ye are gods

Read why in THE SECOND COMING OF HUMANITY! Now in Print and Kindle Editions.

Doomsday? Armageddon? The End of the World?

5.0 out of 5 stars December 21, 2012. Doomsday? Armageddon? The End of the World? Or ... the Dawn of Humanity's Enlightenment?, May 17, 2011
By
Marvin D. Wilson (Ann Arbor, Michigan) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Waking God Book III: The Second Coming of Humanity (Kindle Edition)

The last book in an epic trilogy, with a heavenly-high bar already established by books one and two, "Waking God Book III: The Second Coming of Humanity" does not disappoint--in fact, it yanks the bar off its stanchions and hurls it into the stratosphere. Eternal arch-enemies, Mantrella (aka `Lucifer,' `The Morning Star,' and `Christ,'--yes, you read that last one correctly) and Michael come angelically and mightily head-to-head and wing-to-wing in the battle for the future of earth and the fate of the human beings that inhabit it. In this gripping and status-quo-challenging trilogy, Lucifer is not your enemy, and angels are not your friends.

"Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods?"

That quote of Jesus, taken from the New Testament, is repeated thematically throughout "The Second Coming." Because, and this is where `traditional' `Christians' and the organized church will shout, "Heresy!" and, "Burn the authors at the stake!"--Adam, who was `put into a deep sleep,' is about to awaken. The `dream,' all that we know--the Buddhists call it "Samsara"--the illusion of our reality, created by us all with our thoughts as part of Adam's dream, is about to come to an end. If Adam awakes, humanity is reunited with the godhead and, returns to its birthright--as gods, higher than the angels.

Michael doesn't like that idea. One bit. He uses all his power, magic, and influence to stop it. Mantrella is using all his power, magic and influence, to thwart Michael and facilitate the rise to godhood that is humanity's birthright. He knows the complete DNA--including the `god' seed--can be `reborn' in a divine child if he can successfully have main characters, Andrew and Mara, mate ... they both carrying each other's latent half of the necessary seed that activates upon conception. If that happens, "The Fall" of mankind is reversed, man is returned to the Garden, and Adam awakens as the whole god-being you and I and He, were originally created to be by the I Am That I Am.

A supernatural, spiritual/inspirational suspense thriller, "The Second Coming of Humanity" is loaded with twists and turns, highly developed and multi-faceted, fantastic characters from all levels being and non-being, and has an ending that ... no, I can't spoil it for you. You must find out, understand, and manifest the ending, for yourself.

Authors Phil Harris and Brian Doe spin this tale with crisp, compelling, no frills and gutsy prose, along with poetic and deep passages that transport you to other-worldly realms--then smacks you right back dab in the middle of `reality'--or is it? In the end, it is up to you, to us, to awaken and create our own reality. The book gets to you. It pervades and inundates you. And it makes you, as you compulsively turn each of the final pages, wonder ... just who you--and we--really are, for god's sake?

- Marvin D Wilson, author of "Beware the Devil's Hug," "Owen Fiddler," and "I Romanced the Stone (Memoirs of a Recovering Hippie)"

THE SECOND COMING OF HUMANITY

The Second Coming of Humanity is Book III of the WAKING GOD TRILOGY; Book I is titled The Journey Begins and Book II, The Sacred Rota. The series has been called "epic in scope," and New York Times bestselling author Piers Anthony says, "It will make you think." Focusing on 'worn out religious dogma' as one of the leading causes of human strife, the Trilogy turns the mythical world of good vs. evil on its head. Mantrella, a.k.a. Lucifer, is the champion of humanity, while the Archangel Michael fights to suppress human evolution by preventing the physical birth of the biblical Adam. Mantrella's basic view is summed up when he says, "It is not about saving humanity, it never has been." Human destiny is placed squarely on the shoulders of where it belongs: choice; our thoughts create our reality.

