Chapter 1

Welcome back, Will. It has been months since we last spoke. Much has happened in your life, and in your world.

Yeah, still a lot of fighting. People are hoping and praying for world peace. The United States is in a war against terrorism, and who knows when it will end?

God only knows.

Really? Then tell me.

You tell me. I did say that ‘God’ only knows, and—

And I am God.
Okay, the war will end whenever we decide it will end. Whenever we come to our ‘senses’, and decide to open our collective heart and ‘feel’ for all people, equally. In that case nobody will ever desire to cause another person any pain.

This all-feeling, all-loving entity is what you truly are.

Because we all are God.

And, is God, the real ‘u’, prevalent in your world?

The real ‘us’, which is God, is not prevalent in our world. If he were, then there would be no need to write these books. After all, the reason I am writing these books is to set things ‘right’.

Oh, I love that phrase ‘after all…’
You do know, of course, that you say those words because you subconsciously remember that your goal is to have an ‘after all’. The true purpose is to obtain the ‘all’ state of total togetherness, then you can have what comes after all.
I will repeat, as I have many times in these books: In ultimate reality, all of my creations are one entity. Every part of this one entity desires to join with all the ‘others’, physically, so that you can balance the separation done in the past. This is the goal of you all, but many of you continually forget this. This state of ‘one-ness’ is the ‘God’ state, or the ‘heaven’ state, or ‘Eden’, or the ‘all’ state.
As Jesus stated when asked what the first great commandment is: ‘The Lord, our God, is one, Lord’.
And you are correct in saying that if your planet was on the ‘right’ track, then these conversations would not be necessary. You would then not ask if the real ‘u’ is in the world. You would then know that indeed the real ‘u’ is in the world. You would then ‘know’ everything, not just ‘hope’, or ‘pray’, or even ‘believe’ it will happen. You would ‘know’ that peace will be achieved, because as ‘God’ you know what will occur, thus make it occur (this is why you say God is ‘all-knowing’). You will be ‘all’-‘knowing’, thus ‘knowing’ that the ‘all’ state will be achieved.
So, if you need to ask ‘r’ ‘u’ ‘in’ the world?…

It is a sure sign that we are on course to ‘r-u-in’ (ruin) the world. We are on track to ruin the grand design, by making it more imbalanced, as well as bring our planet to ‘ruins’, due to our constant fighting.

Very good. It should be clear by now that force against an enemy merely brings about more violence and hatred, but apparently to your leaders it is not. They are so immersed in the ‘darkness’ of the sinful ways of the past that what is even so clear cannot be ‘seen’.

But wait, you said that force only brings about more violence. This implies that such force will never bring about an end to the fighting. But what about instances like World War II, when we dropped a bomb on Japan which effectively ended the fighting? That was force against an enemy that ended the violence.

Really? Then what do you call over 100,000 dead Japanese citizens?

Uh…..

Uh tragedy, that’s what. How can you be so callous towards the loss of human life that you ignore all those innocent civilians who were killed? How can you value the life of your own people so much more than another country’s people, that you can say the loss of barely 2000 military lives in Pearl Harbor is a tragedy, but the loss of over 100,000 civilian lives of the Japanese is a success? Only the United States government can think in such a manner.
The bombs dropped on Japan were disasters many times greater than even the World Trade Center attacks, but do any of you actually view it that way? No. They were the largest acts of terrorism ever done, but do any of you actually view it that way? No. It is not even called ‘terrorism’, merely because it was the U.S. government that did it. Even in your current war in Afghanistan your country’s government has killed more innocent people than the original terrorists did, thus making your actions just as tragic and heinous as theirs, but do any of you actually view it that way? No. You call these ‘successes’, when they are really disasters--by your own definition, because they have killed many more people than any ‘disaster’ you can think of. No, the bombs dropped on Japan did not end the violence, it was the violence that multiplied due to the force against an enemy.

My God, you’re right. It’s a case of trying to end violence with violence, thus ending up creating exactly that which you are out to end. The problem is that we do not value all human life equally, thus see the enemy’s death as a success, rather than a tragedy.

