in their countries, even on a worldwide basis.

An entirely new willingness to examine every aspect of society needs to emerge, so that people get engaged, so they take charge, and so they raise the questions that need to be raised. Even so that they demand a new type of media that will not be silenced by the threat of withdrawing advertising money, so they do not report on a particular issue for fear of financial consequences. Again, the media being driven by profit, which of course is not sustainable in the Golden Age.

So what you see here is the absolute need for the government to step in at many different levels. There needs to be some institutional think tank who can raise the question: does the fact that we CAN drill at such extreme depth in the ocean mean that we SHOULD drill under those conditions? And if we do allow drilling, can we allow one or two corporations to be completely in charge of this, or do we need to have some outside perspective, such as a government representative who could have been present on that oil platform when the shutdown procedure was determined and decided upon. Thus, such a representative would have been able to override the short-term profit view that caused the cheapest and most unsafe measure to be selected, against the advice of several other people.

Yet stepping even further back from the issue, we again see the question of the size of corporations. Is it possible that when a corporation grows beyond a certain size, that it is actually manageable by human beings? Does any one person, does any small group of people, have the mental capacity to oversee a corporation beyond a certain size? This is a question that needs to be debated. This, of course, goes for another so-called “corporation,” namely the government. Is it possible that any one person or any small group of people, such as the President of the United States and his cabinet, can have the mental capacity to oversee a country of the size and complexity of the United States?

The reality is, of course, that no single person in embodiment has that capacity. Therefore, there needs to be found a new approach to management, which goes beyond the traditional elitist approach—that was created and has been sustained by various power elite groups who think they are capable of running society. Yet this elitist nonsense needs to be exposed for what it is, and it needs to be recognized that if the management of a country or corporation is allowed to become a closed system, then the second law of thermodynamics will cause that system to break down—much faster now that we have entered the Aquarian age. Thus, a new approach to management is needed, one that deliberately seeks to prevent any organization from becoming a closed system.

This has – as everything else in life – an Alpha and an Omega aspect, but the underlying principle is that management must be opened up to outside perspectives. The Alpha side is that enlightened leaders are those who have developed their intuitive, spiritual faculties and are thus capable of receiving input from the ascended masters. Why is America supposed to be “one nation under God?” Because the founding fathers recognized that no human authority can govern justly unless there is input from above. And we will, of course, gladly give such assistance to anyone who is open to it—regardless of whether the leaders recognize us as ascended masters or conceives of “assistance from above” in some other way. Yet what I am truly saying here is that no large structure will survive in the Aquarian age unless it has one or more leaders with at least some degree of personal Christhood.

The Omega aspect is to spread the leadership responsibility among enough people that they together have the capacity to understand what is going on—and can therefore take into consideration everything that needs to be considered for viable decisions to be made. I would also like to point out that this, in the end, cannot be left to a small group of people. There needs to be established a greater connection between what goes on in these narrow leadership circles and the greater public. The public needs to be involved, so that there can be a more varied input before major decisions are made. It is necessary with a new awareness that all major decisions will affect society as a whole, and thus decisions must be made by considering all perspectives—and not just the short-term profit interests of a corporation, such as an oil company.

This will require a new mindset, whereby people are willing to sacrifice part of their free time in order to educate themselves to the point, where they do become real experts in a particular field. Yet they do not become pulled into the machine, they do not become insiders who look at the situation from the inside out. Instead, they stay clear of the machine, so that they can look at it from an outsider’s perspective but still with the expertise to know what is truly at stake when decisions are made. This, of course, is not something that will happen in the next week or the next year, but it is a goal that must be envisioned by greater and greater numbers of people, including the people in charge of both corporations and the government.

There must also be a popular demand to back up the government’s efforts to limit the size and power of corporations, so that the public interest or the national interest is not sacrificed on the bloodstained altar of profit. This has nothing to do with socialism or communism, as is often the counter argument by conservative circles in the United States. It has everything to do with the very fact that in the Aquarian age nothing will remain hidden.

We are entering an age now, where transparency will become the absolute necessity. In fact, any government organization, any government, any corporate structure that seeks to hide something from view will not be able to survive in the Aquarian age. And you will, in the coming decades, see how these large structures that are based on deception will begin to fall like dominoes. Survival of the fittest will not be the survival of those who are the most powerful or those who are the most deceptive, but those who are the most transparent and the most in alignment with the overall progression of humankind, the overall goal of raising the consciousness of humankind into the golden age consciousness.

In the golden age consciousness we are beyond the consciousness of duality that creates a force-based approach to every aspect of life. Those corporations who seek to hide, or who use raw power to maximize profit, are clearly doing so because they are trapped in the force-based mindset—as I recently said about the oil industry. They think they have to destroy the competition, to force nature, to force governments, to do everything by force in order to maximize their profits. This approach will no longer work in the Aquarian age. What will work is complete transparency, where one seeks to innovate, to be so in tune with the forward progression of humankind that one can be an open door for the release of new technology that will completely obliterate the force-based approach.

This, then, is the greater lesson that can be learned from this situation. If it is not learned – and from a realistic perspective, I suspect that it will not be learned from this incident – then many more incidents like this will occur, even to the point that entire industries will break down under the strain.

A final comment is that this incident also underscores what I said some time ago, namely that the United States needs to have an energy policy that clearly defines it as a national goal to overcome all dependency upon oil. Lifting a ban on offshore drilling in order to remove dependency upon FOREIGN oil is simply not a substitute for a deliberate policy to remove oil as a major source of energy.

There needs to be a complete shift in consciousness, which is then turned into a viable policy that seeks to stimulate innovation and seeks to remove any ability of big corporations to suppress technology that they see as a threat to their monopolistic positions. If this does not happen, then there will be more incidents that will demonstrate just how dangerous it is to rely on oil as the major source of energy. If the lesson is not learned the soft way, it will have to be learned the hard way, until it becomes obvious that oil is simply too risky to be relied upon by any nation or by the world as a whole. And when there truly is a willingness to rise to a higher approach to energy supply, the necessary technology will be brought forth.

Answer from ascended master Jesus through Kim Michaels (May 28, 2010).

Let me comment on the claim that this oil spill is God telling humankind not to drill. This attitude reveals another aspect of the consciousness of separation. As Saint Germain said, humankind has entered into a consciousness of seeing itself as separated from nature, but they also see themselves, of course, as separated from God—who is the angry, judgmental being up there in the sky. Or who is the all-powerful magician who will grant them personal favors, if only they pray in the right way or light candles or do other things. In other words, the view of God that is demonstrated by Ted Turner is the old-fashioned, completely obsolete view of God that dominated the Piscean age and previous ages.