The Second Coming picks up after the 'end of the world' in 2012. It shows how humanity has brought itself to the precipice where it must decide whether it survives or becomes a part of the current '6th great extinction.' Further evidence and guidance of the ancient Tarot Code is revealed as the characters find themselves on their final journey to Jerusalem. Eli knows that the Battle of Armageddon has already begun, but not the one religion portrays as the End Times. Yet the trip must be made in order for the pieces of the Apocalypse to be revealed. Can Michael stop the physical birth of Adam? Do the forces of good and evil battle it out for humanity's soul? Is Lucifer really the 'great deceiver' or is he humanity's guardian? Who can truly save humanity, if indeed it needs saving? In The Second Coming of Humanity all that is hidden is revealed between the lines and beyond the words. Will the 'dreamer' awaken? You must decide! In these times of economic, political, social and religious upheaval, the TRILOGY is required reading, now more than ever!

SAM HARRIS-YOU'RE WRONG!

There is no such thing as objective science. If physics has taught us anything, it is that the observer and the observed are one. The idea that science can find an objective morality is, by its very nature, an oxymoron. Science is based upon "knowledge,knowledge requires a learner and a learner cannot be objective. Sam Harris would like us to believe that science can lead us to the promise land of well-being. That, while religion and all of its worn out dogma has failed to do so, a new religion of science will show us how to create a land of milk and honey. While I agree with his assessment of religion, his solution is just as inappropriate. In a response to his critics, Sam Harris tried to clarify his position. What follows are parts of his response as posted on his site and my comments are in bold.

Last month, I had the privilege of speaking at the 2010 TED conference for exactly 18 minutes. I was not suggesting that science can give us an evolutionary or neurobiological account of what people do in the name of “morality.” Nor was I merely saying that science can help us get what we want out of life. Both of these would have been quite banal claims to make (unless one happens to doubt the truth of evolution or the mind’s dependency on the brain). Rather I was suggesting that science can, in principle, help us understand what we should do and should want—and, perforce, what other people should do and want in order to live the best lives possible. There is an obvious bias in the preceding statements. The notion that science can tell people what they ‘should’ do or should not do indicates simply another form of dogma that has been found not to work by religions. My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind. As the response to my TED talk indicates, it is taboo for a scientist to think such things, much less say them public. While there is no doubt that it is appropriate for scientists to discuss such issues, the notion that there are right and wrong answers is a matter of judgment and subjective bias. What is the difference between science telling people what is wrong and the Church, any church, telling people what is right or wrong? Actually, the notion that there is right or wrong, good and evil, flies in the face of science. There are certainly positive and negative forces. But calling hot right and cold wrong is ludicrous. Despite the influence of religion on the issue, calling murder wrong is a moral judgment.


Some of my critics got off the train before it even left the station, by defining “science” in exceedingly narrow terms. Many think that science is synonymous with mathematical modeling, or with immediate access to experimental data. However, this is to mistake science for a few of its tools. Science simply represents our best effort to understand what is going on in this universe, and the boundary between it and the rest of rational thought cannot always be drawn. There are many tools one must get in hand to think scientifically—ideas about cause and effect, respect for evidence and logical coherence, a dash of curiosity and intellectual honesty, the inclination to make falsifiable predictions, etc.—and many come long before one starts worrying about mathematical models or specific data. Clearly, from the above definition, i.e. “our best effort to understand,” is not objective. History is replete with our misunderstanding of science and the fire pits are filled with the charred memories of those who defied our ‘best efforts.”

There is also much confusion about what it means to speak with scientific “objectivity.” As the philosopher John Searle once pointed out, there are two very different senses of the terms “objective” and “subjective.” The first relates to how we know (i.e. epistemology), the second to what there is to know (i.e. ontology). When we say that we are reasoning or speaking “objectively,” we mean that we are free of obvious bias, open to counter-arguments, cognizant of the relevant facts, etc. There is no impediment to our doing this with regard to subjective (i.e. third-person) facts. It is, for instance, true to say that I am experiencing tinnitus (ringing in my ears) at this moment. This is a subjective fact about me. I am not lying about it. I have been to an otologist and had the associated hearing loss in the upper frequencies in my right ear confirmed. There is simply no question that I can speak about my tinnitus in the spirit of scientific objectivity. And, no doubt, this experience must have some objective (third-person) correlates, like damage to my cochlea. Many people seem to think that because moral facts relate entirely to our experience (and are, therefore, ontologically “subjective”), all talk of morality must be “subjective” in the epistemological sense (i.e. biased, merely personal, etc.). This is simply untrue. Sorry, Sam, but it is true. While on its face, it is easy to understand why one would claim that five birds just flew by; it is raining; I just stubbed my toe, etc. Reality is only our perceptions. And, I suppose you can also say that quantum physics is also all wrong, too, but that just makes you as dogmatic as those you criticize.