This concept is directly tied to your current situation, where you are trying to ‘defend’ freedom by taking away freedom, thus creating the same thing you are out to end, even if you ‘succeed’ in it.

We’re taking away freedom by fighting the terrorists?

Of course. Freedom is something that is given, not ‘defended’. It cannot be defended, because by definition any time you ‘defend’ against someone, then you are taking away that person’s freedom.

We’re taking away their freedom to terrorize?

Yes.

Okay, okay. That sounds nuts. Yes, true freedom is being able to do whatever you wish to, without fear of retaliation. Thus, you cannot simultaneously have freedom and enforced ‘laws’. This we have discussed. But what about the U.S. citizens’ freedom to be able to live our lives without fear of being blown apart by a bomb or a runaway plane? Isn’t freedom being able to live in such peace of mind?

Come on now, Will. Do you really believe that such a thing is possible? No matter how much your country tries to ‘defend’ against terrorism, it is still possible for you to be killed by a terrorist act. It is impossible to guarantee freedom from such attacks, unless you kill the entire country you are at war with. Even then, you’d have to worry about terrorism from other countries. And if you killed every person in every other country, then you’d have to worry about terrorism within your country.
You can never free someone from the possibility of being attacked in such a manner, just like how you can never free someone from the possibility of being robbed, raped, or murdered. All the laws, and all the law enforcement methods you have devised, all of the tax money you have spent, and there is still a robbery in your country every 2 minutes. There is still a rape in your country every 5 minutes. There is still a murder in your country every 33 minutes. And these are just the reported crimes. When will you see that the way to end the crime and terrorism is to stop the reasons the perpetrator is doing it, not merely threatening him with punishment if he is caught?

That we’ve discussed as well. People who commit such acts as crimes and terrorism are usually in the frame of mind where they don’t care about possible punishment, because they already feel like they are in a worse situation. Threats of punishment, even the death penalty, will not work. Threats of punishment will actually make them more likely to do the crimes, because they then feel even more ‘forced’ into their situation, and will react to it. Even experiencing the punishment itself will not help deter future crime—the fact that most ex convicts go on to commit future crimes illustrates this. It’s to the point where the prisons are becoming so crowded that its reaching catastrophic proportions. If we really wish to end crime, we need to see why they commit the crimes, and help them so that they will not commit such crimes in the future. Love and compassion are the answers, not judgment and retribution. This was stated by Jesus when he said to ‘love thy enemies’, and is obviously the right way, yet our country insists on making more and more laws, with stricter and stricter punishments, and creating more crime. The more you threaten such people, the more they will react with violence. That’s why, even with such strict and plentiful laws, the U.S. still has the most violent crime.

Not only does your government take away people’s freedom by forbidding them from doing certain acts that they call ‘crimes’ (as displayed by your multitude of laws), but they also take away the freedom of the victims of those crimes, by making them less free from such crimes with their enforced laws. This is easily shown by the high crime rates in your country. The intent is to make people free from such crimes, but it is obvious that in your current structure that the population in not even close to being free from becoming a victim. And the goal of true freedom is even further away, because in true freedom there are no ‘enforced laws’.
How such a nation can call itself a ‘free’ nation is amazing. How such a nation can call itself a ‘success’ is even more amazing.

Basically, the United States government is a big bully, using its superior power to force its will upon others. It does this to citizens within the country, as well as to other countries, who have less military force.

As is always the case when a planet divides into separate entities, one of the entities has declared itself the ‘ruler’ of the others, being in the division (sinful) state of mind. This way of thought is always accompanied by the concept of ‘better’, as, obviously, the country with the most power will think itself better than all the rest. Your country even forbids other smaller countries from acquiring advanced weapons, such as nuclear bombs, calling such things evil, when they themselves own a multitude of such weapons.
The two general characteristics of a bully are that the bully picks on those that are not as powerful, and the bully does all it can to not allow those others to become as powerful. These are the two characteristics that define your country’s actions perfectly.

Yeah, but we can’t just let third world countries have nuclear weapons, who knows what they might do with them? They may use their existence irresponsibly, to threaten other countries, or actually drop the bombs on an enemy, killing so many people.

Oh, so only the United States can have such weapons, because only it can use them responsibly, right?