God is not the remote being in the sky. There is no God sitting up there looking at everything that humankind does and trying to send messages through events that do not go the way human beings expect. If there was such a God up in the sky, then that would imply that this God would have the power to stop the oil spill—and that because he obviously did not stop the oil spill, then there must be some message that God wants to send by not stopping the oil spill. This is a completely obsolete view of God.

As Saint Germain said, the entire planet is a feedback machine. There is no God that says, “Humankind needs to learn this lesson, so now I will precipitate this oil spill so they can wake up.” This incident is simply the consequence of what humankind is projecting out. What you project into the mirror, the mirror reflects back in the form of physical incidents. This is true for the oil spill, this is true for the financial collapse, this is true for natural disasters, as we explain in Healing Mother earth. LINK.

It is not productive in the Aquarian age to maintain the image that there is some God – be it an angry, judgmental God or the all-powerful magician – sitting on a throne up here in heaven and responding to humankind either by punishing people or by rewarding them. What is necessary in the Aquarian age is a complete shift in mindset, where people realize that what they see outpictured as physical events is not something created by a remote God. It is simply the rather mechanical consequences of their own actions and state of consciousness. And therefore, they can now stop the mindless, ridiculous attempts to find a way to please or manipulate the remote God up there in the sky.

If you will take an honest look at most mainstream religions on this planet, you will see that they are still trapped in this state of consciousness, of seeking to find a way to please God by doing some kind of prayer or ritual or whatever you can imagine. So that God will supposedly grant you a favor, without you having to change your state of consciousness, without you having to look at the beam in your own eye.

Let me tell you with absolute certainty that when I said, 2,000 years ago, that people need to stop looking at the splinter in the eyes of their brothers and start looking at the beam in their own eyes, I was giving humankind a grace period of 2,000 years to adopt this state of consciousness. That grace period has run out with the inauguration of the Age of Aquarius. There is no more grace period. And that is why – if people will not look at their own state of consciousness, will not look at the beam in their own eyes – then neither I nor any other ascended being will continue to take on people’s karma, to prevent people’s consciousness from being outpictured in physical events.

There will be, from now on, a much more direct relationship between what people are not willing to look at and what will be outpictured in physical events. Therefore, people will be so overwhelmed by physical events that they will be forced to start looking at the beam in their own eye—unless of course people can be awakened in sufficient numbers and voluntarily begin to look at their state of consciousness, and how it is a certain state of consciousness that has precipitated any unbalanced condition found on this planet or in human society.

This is an absolute necessity. There is no more grace period, there is no more Jesus carrying the sins of humankind and therefore preventing many physical events from happening. It is absolutely necessary that humankind awakens to the reality that there is a direct connection between their state of consciousness and any physical condition found on this planet.

And this means that humankind must reconsider its attitude to God. The view that God is the remote being in the sky that will punish or reward you is completely outdated. It is necessary to adopt a new view that God is the internal God, who will manifest his kingdom on earth, yet God’s kingdom will be manifest only through those who become the open doors. So that God’s kingdom can be manifest through them, and not as the result of some external, all-mighty force in the sky. And for this to manifest it is, of course, necessary that a critical mass among humankind – and certainly the top 10% – will be awakened to the new reality of the connection between consciousness and the physical planet.

This is a shift in consciousness that is long overdue, and you will see that if the shift does not happen, then the feedback machine of planet earth will indeed turn up the intensity of both natural – so-called – and man-made disasters. This will happen in order to demonstrate to humankind that a new approach is needed, for the old approach is no longer working. Thinking you can continue the old approach to God in this new age of Aquarius – and at the same time expect to get different results in the form of a better world – is simply a form of collective insanity that will be undeniably challenged by physical events—both on a personal and a collective level.

 Copyright © 2010 by Kim Michaels

TOPICS: Both views in this debate are separated from reality – creating a mental image of what you want truth to be, then seeking to make reality fit – double standard in evaluating evidence – neither religion nor materialism can answer all questions about the origin of life – seeking to prove your current understanding right blocks you from finding a higher understanding – a dualistic debate cannot lead to progress – how the struggle for power perverted science and religion – Hegel’s dialectical struggle – the spiritual people need to see beyond this struggle – the people open to higher understanding need to take the debate to a higher level – Intelligent Design is a political theory – evolution is not a scientific theory – teach people about scientific observations, and let them make their own conclusions – the topic of the origin of life is beyond biology classes in public schools – take political questions out of biology –

Question: Master Jesus, Please, give a word of wisdom, needed today, concerning the origin of life on earth. There are two conflicting theories, which explain the origin of life, advocated by two different groups: Evolution and Creationism. Each group strongly defends his theory. Is Intelligent Design the answer to the origin of Life? 

Answer from ascended master Jesus through Kim Michaels.

As most spiritual people would expect, I consider the debate around Intelligent Design to be a very important debate—but not for the reasons most people would expect. I consider it important because it encapsulates everything that is holding modern society back and preventing it from taking a quantum leap into a new world view that will pave the way for the Golden Age. Thus, the debate gives people an excellent opportunity to see the fallacies of both of the two sides that are seeking to dominate the intellectual and spiritual life of western society. For anyone who is a spiritual seeker, and especially for people who are actively pursuing their Christhood, this debate is an excellent opportunity to sharpen one’s Christ discernment.

Contrary to what many people would expect, I am not looking for one side to win this debate. I am hoping that the more spiritually mature people will use this debate to see beyond BOTH of the world views that are pitted against each other in this fight for the minds of modern people. I am hoping that the most astute people will see that both world views spring from the same state of consciousness, the same approach to life. This approach is the dualistic approach that we discuss in the section on the psychology of anti-christ. Thus, both of the viewpoints spring from the deliberate attempt to keep people trapped in the dualistic game, as I explain in the following discussion.

The approach to life that I am talking about is that you start by deciding what you want “truth” or “reality” to be like. You then create a detailed mental image of “truth” and you seek to project it upon “reality.” You then look for evidence that supports your world view and you seek to refute evidence that contradicts or questions it. In evaluating evidence, you are not using the same standard toward supporting evidence as you use toward challenging evidence—yet you completely fail to see this double standard.

When you have found “enough” supporting evidence, you decide that your image is an absolute and infallible truth that is beyond questioning. Because you are taking a dualistic, relative approach and seek to define truth rather than finding truth, you inevitably create a mental image that contains many inconsistencies and fails to answer all questions. Yet the people who accept the mental image fail to see the inconsistencies in their own world view, and this happens mainly because they refuse to examine and question the basic assumptions – meaning assumptions that cannot be proven – of the mental image.

In the Intelligent Design debate, you can quickly find inconsistencies in the world views of both sides. You can see that neither side can answer all of the logical questions about the origin of life. Yet you also see that neither side is willing to seriously consider the inconsistencies in their own world view, even though they clearly see the problems with the world view of the opposite side. This shows you that both sides are taking a dualistic approach—they are only looking for the mote in their brother’s eye while refusing to see the beam in their own eye.