Many of my critics also fail to distinguish between there being no answers in practice and no answers in principle to certain questions about the nature of reality. Only the latter questions are “unscientific,” and there are countless facts to be known in principle that we will never know in practice. Exactly how many birds are in flight over the surface of the earth at this instant? What is their combined weight in grams? We cannot possibly answer such questions, but they have simple, numerical answers. Does our inability to gather the relevant data oblige us to respect all opinions equally? For instance, how seriously should we take the claim that there are exactly 23,000 birds in flight at this moment, and, as they are all hummingbirds weighing exactly 2 grams, their total weight is 46,000 grams? It should be obvious that this is a ridiculous assertion. We can, therefore, decisively reject answers to questions that we cannot possibly answer in practice. This is a perfectly reasonable, scientific, and often necessary thing to do. And yet, many scientists will say that moral truths do not exist, simply because certain facts about human experience cannot be readily known, or may never be known. As I hope to show, this blind spot has created tremendous confusion about the relationship between human knowledge and human values. Is it really possible for what science says is a finite mind to know and understand the infinite? Or, is it possible that we see the mind as finite because we define ourselves by it. Since it weighs x grams there is no way it can carry the infinite knowledge of the universe. Or, is it possible that we are not at limited by the size of our brain and that there is transcendent knowledge that we can know?


When I speak of there being right and wrong answers to questions of morality, I am saying that there are facts about human and animal wellbeing that we can, in principle, know—simply because wellbeing (and states of consciousness altogether) must lawfully relate to states of the brain and to states of the world. Facts are merely our ‘best understanding’ at any given moment. Many facts of the past were clearly not. Is it the states of the brain that laws relate to or something bigger? Are there even really any laws. Can we test a law an infinite number of times to see if it ever deviates? Has not quantum mechanics shown that what we have held as physical laws are not true at the sub-atomic level? And have not recent experiments shown, as mystics have known all along, that such deviations to laws can now be demonstrated at the physically observable level?

And here is where the real controversy begins: for many people strongly objected to my claim that values (and hence morality) relate to facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures. My critics seem to think that consciousness and its states hold no special place where values are concerned, or that any state of consciousness stands the same chance of being valued as any other. While maximizing the wellbeing of conscious creatures may be what I value, other people are perfectly free to define their values differently, and there will be no rational or scientific basis to argue with them. This is perhaps the one place where Sam Harris is correct, i.e., what we value does relate to well being of consciousness. However, we should not assume a value on levels of consciousness.

Carroll appears to be confused about the foundations of human knowledge. For instance, he clearly misunderstands the relationship between scientific truth and scientific consensus. He imagines that scientific consensus signifies the existence of scientific truth (while scientific controversy just means that there is more work to be done). And yet, he takes moral controversy to mean that there is no such thing as moral truth (while moral consensus just means that people are deeply conditioned for certain preferences). This is a double standard that I pointed out in my talk, and it clearly rigs the game against moral truth. The deeper issue, however, is that truth has nothing, in principle, to do with consensus: It is, after all, quite possible for everyone to be wrong, or for one lone person to be right. Consensus is surely a guide to discovering what is going on in the world, but that is all that it is. Its presence or absence in no way constrains what may or may not be true. There seems to be confusion all around since there really is no current scientific truth.



There are many things wrong with this approach. The deepest problem is that it strikes me as patently mistaken about the nature of reality and about what we can reasonably mean by words like “good,” “bad,” “right,” and “wrong.” In fact, I believe that we can know, through reason alone, that consciousness is the only intelligible domain of value. What’s the alternative? Imagine some genius comes forward and says, “I have found a source of value/morality that has absolutely nothing to do with the (actual or potential) experience of conscious beings.” Take a moment to think about what this claim actually means. Here’s the problem: whatever this person has found cannot, by definition, be of interest to anyone (in this life or in any other). Put this thing in a box, and what you have in that box is—again, by definition—the least interesting thing in the universe. Therefore, in order to place a moral value against killing, all must kill-otherwise; the value of not killing has nothing to do with actual/potential experience. Does the value precede the experience or vice versa?