Well, yeah.

Oh, the irony—that the nation that considers itself the only one that can responsibly handle nuclear weapons is the only one that has actually used them irresponsibly in the past. They are afraid that other countries will drop the bombs on enemies, and use the power to force their will upon them, but in actuality the United States is the only country that has done exactly that.

Just like we said in the last book…‘authority figure’ and ‘hypocrite’ are practically synonyms. The U.S. is seeing itself as the ‘authority figure’ of the planet, and is being hypocritical, as nearly every such figure is and always has been.

Even more incredibly, you have the nerve to say that God wants your country to commit such violence against other countries, that God is ‘on your side’, and that God hates the others who commit violence against you, even though they are the ones who truly believe that they are attempting to please God by their actions. Why would I hate someone who commits mass murder in order to appease me, yet love someone who commits mass murder out of pure vengeance? It makes no sense, and yet the United States’ government (and citizens as well) keep on thinking that any act done by your military is ‘right’, and is looked upon favorably by God, no matter how many innocents die, or no mater what the reasons for it.

All right, you’ve made your point. Our government should not use force against the terrorists. I ask you, though—what should they do in response to the terrorists’ actions?

Do the words ; ‘Love thy enemy’ ring a bell?

We should forgive the terrorists. We should love the terrorists. Then they’d just go ahead and keep killing us. Hey, maybe they’ll kill everyone in our country; let’s just keep forgiving them, and loving them for it!! Religious ideas and political actions just do not mix…there’s a reason why we don’t mix the church and state. Can’t you see how stupid that sounds to us?

Can’t you see how stupid it is to claim not to mix church and state, yet to quote the bible only when it fits your particular agenda? Your leaders have no problem saying ‘An eye for an eye’; they say it all the time, when responding to those who kill. They have no problem mixing those religious ideas of vengeance and punishment with their leadership, but when anyone quotes the bible regarding forgiveness and love, then they suddenly change their tune, and say how the bible cannot be taken literally, and how one cannot mix church and state. They continue to follow the ways of vengeance, even when after all this time it’s obvious that those ways are ineffective.

OK, so we should let the terrorists keep killing us. We should do nothing to stop them, even though we have the power to do so.

Did Jesus not allow his enemies to kill him? Did he not have the power to stop them?

Well, yeah…

Remember, faith and love are, in reality, one and the same. And remember also that love, in the true sense, is not limited. Therefore, faith that is limited is not true faith—so if some entity (be it one person or an entire country) is not willing to go all the way with their faith, including dying for it, then that entity is not truly faithful. Being willing to die for one’s faith, especially out of love and forgiveness for the ‘enemy’ can be considered the greatest show of faith there is. Most of you have no problem admitting this, and yet how many of the ‘faithful’ among you would be willing to actually do it? How many of you are all talk and no action? Then you turn around and say that it is the terrorists who are lacking true faith, when it is they who do believe enough to be ready to die for their faith.

Well yeah, but we say that because their religion requires them to kill innocent people in God’s name.

And I tell you this—nearly every organized religion in your world has made such requirements. The very basis of Christianity states that people had to kill Jesus in order to obtain the grace of God.

But another thing puzzles me. By using force against potential criminals, the government makes more force, by making more crime. By using force against terrorists, the government makes more violence, by guaranteeing future terrorism. But, you always said that one opposite in its extreme leads to the other opposite. It would follow that ‘violence’ in the extreme would lead to ‘peace’, and that ‘hatred’ would lead to ‘love’, right? Now you’re saying that violence and force just leads to more violence and force.