People who take the dualistic approach to life feel compelled to force their world view upon other people and society. The duality consciousness is fear-based, and in order to deal with your fears, you have to get other people to accept your world view. The dualistic frame of mind assumes that if everyone else agrees with your world view, then it will be proven correct. From a higher perspective, this is a complete fallacy for the earth was still round when everyone believed it to be flat. Yet when people are trapped in the duality consciousness, they cannot see this obvious truth. Thus, they blindly keep seeking to prove the superiority of their world view.

The problem is that when a debate becomes dominated by two sides, who both take the dualistic approach, truth is an immediate casualty. In the Intelligent Design debate, you will clearly see this at work. The scientific materialists have decided that every aspect of life can be – and MUST be – explained as the result of natural, materialistic processes and thus there is no need for an intelligent Creator. The Intelligent Design proponents are seeking to use scientific theories to reintroduce a religious world view into public life by reformulating it in a way they think will be palatable to modern people, or at least impossible to reject. Most of the people formulating the Intelligent Design theory– despite claims to the contrary – have a traditional, Christian world view. And most of the people seeking to push Intelligent Design into public policy also have this world view.

An objective evaluation will show that both sides have already decided what they want truth to be, and they are engaging in the debate with the sole purpose of defending or establishing the superiority and dominance of their world view. Thus, neither side is seriously seeking a higher understanding of the issue. Neither side is saying, “Let us debate this issue openly and objectively and see if, by putting our heads together, we can find a higher understanding about the origin of life.”

Do you see my point? There is a fundamental difference between deciding what truth should be like – and then seeking to find arguments that support what you want to believe – and engaging in a sincere quest to discover a higher understanding than you currently have. Both sides in the Intelligent Design debate have – from the very beginning – closed the door to the discovery of a higher understanding that could replace both world views, unite people and move society forward. Finding a higher understanding is not the focus of the debate—the only question is which one of the already defined world views will be the dominant one. This is a dysfunctional, dualistic debate that can never lead to real progress in society.

This is another characteristic of the dualistic mindset. People are not seeking a higher understanding – they are not seeking to bring society forward – they are seeking to hold on to or capture a static state in which their world view reigns as an infallible truth. For students of history, it should not be difficult to see that this debate is simply the latest battle in the war between science and religion, a conflict that has its origin in the way the Catholic Church treated the early scientists and their attempt to discover a higher understanding that was beyond Catholic doctrine.

It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was clearly taking the dualistic approach of defining church doctrine as an infallible truth that was beyond questioning. If the church said the earth was the center of the universe, then the earth was the center of the universe and if observations did not agree, then the observations had to be wrong. Thus, it is not difficult to see that in the early days of science we had a situation in which only one side was taking the dualistic approach. The scientists were driven by a sincere and honest quest for a higher understanding.

The highest possible outcome of this situation would have been that the Catholic Church had embraced the emergence of the scientific method as a valid way to find a more detailed understanding of the universe and that the scientists would have maintained an uncompromising allegiance to an open-ended quest for truth. Unfortunately, this potential was not realized and instead, as so often happens, it was the lowest potential outcome that became a reality.

The Catholic Church is not solely responsible for this. As soon as a scientific establishment emerged – and gained influence in society – it attracted (as always happens) people who wanted to use science not to find a higher understanding but to gain power. It was no longer exclusively a question of finding truth, and instead the goal of attaining political power gained more and more influence in science. Thus, a dualistic struggle between two opponents emerged, opponents that both sought absolute power in society.

The Intelligent Design debate is an interesting study in how this dualistic struggle swings from side to side. The Catholic Church had for centuries dominated the intellectual life of Europe. As always happens, any person or organization that attains absolute power becomes absolutely corrupted. With that I mean that it becomes more concerned about maintaining power than serving the people. Thus, instead of being a vehicle for positive change in society, it seeks to hold back progress in order to maintain its power. It becomes a restrictive force that takes away people’s freedom (even the freedom to think and speak) in order to maintain power.

I am sure most scientifically minded people – were they ever to read this – would clearly see this mechanism working in the Catholic Church. However, they would most likely be reluctant to admit that in today’s world, scientific materialism is close to occupying the same position of absolute power as that enjoyed by the medieval church. Thus, the scientific establishment is not only seeking to refute Intelligent Design but is actually seeking to silence any debate about the materialistic world view. A world view that for almost a century has been taught in many public schools as an absolute, infallible and unquestionable scientific fact.

As I said, this is a sure sign of a dualistic debate—that you seek to silence the debate that could lead to a higher understanding and thus lead society forward. You are willing to hold back the progression of society in order to defend your viewpoint—or rather your position of power. This demonstrates that the scientific establishment is now in much the same position as the medieval church, and it disproves the widespread belief that science is an altruistic endeavor solely dedicated to finding truth.

In reality, science is no more above the dualistic, human power struggle than is religion. As I said, when any belief system, individual or organization achieves absolute power, it becomes absolutely corrupted by that power. I am not thereby saying that all modern scientists have lost their altruistic quest for truth—as not all medieval Catholics had lost their altruistic motives. I am simply saying that when an idea becomes the established view, it inevitably attracts people who seek to maintain their established positions.

In reality, this is part of the dualistic struggle described by the philosopher Hegel. The medieval church formed the thesis and because it used its position of power to restrict freedom, it inevitably created an antithesis. This antithesis was NOT the early scientists but the emerging scientific establishment. The result was a new culture – the synthesis – in which scientific materialism has gradually attained dominance. Yet because it too restricts freedom of thought, it has created its own antithesis and the Intelligent Design movement is one expression of this.

The dialectical cycle of a dualistic thesis versus a dualistic antithesis leading to a dualistic synthesis can continue indefinitely. I am hoping that in today’s world the top ten percent of the people will come to see beyond it and will break the dialectical cycle by reestablishing an honest and sincere quest for truth. However, this can happen only when a sufficient number of people become dedicated to attaining the higher vision of the universal Christ mind, a vision that is beyond the dualistic extremes. And then these people must enter the debate and demand that all power struggles be exposed and replaced by a sincere quest for higher understanding.

I hope people can now see that I think neither of the sides in the Intelligent Design debate represent the highest truth and that there is a new understanding of the origin of life that is waiting to emerge. We of the ascended masters are ready to release this understanding as a sufficient number of people raise their consciousness so they become the open doors for receiving it.

So in response to the question above, Intelligent Design – in its current form – is not the answer to the question about the origin of life. To find this answer, you must be willing to look beyond both the Biblical and the materialistic explanation. You must look for the higher understanding that could not be given to humankind several thousand years ago but can be given today.