So how much time should we spend worrying about such a transcendent source of value? I think the time I will spend typing this sentence is already far too much. All other notions of value will bear some relationship to the actual or potential experience of conscious beings. So my claim that consciousness is the basis of values does not appear to me to be an arbitrary starting point.

Now that we have consciousness on the table, my further claim is that wellbeing is what we can intelligibly value—and “morality” (whatever people’s associations with this term happen to be) really relates to the intentions and behaviors that affect the wellbeing of conscious creatures. And, as I pointed out at TED, all the people who claim to have alternative sources of morality (like the Word of God) are, in every case that I am aware of, only concerned about wellbeing anyway: They just happen to believe that the universe functions in such a way as to place the really important changes in conscious experience after death (i.e. in heaven or hell). And those philosophical efforts that seek to put morality in terms of duty, fairness, justice, or some other principle that is not explicitly tied to the wellbeing of conscious creatures—are, nevertheless, parasitic on some notion of wellbeing in the end (I argue this point at greater length in my book. And yes, I’ve read Rawls, Nozick, and Parfit). The doubts that immediately erupt on this point seem to invariably depend on extremely unimaginative ideas about what the term “wellbeing” could mean, altogether, or on mistaken beliefs about what science is.

Those who assumed that any emphasis on human “wellbeing” would lead us to enslave half of humanity, or harvest the organs of the bottom ten percent, or nuke the developing world, or nurture our children a continuous drip of heroin are, it seems to me, not really thinking about these issues seriously. It seems rather obvious that fairness, justice, compassion, and a general awareness of terrestrial reality have rather a lot to do with our creating a thriving global civilization (Creating a thriving global community is not desired by all and not really a value, a goal perhaps, but not a value)—and, therefore, with the greater wellbeing of humanity. And, as I emphasized in my talk, there may be many different ways for individuals and communities to thrive—many peaks on the moral landscape—so if there is real diversity in how people can be deeply fulfilled in life, this diversity can be accounted for and honored in the context of science. As I said in my talk, the concept of “wellbeing,” like the concept of “health,” is truly open for revision and discovery. Just how happy is it possible for us to be, personally and collectively? What are the conditions—ranging from changes in the genome to changes in economic systems—that will produce such happiness? We simply do not know.

But the deeper objection raised by scientists like Carroll is that the link I have drawn between values and wellbeing seems arbitrary, or otherwise in need of justification. What if certain people insist that their “values” or “morality” have nothing to do with wellbeing? What if a man like Jefferey Dahmer says, “The only peaks on the moral landscape that interest me are ones where I get to murder young men and have sex with their corpses.” This possibility—the prospect of radically different moral preferences—seems to be at the heart of many people’s concerns. In response to one of his readers, Carroll writes:

[W]e have to distinguish between choosing a goal and choosing the best way to get there. But when we do science we all basically agree on what the goals are — we want to find a concise, powerful explanation of the empirical facts we observe. This is not true. The idyllic notion here is that all scientists are purists who only seek to discover how the universe works. It assumes no hidden or subjective agenda. While it is fine to argue that a person on a spiritual quest for meaning and truth is really just seeking new dogma to impose on humanity, this cannot be true for the scientist. Clearly, the use of science to further specific political, social, economic or religious goals can be demonstrated throughout history. Again, is there really empirical fact? Sure, someone can choose to disagree with those goals — but then they’re not doing science, they’re doing philosophy of science. Which is interesting in its own right, but not the same thing.

When it comes to morality, there is nowhere near the unanimity of goals that there is in science. That’s not a minor quibble, that’s the crucial difference! If we all agreed on the goals, we would indeed expend our intellectual effort on the well-grounded program of figuring out how best to achieve those goals. That would be great, but it’s not the world in which we live.