Violence leads to peace, only if you learn from each violent act what you have done ‘not right’. Just like any learning, you go in circles, only your country is never learning from each ‘war’, thus you always have more war. You should have learned long ago that the solution is to join into one country, and to be rid of all governing bodies.
Also, your hatred can be a good thing as well, since it is a ‘feeling’, and to ‘feel’ is the beginning of the journey towards love. Hatred is closer to love than indifference is. Again, the key is to learn from your hatred that the ‘right’ thing to do is love—that is, love all people as you do your wife, and children, and even yourself.
The fact is that, as a whole, your country has opened its collective ‘heart’, but not its collective ‘mind’ in the ‘body’ of people within it. This is like possessing an eye, but keeping it shut—you still will not be able to see the light. As is always the case when one is ‘closing’ their mind or heart, the ‘body’ of people in the United States is literally ‘c’-ing ‘losing’. It is ‘c’-ing itself ‘losing’ the battle against sinful separation. It continues to ‘feel’, due to the opened ‘heart’, but remains closed-minded, and this leads to a ‘feeling’ (hatred), that never turns to love, since it is changed by the blockage of learned ideas in the ‘mind’. Thus, they ‘mind’ when crime or terrorism is committed, and react against it with ways of the past (punishment) stored in the ‘mind’. Open your mind, and you will never ‘mind’ what others do, and you will forgive, as God has forgiven you. Open your mind to other possibilities, to logic, and to the ‘right’ ways, which are always the ones involving love and compassion and forgiving towards others. Begin a new ‘mind’ of the ‘body’ of people in your land—one that remembers its true self, and acts accordingly, for you all have forgotten your true self, and your true ways.
Re-mind yourselves.

We need to get rid of the waste that has been stored up in the ‘body’ of people on earth. This is the ‘crap’ that we have accumulated, through the ‘not right ‘ways of the past, that our ‘body’ does not need to ‘grow’ into the image of our father, God. The biggest ‘crap’ is the idea of capitalism. We need to get rid of this idea, in the U.S., and if you remove the ‘capital’-ism from ‘U.S.’, you get ‘us’. You then get the ‘us’ state, the state of togetherness, also called the ‘all’ state. You get an ‘us’, joined together, or ‘an-us’, which is necessary to be rid of the ‘crap’, just like how an ‘anus’ gets rid of crap in our bodies.

That which is ‘anal’ is also an-all….an ‘all’ state of one-ness.
To be becoming this ‘us’ is your purpose. It is your use. To be ‘us’-ing is to literally be us-ing yourself in your intended way. Hence, the term ‘using’ to describe utilizing something in its intended way.

God, can we get off of the government topic for a while? Everything you say is undeniably correct, but we’ve spent so much time criticizing the government that people may think I am only out to kill the president or something. You’ve made your point. After reading these books nobody with any kind of open mind will believe that any government, especially our current one in the U.S., is the right way to go. Let’s change the topic a bit.
This concept of all opposites existing on a circular basis appears to be so ridiculous, but if you think about it, then any set of opposites you can think of can be represented by a cycle, of one leading to the other. Pain and pleasure are really the same ‘feeling’, and it is up to us whether the experience is ‘painful’ or ‘pleasurable’. We moan when we are experiencing pain, and also when we experience ‘pleasure’, such as when we…well, you know.

I do, but unfortunately you are not so familiar with such ‘pleasurable moaning’.

Are, you kidding, I’ve gotten laid at least twice in the past decade!.
Seriously, though, you want people to have sex, right? Togetherness is our goal, and sex is a form of togetherness, so we should do it with as many partners as possible. It makes sense, yet everyone sees sex as sinful and dirty.

Because they listen to that others tell them, and not to their own logic. They continue to follow the morals and ways of the past, though those morals and ways are not wise in the least. It is obvious that there is nothing ‘dirty’ about sex, as it cannot be described as anything but a pleasure-giving experience between two people. An act of love. People say that giving in to the sexual urge is disrespectful to your body, but you have to ask yourself; why is giving  joy to something a way of being disrespectful to it? Even more so, why is it wrong to allow others to experience joy from your body? This idea that sex is ‘bad’ has been taken so far that people categorize it with violence in movies and such, although there is no logical reason to do so. Criminals who are called ‘sex offenders’ are grouped with those who assault and even murder, although they are trying to join, rather than trying to hurt.

Sex offenders do hurt, though. Maybe not physically, but they emotionally damage those that they rape or molest.