Kim: It almost sounds to me like you reject Intelligent Design as a concept, and that surprises me. I would assume that you agree with the basic premise of Intelligent Design, namely that there is an intelligent Creator. Many Intelligent Design proponents would say that they are not driven by a Biblical world view and that Intelligent Design is not seeking to spread a specific religious view.

Jesus: I have, so far, talked about the Intelligent Design debate, in which you find two sides. This is not a scientific or a religious debate, nor is it a neutral debate to find a higher understanding. It is a political debate, and as all political debates it has (at least) two sides who are locked in a struggle for power.

I am well aware that there are many sincere scientists and thinkers who are dealing with the issues around Intelligent Design based on altruistic motives. Some of these are genuinely seeking to advance humankind’s understanding of the origin of life. I am also aware that there are many sincere scientists who are currently in favor of materialism, yet they have a genuine desire for a higher understanding. I consider such people to be the potential driving force behind the emergence of the new understanding I mentioned earlier.

Yet it is not the sincere scientists who are the prime movers behind the current debate about Intelligent Design. The debate is driven by people in the scientific and religious establishments, and neither side has as its goal to find a higher understanding of the origin of life. The scientific establishment wants to maintain materialism as the unchallenged scientific world view. The religious establishment – specifically the so-called religious right – wants to bring Intelligent Design into as many areas of society as possible, starting with public schools.

So I am not ignoring that there are many people – on both sides – who are very sincere in their approach to the debate. Yet I have not specifically talked about these people and their viewpoints. I have given you my overall view of the debate and the driving forces behind the surface appearances.

As I said above, when the first scientists began to make discoveries that went beyond Catholic doctrines, they did not take a dualistic approach. They were on a genuine quest for higher understanding—and so are many of the people on both sides of the Intelligent Design debate. Yet so far these people have not truly taken charge of the debate. In fact, they have allowed the politically motivated people to use them in their dualistic struggle. The highest possible outcome of the debate is that the seekers of truth will see through this manipulation and take the debate to a higher level.

Kim: While we are talking political implications, what do you think about the argument that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory that is equal to the theory of evolution and thus should be taught in the biology classes in public schools as a competing – and equally valid – theory about the origin of life?

Jesus: This is a dualistic argument, and I do not support it. I agree with those who say that Intelligent Design, in its current form, is not a scientific theory. I also agree with those who say it is not a religious theory. It is a political theory and it has a political aim, namely to influence public policy regarding what is taught in school.

What needs to be added here is that the theory of evolution, in its current form, is NOT a scientific theory either. It is also a political theory. While Darwin himself had relatively pure intentions, his theory became popular only because the scientific establishment could use it in its dualistic struggle against the religious establishment. This was clearly a political objective, not a scientific one.

Why do I say this? Because the theory of evolution does not prove that an intelligent designer does not exist. It proves that certain Catholic doctrines and the fundamentalist Christian view of creation are incorrect. Yet from a strictly scientific viewpoint, the theory of evolution cannot explain all logical questions about the origin of life. Unless and until such questions are answered, one cannot objectively rule out that the theory could be expanded far beyond its original form. Thus, such an incomplete theory should not be used to make the sweeping generalization that there is no intelligent Creator and that all questions have a materialistic explanation. Such claims are not scientific but political in nature. And to truly find answers to the questions about life’s origins, it will be necessary to objectively consider the influence of consciousness, including – but not limited to – an intelligent Creator.

However, let us not here get lost in these arguments. The basic point I want to make in relation to your question is that Intelligent Design should not be taught in biology class in public schools and neither should the theory of evolution in its current form. Biology is a scientific topic and should not be influenced by political theories. It should teach what is revealed by scientific observations and let the students get answers to philosophical questions elsewhere. In other words, the topic of the origin of life is beyond the scope of biology classes in public schools—at least as science is currently defined.

The theory of evolution does explain certain mechanisms in nature that are based on observations. Such observations should be taught in biology class, but without the “political” overhead that says the theory of evolution gives infallible answers to the question of the origin of life. I am not saying these ideas should not be taught, but they should not be taught in biology. They could be taught in philosophy or religion classes, where Intelligent Design could also be taught.

One positive outcome of the Intelligent Design debate would be that the biology curriculum in public schools is stripped of any political overtones and teaches only what is based on strict observation without relating it to philosophical questions.

Let me reach back to what I said in the beginning, namely that I consider the debate about Intelligent Design to be very important. I am pleased that there is a debate because it creates the potential for progress. Yet currently the debate is so dominated by political power plays that there is a substantial risk that it will become just another chapter in the ongoing dualistic struggle rather than actually take society to a higher level. There is still the potential that a new understanding could emerge, but this will not happen unless the truly altruistic people manage to redirect the debate according to a higher vision and more pure motives.

 Copyright © 2008 by Kim Michaels

TOPICS: Transcending sexual orientation – wanting special recognition for being homosexual is same consciousness that leads to prejudice – you have to right to demand that people go against their beliefs – you have a right to seek to change people’s beliefs through understanding – debate is valid and necessary – masters encourage open debate about any topic – if people do not seek middle way, any debate goes into extremes and this serves no good purpose –

Question: Master Jesus, it’s Adam and I have several questions for you. If you could address them I would be grateful. I am homosexual – at least in this lifetime that has been my sexual orientation. I did not choose this orientation consciously – from my earliest age I have been attracted sexually to my own gender and it feels a true part of who I am, my sexual identity.  If you feel 10% of the human population (gay) need to change their sexual orientation then you must give us techniques to do so and please be more compassionate to us. We have been the object of prejudice and witch hunts for so long – Matthew Shepherd was crucified for being gay.
I must say when I read your teachings about homosexuality it brings to mind a fundamentalist – style preacher telling his audience about the “gay agenda” and how God will rain tornadoes and natural disasters on establishments that allow homosexuals to be open. We are children of God too and we need to feel we are loved by God and Jesus as well. Even if our love is out of balance – most of us are not evolved enough yet to access our other lives and the choices we may have made before our current incarnations. We are not on a conscious level trying to hurt anyone or defy God. We are just being what we feel is right for us. It’s all we know. Please respond. Thank you Jesus.

Answer from ascended master Jesus through Kim Michaels.

Let me address your points one at a time:

“If you feel 10% of the human population (gay) need to change their sexual orientation then you must give us techniques to do so and please be more compassionate to us.”

I don’t feel that homosexuals should change their sexual orientation. I feel they should transcend their sexual orientation, as should a large percentage of the people that you would label as heterosexuals. As I have stated in several places on this website, it is a natural part of the spiritual path that you rise above any human sexuality.

In another section, I have given numerous teachings on sexual energy and these are as applicable to homosexuals as to heterosexuals. Throughout this website, I give numerous teachings on how to walk the path of Christhood.

My compassion toward you is proportionate to your willingness to come up higher. Are you willing to meet me halfway, so that I can express compassion without running the risk of enabling you instead of empowering you?