Again, we encounter this confusion about the significance of consensus. But we should also remember that there are trained “scientists” who are Biblical Creationists, and their scientific thinking is purposed not toward a dispassionate study of the universe, but toward interpreting the data of science to fit the Biblical account of creation. Such people claim to be doing “science,” of course—but real scientists are free, and indeed obligated, to point out that they are misusing the term. A real scientist? Does that exist? How can you base a system on an imaginary ‘real scientist’? Certainly, a person with a religious agenda cannot conduct this so called pure science. But neither can the mythical real scientist, who, unless they grew up with no human interaction, be free of any bias. Similarly, there are people who claim to be highly concerned about “morality” and “human values,” but when we see that they are more concerned about condom use than they are about child rape (e.g. the Catholic Church), we should feel free to say that they are misusing the term “morality,” or that their values are distorted. As I asked at TED, how have we convinced ourselves that on the subject of morality, all views must count equally? It is clear that Harris cannot make his arguments without reverting to moral judgment.


The very idea that a morality exists has not come from science. To say that women should not be degraded, people should not be enslaved, that there should be no war, did not stem from some scientific observation. To even say that there should be an objective morality is, of itself, a subjective moral judgment. What might nature tell us about morality. Survival of the fittest? No room for the weak? Only cooperate if your own well-being is enhanced? In nature, there are animals that herd together for mutual protection. There are also lone hunters, hives, colonies, predator and prey. Would not objective science say that it makes no sense for the genetically weak or defective to survive? In nature, the weak and deformed are left behind. Why would science make an argument for weakening the gene pool and promote the perpetuation of the "defective?" It is not science that has said that the likes of Steven Hawking should survive. Make no mistake, religion has not provided the answer, but within religion has been pearls of wisdom that form the fundamentals of a working morality. I will continue with Sam's talk on TED in Part II.

Let me leave you with some quotes from a real scientist, Albert Einstein:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

END PART I

Bridging Dogma and Atheism

Does ‘spirituality’ bridge the gap between religious dogma and atheism? Is it the golden mean between an all powerful dictatorial super being that creates good and evil, demands sacrifice and unquestioning obedience and the totally mechanistic belief of the atheist? Can the two even be reconciled?

We are all familiar with religious dogma. The Judeo-Christian, Islamic traditions have dominated religious thought for thousands of years. At the core of all three is a super deity that demands worship, punishes the unfaithful, and has no problem with each declaring the other as inferior and even evil. One has savior who died for their sins; one has a savior yet to come; and the other says live a life by the rules and you will be rewarded later. There is a basic assumption in these religions that people are sinners and are doomed to eternal punishment by an all loving god. All rather silly. It would be easy to extol the absurdity of most religions. And, it is easy to see how a rational, thinking person would have issues with religious hypocrisy and their history of blood and violence.

On the other side of the coin, we have atheism. Basically, atheists do not believe in a god or gods, shun any notion of the supernatural and place their faith in reason, science, humanism and rationality. Essentially, atheism means, ‘without god.’ But, are the options only god (s) and no gods?

The answer is that there is another option; spirituality. Yes, there is a difference between being religious and spiritual. It is important to state that spirituality has been around longer than any religion; it is as old as humanity. Rooted in ancient mysticism from Chaldea, Egypt and found in every civilization, spirituality was based in the concept of gnosis, knowing. For spirituality, there is no set doctrine, no dogma and no institution striving for self-perpetuation. Spirituality is a concept, a belief based upon personal enlightenment. What is interesting is that even though spirituality is based upon individual epiphany, it contains a common thread that can be found in the mystical teachings of all cultures; it has a universal commonality (perhaps Jung is at work here).

In analyzing the literature of mystical teachings, which all too often became perverted into religions, “some” of the common threads include: a belief in an all pervasive universal intelligence; all things are alive; all things are connected, literally; universal intelligence thinks the manifest world into existence and all higher levels of consciousness play an ongoing part in this creation; reality is an illusion and is different from actuality; we are what we think; there is no such thing as good and evil warring for humanity’s soul; there is no death; life constantly seeks to express itself and evolves into higher levels of awareness; there is no deity demanding servitude and no deity that condemns, tortures or punishes; all that ever was, is and will be, is here, now; while there are balancing forces in the universes, these forces are nether good or bad; knowledge is attainable through intuition and meditation; the universe is basically objective; all things move in cycles that spiral ever upward; and all things are possible. Despite these and other shared ideas, there is no church based upon these principles. There are groups, orders, brotherhoods and societies that have formed to teach these concepts, but none seek to dominate, condemn, proselytize, or war with others over ideology.