Indeed, but that is not the reason that these individuals are punished. After all, emotional damage is also caused many times when someone ‘breaks up with’ another, or ‘turns down’ another—yet, the ones who perform these actions are not punished. This, of course, is because a sinful planet, such as yours is, will tend to see acts of togetherness as ‘bad’ and acts of separation as ‘okay’, even if both cause the same negative results.
It is obvious that your views of sex are irrational. It is also obvious that your current practice of ‘loving’ one member of the opposite sex at a time does not work, just as it is obvious that your ‘law enforcement’ methods do not work. People base entire relationships on ‘feelings’ of attraction that they call ‘love’, and expect those relationships to last a lifetime, even while admitting that such feelings come and go all the time. It is obvious that real love is not the effect of a feeling, but what causes the feelings. This explains why pre-arranged marriages are more successful and last longer than marriages based on ‘feelings’. And they end in divorce far less often than marriages based on ‘feelings’.

As we discussed extensively in the last book, even sex with ‘minors’ is looked upon favorably by God.

Of course. The law tries to forbid adults from having sex with people under 18 years of age, and the only reason the law does this is because they, too, are caught up in the ridiculous concept that sex is ‘dirty’, and even harmful to those under a certain age. Again, this whole concept derives from the fact that your world, trapped in the state of sin, tends to frown upon any form of togetherness. The moral majority will believe that sex under almost any circumstance is ‘inappropriate’, due to their sinful ways of thinking.
So the lawmakers, fitting into the moral majority, say that sex with someone under a certain age is ‘wrong’...it is wrong, even though it is merely an expression of love between two willing partners. They say that someone younger than that is not an ‘adult’ yet—this, despite the fact that many teenagers are admittedly more mature than older people, and the fact that all of you reach sexual maturity well before 18 years old. In fact, 18 is past the sexual peak of most women. It is in the years before then that they are best suited to engage in sex, as well as to produce children.

What??!! You’re telling me that teenage girls are the ones who should be having sex with adults, and making babies?!

Quick question: How old was Mary when I decided that she would bear and give birth to Jesus?

Like 25 or so?

Try 13.
So the law, as well as society in general, is saying that women of that age should not have children, when God himself chose one of that age to have not just any child, but the most significant religious figure who ever lived. It’s a good thing you have them to correct me with regards to at what age women are mature enough to be called an ‘adult’, and thus able to reproduce!

O.k., let’s not get sarcastic here. I hate sarcasm. ;-)
So, sex with more than one partner at a time is preferable. Sex with younger women is preferable. Love that causes feelings is preferable. All of these would lead to closer and longer lasting unions, as well as more unions, which can’t be a bad thing.

All of this should be quite clear to everyone, but you all do not see what is clear, because you instead blindly do as others do, trying to ‘fit in’ with them. Doing things ‘blindly’ can never lead to seeing what is clear, nor to ‘seeing the light’ of true Godliness on the earth. Doing things ‘blindly’ does just that—makes you ‘blind’. You do ‘likewise’, in such circumstances, because you see things backwards.
Do not be ‘like-wise’, be ‘wise-like’. Be wise, like God, who is your true self.
Think, and think for yourself, and if you all do it you will be creating a most thought-full world. You will be creating a society where people are kind and caring to one another, even to strangers, and ‘criminals’.
Do not continue to follow nonsense, but use reason. Reason is your ‘reason’ for being there. Just look at your very language.
The purpose of the first two books was to get people to see how the old ways make no sense. The old ways make no sense, logically, and thus fail to create ‘sense’—that is ‘feelings’ for all other people, and as a result fail to create love in your world. It is sense-less to continue with the old ways. This book will try to get people on the track of thinking for themselves, not merely following others.

The world is trapped by its own chosen forgetfulness, and is unable to clearly see things. We are lost in the sinful ‘darkness’ that blinds us to our true purpose. These books are called ‘The Truth’ series, and it is these books that will set them ‘free’ from their sinful forgetfulness. ‘The Truth’ shall set them free.

As well as set them ‘free’, by teaching them the real meaning of ‘freedom’, not the false one that your government preaches, and that your churches say that God practices. Their versions of ‘freedom’ state that you are free to do whatever you wish, but if your actions do not agree with what the government, or what their religion defines as ‘lawful’ or ‘non sinful’, then you are to be judged and condemned. This is not true freedom. True freedom involves no judging and certainly no condemning. There is nothing right now that can teach them of this freedom.

Nothing but ‘The Truth’.