We have been the object of prejudice and witch hunts for so long – Matthew Shepherd was crucified for being gay. I must say when I read your teachings about homosexuality it brings to mind a fundamentalist-style preacher telling his audience about the “gay agenda” and how God will rain tornadoes and natural disasters on establishments that allow homosexuals to be open.

If you think my remarks on this website sound like a fundamentalist preacher, how would you explain the fact that virtually every fundamentalist preacher on this planet would denounce this website as being heresy, blasphemy or the works of the devil?

“We are children of God too and we need to feel we are loved by God and Jesus as well. Even if our love is out of balance – most of us are not evolved enough yet to access our other lives and the choices we may have made before our current incarnations. We are not on a conscious level trying to hurt anyone or defy God. We are just being what we feel is right for us. It’s all we know. Please respond. Thank you Jesus.”

Yes, you are children of God and you are my brothers and sisters. I love you with the same unconditional love I feel for all of my brothers and sisters. Yet I must honestly tell you that there are many homosexuals who act as if they somehow deserve special treatment. They somehow want to receive special recognition. It almost seems as if they feel that their homosexuality entitles them to be treated as favorite sons and daughters. You might remember that the Bible states that God is no respecter of persons.

As I have clearly described elsewhere, I do not in any way support or encourage the prejudice or persecution directed at homosexuals for centuries. Yet neither do I support the current move by many homosexuals to overcompensate for this by wanting people to give them special treatment and recognize their homosexuality as normal or natural.

The essence of all prejudice and persecution is that the people who perpetrate this do not respect the free will of others. This has created a consciousness that envelops this planet as a black cloud, and it is based on the idea that the ends can justify the means.

I must honestly tell you that there are many homosexuals who are as guilty of engaging in this state of consciousness as those who persecute homosexuals. What I have said on this website is that I want all human beings to respect the free will of others. I have consistently stated that people should be allowed to practice homosexuality without being condemned or discriminated against by other people or society. Yet the other side of the coin is that homosexuals must be content to do so without demanding recognition from other people or recognition from society.

You should respect the fact that there are people on this planet who sincerely believe that homosexuality is unnatural. If they allow you to practice homosexuality without openly condemning you or persecuting you for doing so, then you have no right to ask any more of them. You simply do not have the right to ask them to abandon their beliefs and recognize your homosexuality as natural or as created by God, when this is contrary to what they believe.

If you demand such special treatment, you are violating the Law of Free Will, which is the basic law of this universe. As I said 2,000 years ago, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You have a right to expect that other people will respect your free will choices as long as those choices do not harm others. Yet you do not have a right to expect or demand that they should recognize your homosexuality as being natural of being created by God if this is against their personal beliefs.

You have a right to seek to change people’s beliefs by increasing their understanding about homosexuality. Over the past decades, there has indeed been much debate about homosexuality that has been perfectly valid. There was a legitimate need to debate this topic openly and to increase the general public’s tolerance toward and understanding of homosexuals. There was a legitimate need to make a decisive call for overcoming the persecution and prejudice against homosexuals. Obviously, this need is still there in many cultures.

Many of the homosexual people, and many of the other people who have engaged in the debate about homosexuality, have in fact been doing exactly what we of the ascended masters wanted to see happen. We are always seeking to increase humankind’s understanding and tolerance. Therefore, we encourage free and open debate about any topic, yet we always hope that such a debate will not be derailed by extremism on either side.

There is an essential difference between working toward increasing people’s understanding and tolerance and crossing the line whereby you begin to believe that anything goes and that unconditional love is the same as uncritical acceptance of anything. I have described this in greater detail in the discussion on the cause of homosexuality.

It is extremely important for those who have engaged in the debate concerning homosexuality that they seek to understand the fine line that I am describing. If they do not make this effort, it is inevitable that the debate will go too far into the extremes, as you already see in the United States and in other nations.

This ultimately will not help raise the consciousness of humankind, and it will not help the cause of homosexuals. It will only serve to polarize society into two factions that are working against each other instead of working on the true goal of raising the consciousness of humanity. This can easily degenerate into an all-out war in which the two factions seek to destroy each other. If you want further teachings on why this polarization is extremely dangerous, see my discourse of why Jews and Arabs hate each other and the dire consequences this has for the planet.

 Copyright © 2004 by Kim Michaels

TOPICS: In a polarized debate, no side has truth – One extreme: pro-choice – can you make a free choice without understanding the consequences? – Another extreme: pro-life – The balanced view of the Christ mind – life is an opportunity – many lifestreams waiting to come into embodiment – pregnancy is always a unique karmic opportunity for all involved – society must protect those who cannot protect themselves – in an ideal society a women would have the right to an abortion, but unwanted pregnancies would be extremely rare – in today’s society best for everyone if abortion illegal – national karma from abortion – the best interest of women is to make choices based on the highest understanding – problems created because people make choices that limit their future options – there is a way out of all human problems – best time to choose is before becoming pregnant – contraception is not a sin – your higher will and your conscious will – adoption is perfectly acceptable – the need to help women grow spiritually – abortion and overpopulation – growth in population is what overthrows the power elite – power elite seeks to limit size of population to what they can control – overpopulation is a myth designed to justify an unequal distribution of wealth –  the earth is designed to house 10 billion people who live in abundance –

Question from Kim: Jesus, I am reluctant to bring up abortion, because it is such a complex issue. Yet I feel that people on both sides of the abortion debate will misunderstand the remarks about free will given in your talk about the man who killed an abortion doctor. I think people from both sides will use your remarks to defend their viewpoints. So I feel the need to clarify your views on abortion.

Answer from ascended master Jesus through Kim Michaels.

I agree that abortion is a complex issue, and at some point I would like to give more detailed teachings about it. However, let me for now give a very concentrated teaching on abortion.

Let me begin by stating that the abortion debate is the perfect example of what I talked about in my remarks about the separation of church and state. When a debate becomes polarized towards two extremes, the first casualty is truth, the balanced perspective of Christ truth.

One extreme: pro-choice

The current abortion debate has been distorted by two extremist viewpoints. One is the belief system of scientific materialism which states that there is no God and therefore no higher authority. Consequently, it is up to human beings to define right and wrong. The fallacy of this viewpoint is, as I said in my remarks about the man who killed an abortion doctor, that God’s law is not altered by human beliefs and opinions. So when pro-choice people make the claim that a woman should have the right to decide what to do with her own body, they are both correct and incorrect at the same time.