Much of what is believed, or rather known, by those who have embarked upon a spiritual path is, oddly enough, based in science and reasoning. Is this the bridge between dogma and atheism? It can be. Many scientists have expounded mystical/spiritual ideas. Galileo, Newton, Descartes, and Einstein had clear spiritual views on the nature of the universe. And today, the breakthroughs and discoveries in quantum physics are heading directly down the spiritual path. The circle is closing. From direct knowledge, to skepticism, to discovery and back; scientific thought is revealing as true, what mystics taught in ancient times.

So what did people like Heisenberg and Bohr and others say about the universe. The first tenet is that the material-objective universe is not real, it is an illusion. The mind brings reality into existence through observation. In actuality, the universe is an interconnected sea of energy that only takes on substance when it is observed. The subjective mind brings the objective mind into what we call reality, and yet, it has no independent existence; the observer and the observed are one. Quantum physics tells us that electrons can be in two places at once and that they are waves of energy that only take on physical existence when we look for them. Essentially, the material world has no fundamental existence. Unless we discount quantum physics as ‘hum bug,’ we have science telling us that those who base their reality on the senses are gravely in error. There is significant research and studies on this topic and if would behoove a seeker to Google the topic, ‘mysticism and quantum physics.’ This is not meant to be an in depth study of the topic, but rather a piece that raises the question for others to ponder.

If the mind brings reality into existence, the question that must be answered is what mind brought the first matter, electrons, atoms, molecules, planets, suns and galaxies into existence? Does quantum physics ascribe this to deity? I believe that the answer is, “not yet”, but it is the logical conclusion. Quantum physics dismisses the notion that our reality is the result of chance; that life was a lark that emerged from some kind of chemical soup; and, that we are the whim of natural forces that are beyond our control. The power of thought as ‘the’ force that shapes our world is growing if efficacy. We have seen the power of the mind to heal, and that thoughts do, indeed, create our lives and the way we live it. We know now that all things are energy. Thoughts are also energy that shapes the observable world. Energy cannot be destroyed. The underlying energy that forms the foundation of the universe is neutral; meaning, it is neither good nor bad, it just is. Time is also an illusion and that it may even be possible to travel into the past or observe the future. Does this not sound like, ‘all that ever was, is and will be’ is here now?

While it is easy to understand the trend in the denial of a super being in a white robe and beard calling the shots in the universe, it should also be easy to understand that science is bringing us closer to the notion that there is something, some form of higher consciousness, that is creating and exploring the infinite potential of life. It should also be clear that since we, as humans, have the power to alter reality, there is probably something that transcends our consciousness, something that, perhaps, we express in our ever day lives. The mystics are fond of the phrase, ‘as above, so below and as below, so above.’ Simply, the microcosm, the small, is merely an expression of the macrocosm, the big. The atom and the galaxy are one, and what is true of one, is true of the other.

Perhaps atheists who truly follow the emerging knowledge in science will find solace that their rational thinking has actually verified the idea that consciousness is the guiding force of the manifest universe. They are right, in my mind, that there is no single deity making day- to-day decisions about salvation, or what it will do next to alter the material world. There is no deity(ies) to be worshipped or that demand sacrifice. The question is, are they ready to understand that deity is the All and that here truly is no place where deity begins or ends. It is the sea of potential wave energy, of which we are all a part, waiting to co-create the next chapter in evolution.

I love synchronicity. When I completed this article I received an interesting email. In it, it talked of the works of Hawking, Bekenstein, Susskind and Maldacena. It’s premise was that,“The materialistic paradigm is dead and buried.” It went on to discuss the Holographic Principle as described in Michael Talbot’s book and in the introduction to the book it says, “Put another way, there is evidence to suggest that our world and everything in it -- from snowflakes to maple trees to falling stars and spinning electrons -- are also only ghostly images, projections from a level of reality so beyond our own it is literally beyond both space and time.” Again, the question is begged, who or what projects the Universe? As we move to a new 2012 paradigm, it is clear that the foundation of the ‘old world’ is collapsing. We are familiar with the movies that put forth the notion that magic died in ancient days because people stopped believing in it. Now we are seeing that consumer economics, old religious dogma and the materialistic concept of society are passing because, no one believes it any more. The power of the Universal mind and all of its expressions, us included, is creating a new reality; one that finds the ‘golden mean’ between the extremes. This process may seem chaotic. Witness global climate change, political disruptions, religious strife, diseases and what some are erroneously labeling the ‘end times.’ Ye of little faith! From this chaos will emerge a new reality, a new balance and a new harmony and new reconciliation.