I clearly understand and recognize that there are many people in the pro-choice movement who are acting out of a sincere desire to help pregnant women in distress. I also know that these people truly believe in their cause and believe it is a just cause. As I stated, the Law of Free Will is the fundamental law of this universe. The very purpose of life is to give people an opportunity to learn by exercising their free will. Therefore, one might reason that a woman has a right to terminate an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

The problem is that this viewpoint is often promoted by people who are followers of scientific materialism. Therefore, these people do not recognize the existence of God’s law and the fact that no person can escape the consequences of her actions. The central issue here is that unless you fully understand the potential consequences of a particular action, you will not be able to make a completely free choice in the matter.

In other words, unless a woman consciously understands the spiritual consequences of having an abortion, consequences that are not altered by her belief or disbelief in God’s law, she cannot make a truly free choice. Therefore, the simple fact is that the people who are encouraging women to have an abortion are actually encouraging these women to violate God’s law and thereby create spiritual consequences, or rather karma, that their lifestreams might take several lifetimes to repay. I firmly believe that if a woman truly understood the spiritual implications of abortion, she would most likely choose not to have an abortion.

Another extreme: pro-life

Now let us go to the other side of the debate, namely the pro-life people. Most pro-life people come from an orthodox or fundamentalist Christian background, and therefore their approach to the abortion debate is heavily influenced by Christian beliefs. Once again, I fully recognize that most of these people are sincere and truly believe in their cause.

Yet, as I am trying to explain throughout my website,  orthodox Christianity has moved away from my true teachings and my true intent. As I explained elsewhere, humankind has moved into a more rational state of consciousness. Unfortunately, most orthodox Christians have not embraced this rational state of consciousness. Therefore, they find themselves in the difficult position of having to defend Christian doctrines, doctrines that did not come from me but were made by human beings for political reasons.

Because modern Christians cannot give people a rational explanation for these doctrines, they are left to use the same means that orthodox Christian churches have been using for almost 2,000 years, namely an attempt to scare people with hellfire and damnation. In a rational age, this approach simply will not work.

In today’s rational age, it has become much more difficult to alter people’s behavior through fear. Instead, you must give them a rational understanding which makes them see what is in their own best interest. Because orthodox Christianity has not been willing to go back and correct the political errors made by early church fathers, they have no efficient way to explain their viewpoints to people in a rational age.

The balanced view of the Christ mind

Although there is much more to say about what is really going on behind the scenes of the abortion debate, I will, in the interest of brevity, focus on what has been lost in the struggle between these two extremist viewpoints. What has been lost is the balanced perspective of the Christ mind. This perspective is focused on the fact that life on planet earth is an opportunity for lifestreams to grow. To fully take advantage of this opportunity, a lifestream must inhabit a physical body.

When a woman becomes pregnant, that pregnancy represents a unique opportunity for a particular lifestream to enter the material world and work out its divine plan. There are currently a large number of lifestreams that are eagerly and earnestly waiting for the opportunity to inhabit a physical body on earth. Because of changing demographics, and in large part because of abortion, there are many lifestreams who have been denied their opportunity to enter this world. In many cases this has delayed and severely complicated the ideal growth path of these lifestreams.

So any pregnancy represents the best possible opportunity for one particular lifestream. When you fully understand the reality of karma and reincarnation, you realize that most lifestreams have, over many lifetimes, created a very intricate net of associations with other lifestreams. Before lifestreams can become permanently free of the earth plane, they must pay back their debts to any lifestreams they have harmed in previous lifetimes. The best way to accomplish this goal is to embody with these lifestreams in a family or group situation.

Therefore, a pregnancy not only represents an opportunity for the incoming lifestream, it also represents an opportunity for the parents of that lifestream. When a woman has an abortion, she not only aborts the spiritual opportunity of the child. She also aborts her own opportunity to balance karma with that lifestream. She aborts the opportunity of all of the lifestreams that her child might have met during its lifetime.

I am aware that most of the people who have gravitated to the extremist viewpoints on both sides of the abortion issue will vehemently reject what I have just stated. Yet I must once again say that God is not mocked. God’s laws are not altered by human beliefs or disbeliefs.

I can assure you that I council and comfort many lifestreams who die, look back at their lives and then clearly see the consequences of their choices. I can assure you that there are very few people who do not have regret for their mistakes and who would have done better if they had known better. I can assure you that there are very few women who do not regret having an abortion. In other words, if a pregnant woman truly understood the spiritual consequences of an abortion, most women would voluntarily choose to give birth to the child.

In that respect, let me make it clear that in many cases a woman can balance her karma with the incoming lifestream by giving the lifestream an opportunity to embody. It is not necessary that the woman raise the child as her own. Therefore, from a spiritual perspective, adoption is in many cases a perfectly acceptable alternative to abortion. It represents a win-win situation that gives an opportunity to all lifestreams involved.

Kim: So what about society. Should the U.S. continue to legalize abortion, or should it be illegal?

Jesus: When you truly understand that abortion takes away a lifestream’s opportunity for spiritual growth, in the same way that murder does, you clearly see that abortion is a violation of God’s law concerning free will. It prevents the incoming lifestream from exercising its free will in the same way that killing a human being does. Therefore, if a society makes it illegal to commit murder or suicide, how can that society make it legal to kill an unborn child?

It is a recognized fact that the lower aspects of human nature can cause people to commit selfish acts that violate the rights of other people. Therefore, it is recognized in all civilized nations that society must step in to protect those who cannot protect themselves. This most certainly applies to the unborn child who has no voice and therefore has no way to influence the decisions of the mother, decisions that profoundly affect the lifestream of the child.

Let me say that in an ideal society all people would have a clear understanding of the spiritual reality. Therefore, they would fully understand the consequences of an abortion. If a woman had a clear understanding of the spiritual consequences of an abortion, the Law of Free will would mandate that the woman should be allowed to have an abortion without reprisal from society. However, in an ideal society women would have a much greater understanding of their right to avoid sexual exploitation. They would have better tools for controlling their own sexual desires, and they would know how to protect themselves from an unplanned pregnancy. Therefore, in an enlightened society, unplanned and unwanted pregnancies should be a rare exception and not the common occurrence they are in today’s society. What I am saying here is that in an enlightened society the number of women wanting and abortion would be so small that the issue of whether to legalize abortion would be relatively insignificant.

However, even in an enlightened society, the Law of Free Will demands that the rights of the mother be balanced against the rights of the unborn child. Therefore, even an enlightened society might well choose to make abortion illegal.

In today’s unenlightened society, it would be in the best interest of everyone, including society itself, that abortion was made illegal. This would protect not only the rights of unborn children, but it would also protect women from creating consequences for their lifestreams that most women would choose to avoid if they truly understood what is at stake. It is commonly recognized that one of the purposes of enacting laws is to protect people from themselves and each other.

Furthermore, let me say that just as an individual can make karma, so can an entire nation. Currently, the United States and many other nations that allow abortions, have made severe national karma. Once again, people on both sides of the abortion debate will deny or ignore this fact. Yet, as I have now said many times, the law is the law and it is not changed by human opinions. It is truly possible for a nation to make such severe karma that it can affect the entire nation for generations to come. Thus, the sins of the fathers can truly come back to haunt the third and fourth generation.

Kim: What about the interests of the woman. I see many people who are engaged in the abortion debate out of a sincere desire to help women. How could these people best channel their energies so that they avoid working for an extremist viewpoint?

Jesus: With all thy getting, get understanding. The solution to any problem must begin with a higher understanding of the problem.

I would encourage these people to start by developing a deeper understanding of the spiritual side of life. I fully understand that many people are truly concerned about helping women who face an unplanned pregnancy. I also understand that at first glance these people might think that my suggestion is simplistic and ignores the very physical needs of pregnant women. Yet in reality my viewpoint is far from simplistic.

As I attempt to explain throughout this website, virtually all of the problems currently found on planet earth spring from the fact that human beings have descended into a dualistic state of consciousness in which they no longer understand their situation. Therefore, people continue to create problems; they compound error upon error, until it seems like there is no way out. When you look at current social problems, it is very understandable that people give up in despair, thinking that there is no solution. Yet I must tell you that although the sense of hopelessness is understandable, it is based on an illusion.

People have created their current problems because they do not have a clear understanding of the spiritual and material laws that God used to create the universe. Therefore, people are constantly violating those laws and creating problems that limit their freedom. The only way out of this impasse is that people gain a deeper understanding of the spiritual reality. If people would attain this understanding and begin to use God’s laws correctly, they could very quickly resolve, and I mean truly resolve, the vast majority of problems now found on this planet.

Let me make a very clear statement. There is a solution to every problem. The key to finding the solution is to realize that every problem is created by people who have descended into a dualistic state of consciousness. Therefore, the only way to find a solution is to reach beyond that state of consciousness. Only by reaching beyond the relative, dualistic, self-centered viewpoints of the lower mind, only by reaching for the middle way of the Christ consciousness, the balanced perspective of the Christ consciousness, the higher understanding of the Christ consciousness will people be able to find the spiritual solution to human problems.

Take note again that planet earth is a schoolroom for lifestreams. People have two ways to learn their lessons. They can align themselves with the truth and reality of God and thereby receive help from above. Or they can cut themselves off from this help and thereby assign themselves to the school of hard knocks. Currently, most people have rejected the enlightened perspective that God is ready to give them. Instead, people have chosen to learn by reaping the consequences of their actions.

What is happening right now is that people are violating God’s laws to such an extent that they are literally boxing themselves in. Unfortunately, humankind at large have not yet reached the point where they are willing to change the situation. They might not reach this turning point, they might not reach bottom, until they have created so many problems that they literally feel they can no longer move.

I am a spiritual teacher, and I am ever ready to help any human being who reaches for the enlightened perspective of the Christ mind. I do not want to see people paint themselves into a corner where they feel like there is no way out. I came to earth to show people that there is indeed a way out of the dualistic state of consciousness.

That way is a higher understanding, a higher state of consciousness, what I call the Christ consciousness. Every human being has the potential to discover and follow that way out by making inner contact with his or her Christ self. This is the path that I am attempting to describe on my website. By following that path, any human being can begin to identify with the Christ mind. Thereby people can gradually come to the point of union with the Christ self so that they can literally say, “I am the way the truth and the Life.”

When people attain this Christ consciousness, they will become the open doors that will bring spiritual solutions to the man-made problems that currently seem to have no solutions. So if people are truly concerned about the abortion debate, about helping women in distress, about solving social problems, political problems, economic problems or environmental problems, let them reach for the only possible solution. Let them reach for a higher understanding, a higher state of consciousness.

You cannot solve a problem with the same state of consciousness that created the problem.

Kim: You said that everyone has free will. How can a woman’s free will best be protected in relation to the abortion issue?

Jesus: As I said, the Law of Free Will cannot be separated from the Law of Cause and Effect. No intelligent person can deny the fact that everything you do has certain consequences. Only those who seek to manipulate others will attempt to create the illusion that it is possible to do something without reaping the consequences of your actions.

Therefore, every human being should know that when he or she engages in a certain action, there are potential consequences. If you do not want to experience a particular consequence, then you must take the necessary actions to avoid that consequence before it becomes a manifest reality. So what I am saying is that the best time to exercise free will is before a woman becomes pregnant.

Because we live in a rational age, it simply is not possible that a woman (in an industrialized nation) can fail to know that having sex can lead to pregnancy. Likewise, no woman should be unaware that there are ways to have sex without becoming pregnant. In other words, contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic Church, it is perfectly acceptable to God that a woman uses certain means whereby she can have sex without becoming pregnant. In other words, contraception is not a sin.

A woman then has numerous opportunities to exercise her free will. She can choose to educate herself about contraceptive methods. She can choose to employ contraceptive methods that will not have a negative impact on her body chemistry or hormonal balance. She can choose to realize that she has no obligation to be an object for the sexual exploitation of men, no matter what kind of pressure she might be exposed to. She can choose to realize that the challenge faced by human beings is to take control over their sexual desires instead of allowing body chemistry to run their lives. By exercising these options and making intelligent choices, most women should be able to avoid an unplanned and undesired pregnancy.

What I am saying here is that even though many lifestreams are waiting to come into embodiment, a woman has a right to employ measures to avoid becoming pregnant. If the woman employs such measures and still becomes pregnant, the woman should recognize that something bigger has overruled her conscious will.

In many cases, the inner knowledge of the lifestream can actually cause a woman to become pregnant without consciously wanting this to happen. The reason being that the woman knows, deep within inner memory, that she has chosen to give birth to a child at a certain time. At that point, an enlightened woman should resolve herself to the fact that she is pregnant and determine to give birth to the child.

Yet the woman has not exhausted her options. As stated earlier, it is perfectly acceptable that many women give up a child for adoption. This then gives all lifestreams involved, including the lifestreams of the adoptive parents who cannot bear children, the maximum opportunity for growth.

In that respect let me mention that when you fully understand karma and reincarnation, you realize that the choices you make in this lifetime can limit the choices you are able to make in a future lifetime. I can state with absolute certainty that when a woman chooses to have an abortion, she creates karma for herself that will limit her future choices. However, if a woman protects herself from unplanned pregnancy, becomes pregnant and then chooses to give the child up for adoption, she will not limit her future choices.

The reality of free will is that all of your choices have consequences, and some of those consequences will limit your options. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Your present choices can limit your ability to make choices in the future. If you do not recognize this, you are not truly exercising your free will. You are simply allowing yourself to be manipulated by temporary pressures, either from outer conditions or from unresolved aspects of your own psychology. The central challenge of life is to rise above both inner and outer limitations and thereby exercise your free will in an enlightened way that brings you where you truly want to go in life.