WHAT DO PIERS ANTHONY, THE SACRED ROTA AND THE LAW OF ATTRACTION HAVE IN COMMON?

THE SACRED ROTA: WAKING GOD BOOK II is NOW in print!

In an interview with John Demartini, from THE SECRET, John said that the biggest impediment to using the LAW OF ATTRACTION, is that we give over our power to what we perceive is a "higher moral authority." This moral authority is the CHURCH and all of its dogma. You know: you are not worthy of happiness; your are all sinners; the poor shall inherit the earth; life is meant to be one of pain and suffering unless you follow our dogma.

Well, I beg to differ. Both Brian Doe and I expose a lot of this dogma in the first two books of the WAKING GOD TRILOGY: BOOK I THE JOURNEY BEGINS and now THE SACRED ROTA: BOOK II, which has just been released by LITERARY ROAD PRESS! (http://literaryroad.com/)

WAKING GOD BOOK II: THE SACRED ROTA opens doors that many would prefer stay closed. Continuing with the fast paced action of Book I, humanity is beset with growing problems reminiscent of the ancient Biblical plagues. The battle between the Archangel Michael and Mantrella (a.k.a. Lucifer) intensifies as conception of the Old Testament’s Adam becomes a certainty. The rise to power of the UN’s David Dajjal, a puppet of Michael’s, sets the stage for world domination by the Bilderberg Group. New information is revealed about the Tarot Code, the blueprint for man’s future spiritual and physical evolution, and the role of the church’s Sacred Rota in the epic conspiracy to keep humanity in ignorance and ancient institutions in power. Will the hidden god seed in our DNA be activated with Adam’s birth or will secret powers maintain their domination of our destiny?

It is within the first two books of the trilogy that religion is exposed for the demon that it is. We see the LAW OF ATTRACTION at work, but for others, not for you. Why can't you manifest your heart's desires? Perhaps it is because you have given control of your life over to those who seek to dominate and control under the guise of promises of life everlasting.

“I read Waking God II The Sacred Rota, by Brian L Doe and Philip F Harris. This is a sequel to Waking God, published in 2006, or really a continuation of a three part story. It is a science fantasy theological thriller, odd as that combination may seem to be. The final battle is developing, and while they do argue theology, there are also people getting killed wholesale as the several themes slowly integrate. I am agnostic, with no belief in the supernatural, but as before, I found portions of the discussion more interesting than the action. Here's when Lucifer harangues an Archangel: “You create demons and false hopes of redemption. You build them mighty temples and give with one hand and slaughter with the other. You have kept them separate and ignorant and give just enough to raise empty hopes. You destroy their prophets and burn their seers. If they question, you put them to the rack and crush all semblance of free thought. You give them a doctrine of poverty and offer riches in your fantasy heaven. Kill in the name of god and your treasure shall be immeasurable. You divide them and thus conquer them, and tell them they have no responsibility but to be good sheep and to follow your demented dictates.” This strikes me as an apt description of global religion. I was intrigued by the Tarot discussion, because I did some research there, thirty years ago, when writing Tarot and devising my own 100 card Animation Tarot deck, because the established decks are clearly incomplete. I conjecture that one author in this collaboration knows how to write, and the other knows his occult lore, because they clearly have done their Tarot homework. So this is a novel worth reading, but it will help to have an open mind. I fault it for developing serious characters who may then be thrown away, or suddenly having new significant characters for whom there was no prior reference. (But it turned out I had forgotten that one of those was in the prior novel. That will be clarified in the published edition of this one.) So I think it needs better overall organization, but there is nevertheless much here that you probably won't find in the tacitly expurgated traditional press.” PIERS ANTHONY

If you are totally happy and all of your life desires are manifest, do not read this book! But, if you are lacking fulfillment and are seeking to gain control over your life, THE SACRED ROTA is an eye opener.

The Sacred Rota: Waking God Book Two

Brian L. Doe & Philip F. Harris

Print ISBN 1-934037-49-2