I fully realize that in today’s unenlightened society many young women do not understand that they have an alternative. They are completely boxed in by pressures created by the lower mind, either in themselves, in the people around them or in the larger culture in which they live. I am not discounting the need to go in and help such women improve their situation. I strongly encourage that various groups help such women in all ways possible. I am simply pointing out that by encouraging such women to have an abortion, you are not helping their lifestreams grow.

It would be far better to work to make it easier for women to avoid unplanned pregnancy and to choose adoption over abortion. I also encourage people to realize that the way to truly help such women is to help them attain a higher spiritual understanding which will empower them to permanently rise out of their present conditions. Do you give a starving person a fish or a fishing net?

Kim: What about the fear that without abortion the earth would quickly become overpopulated, and we would destroy the environment.

Jesus: I fully recognize that there are many people who have a sincere concern for the environment, which in reality springs from a love of the earth mother, even a love for the feminine aspect of God. Yet I must tell you that many of these people have been fooled into working for the cause of elitism.

Once again, this is a very complex issue and there is much more to say about it. However, the essence of the issue is that you cannot separate the concept of overpopulation from the fact that a small elite, for millennia, have attempted to gain control over the general population. Time and time again, the control of this power elite has been overthrown by the growth of the population beyond a certain limit.

This was clearly demonstrated in medieval Europe, when the noble class could no longer maintain its privileged position because the population had grown beyond the level that was sustainable with an uneven distribution of resources. In today’s world, you have a very similar situation in which the industrialized nations have taken the role of the medieval noble class and the less developed nations play the role of the lower classes.

Let me state clearly that overpopulation is a myth. It is an illusion created for the purpose of maintaining an elitist system that is based on an uneven distribution of God’s resources. God never encouraged the formation of such an elitist system. God envisioned a planet in which every human being would share in the abundant life. What has happened is that a small elite has amassed an immense amount of wealth by creating an artificial scarcity of wealth and resources.

When the seven Elohim designed planet earth, it was designed to comfortably sustain 10 billion people. With the current uneven distribution of resources, it is true that the planet could not sustain 10 billion people. Yet this is a product of man and not a product of God.

Therefore, the people who are concerned about the environment should seek to find a spiritual solution which would remove elitism and injustice from this planet. Thereby, the earth could be realigned to the original design, and it could comfortably sustain 10 billion lifestreams. This would then allow the planet to fulfill its intended role, its God-ordained role, as a platform for the evolution of lifestreams.

Once again, these are complex issues that cannot easily be explained in few words. Therefore, I am aware that my brief remarks might disturb some people. I encourage such people to ask further questions, and I will be happy to give a more detailed understanding. Once you have understanding, you will attain peace.

NOTE: See the following answer for advice on how women can deal with the psychological effects of having had an abortion. See the following answers to the questions about unplanned pregnancy and having children and free will.

 Copyright © 2004 by Kim Michaels

TOPICS: Spiritual evolution rarely goes backwards – animals have group soul – animals can progress to the human level – animals grow by serving humans – humans have a right to use services of animals – do not have right to abuse animals – dualistic consciousness causes all mistreatment of animals – seek to raise consciousness –

Question: According to reincarnation, is it possible to reincarnate as an animal, a bug, or something beside a human; so therefore, would it be possible to have once lived as one of the above and then reincarnate as a human? In light of this thinking, wouldn’t it be kinder to abstain from eating and/or wearing all animal and insect products, even milk, eggs, and cheeses, in other words to strictly become strict vegan in eating and lifestyle.

Answer from ascended master Jesus through Kim Michaels.

The purpose of life is to grow toward higher levels of awareness, higher levels of consciousness. Therefore, spiritual evolution generally does not go backward. So once a lifestream has attained to the human level, it rarely goes down to the animal level. I am not saying there are no exceptions to this, but I am saying that such exceptions are extremely rare. Therefore, the people who believe that humans regularly incarnate as animals are out of touch with reality.

If a lifestream was to go to a lower level of evolution and reincarnate as an animal, it would be because that lifestream had descended to that level of consciousness. In other words, there would be no difference between that lifestream and the lifestreams of other beings at that level. An animal does not have an individual soul. Animals have a group soul, and this is why you see a herd mentality in many animal species. So even if a human lifestream went backward and incarnated as an animal, that lifestream would not have the same type of individuality and consciousness as when it was at the human level. So it really doesn’t make sense to say that you could eat an animal with a human soul.

Planet earth was designed as a platform for the evolution of human lifestreams. Human lifestreams are at a higher level than animals. The lifestream of an animal can eventually progress to the human level. Nevertheless, animals are at a lower level of spiritual evolution than humans. Therefore, animals are subservient to humans and the key to their growth is to serve humans. One of the ways in which animals progress is in their interaction with humans, such as being domesticated animals or pets. Especially pets can progress by imitating the qualities and personalities of their owners. However, please do not misinterpret this to mean that I am saying people should have pets in order to help animals grow. This should be an individual decision.

What I am saying here is that human beings do have a right to make responsible use of the service that can be offered by animals. This service includes using animals for food. In other words, from a spiritual standpoint it is acceptable that people kill animals in order to survive.

However, there is a very fine line to be found in the treatment of animals, and people will be held accountable for mistreating animals. You currently see horrendous misuses of animals by human beings. The cause is that human beings have become trapped in the lower state of consciousness, the dualistic mind. That same state of consciousness also causes human beings to commit horrendous atrocities against other human beings.

Please understand that I am not trying to downplay the need to treat animals according to a Christ standard. I am not trying to downplay the efforts of the many truly spiritual and concerned people who are working for the protection of the environment and for improvements in the treatment of animals. However, I encourage such people to realize that the cause of all inhumane treatment of animals is the dualistic state of consciousness. Therefore, the only real solution to the problem is to raise the consciousness of humankind as a whole.

The best way to do that is to encourage those who are more spiritually advanced to attain Christ consciousness on an individual level. You will remember my statement that if I be lifted up I would draw all people unto me. The reality behind that statement is that all people are connected in consciousness. So if you raise the consciousness of one human being, you will raise the consciousness of humanity as a whole.

What I am saying here is that if you are concerned about improving the treatment of animals, the best thing you could possibly do is to make an all-out effort to attain Christ consciousness and to encourage other people to enter the true inner path that leads to Christ consciousness. This will improve the treatment of animals and human beings more than any other single factor.

I am not hereby saying that people should not work for improving the treatment of animals through various means, including raising public awareness of this problem. What I am saying is that you should heed the words in the statement to seek first the kingdom of God and all else will be added unto you. Make it your foremost priority to seek the Christ consciousness, and you will become much more effective in your work for improving the treatment of animals.

Concerning a vegetarian of vegan lifestyle, I have commented on this elsewhere.

Copyright © 2003 by Kim Michaels