Judgment Day is the central fulcrum of DivisionTheory. The Western tradition of a final "Judgment Day" scenario has been a central point of Zoroastriamism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, in that order, but true understanding of the event has nonetheless remained fuzzy. I believe that DivisionTheory clears up this confusion.
The Biblical Judgment Day scenario has three primary characteristics, all of which are extraordinary, and all of which are explained by the simple concept introduced by DivisionTheory.
The three are:
Throughout the Bible, prophecies concerning these three aspects of Judgment Day abound profusely. It is evident that this event was an extremely important climax to the entire Biblical story, and to a great extent, gave the rest of the story its meaning. It represents the fulfillment of all the promises that run throughout the Bible. Anyway, that's all just Biblical background.....
The important thing is that DivisionTheory explains and justifies, in one fell swoop, the entire Biblical drama called Judgment Day.
If, as DivisionTheory suggests, all the conscious spirits & unconscious souls of all the world's people back to the dawn of time HAVE split apart, and the spirits have reincarnated over and over and over, constantly discarding their souls along the way, dropping them into a state of forgotten imprisonment in the deepest levels of the human unconscious, then this poses a very interesting condition for the Biblical prophecies to contend with, and, I would suggest, offers a way to understand the true underlying conditions that create the events the Bible predicts wil occur during the Judgment Day scenario.
If all the world's dead are to rise again, how would this occur if reincarnation was a part of the picture as I suggested above?
Obviously, a person who reincarnates is one person, no matter how many forgotten past selves may exist unsuspected within him.
If the dead were to rise again, all the souls would have to reconnect with their spirits, and when this occurred, all people all over the world would feel as if they had been invaded by a terrible army, but invaded from WITHIN!
Suddenly EACH PERSON WOULD FIND DOZENS OR HUNDREDS OF OTHER ALIEN PERSONS POPPING INTO CONSCIOUSNESS right inside his own mind. And each of those other selves would think that THEY were the rightful owner of that body!
I believe that a rereading of the Biblical prophecies shows that just such a scenario was in fact precisely what the Bible was talking about in its prophecies of invasions of "an ancient and enduring army, the most ruthless of all nations". What would be more ancient and enduring that an army of the lost dead? What would be more ruthless?
I believe that this invasion would take place in two stages - first the evil souls who had been in hell would invade, and then the souls from heaven would invade. And this scenario, I believe, is what all the Biblical prophecies have been talking about for the last 4,000 years.
In my book, I point out hundreds of Biblical prophecies and passages which make virtually no sense whatsoever in the traditional interpretation of Judgment Day, but which make perfect sense under the DivisionTheory hypothesis.
Even if there was no Bible, and no prophecies of all the world's dead coming back to life, DivisionTheory would still arive at these conclusions.
It arrives at this conclusion independently of the Bible, and that, to me, is a great substantiation both of DivisionTheory AND of the Bible. Remember - DivisionTheory is scientific in nature - it is the answer would give to the question - what would happen if the conscious and unconscious were to divide apart at death, but both continued to function.
We find that the answer to this question parallels many many aspects of many many religions
down through history, and resolves many apparent paradoxes and mysteries, including the
Biblical Judgment Day scenario. I strongly recommend that you read Chapter 9 of Division of Consciousness.
WHAT WE BELIEVE
ABOUT THE AFTERLIFE?
In our search for belief-systems, should we seek more for those beliefs which are surest to be "right" or those which are surest to make us "happy"?
The wealthiest Jews in Germany during the years 1933- 1939 saw increasingly dangerous conditions growing around them, watching it unfold for 5 or 6 years before it reached their doorsteps, yet stayed put in their homes and cities for all those years rather than fleeing to foreign lands. Why did they do this? Because they were under the mistaken belief that their wealth would continue to safeguard them as it had done in the first years of those terrible times.
They were happy then (at least relatively so), feeling safe and secure in the belief that their wealth would provide security. But they found out too late that those beliefs were mistaken, and paid for their mistaken allegiances with their dearest blood.
"Being right" simply means having a tool that works. If one is right, then one possesses an accurate understanding of the situation at issue. The value of this depends, of course, on whatever happens to be riding on having such a correct understanding. The value depends on what that tool is needed for. If all that's riding on it is pride, or a small bet at a casino, or purchasing the correct size of shoes, then I would say that the relative value of being correct is small. But if what's rising on being right is actual human lives, then being right is pretty damn important if you ask me.
I would prefer that the guy assembling the amusement park ride I'm going to ride at the next County Fair was placing more importance on his assembly "being right" than on "being happy" while he was doing it....
And when the subject is what happens to us in the hereafter, and what, if anything, we can do NOW to affect that quickly approaching future, is even more important yet.
Or would you trade your future safety for your present happiness?
That is, perhaps, the ONLY religious or spiritual question that has truly ever been asked.
WHAT ARE THE FULL RAMIFICATIONS
OF THIS THEORY?
IS IT A TRULY FUNDAMENTAL DISCOVERY ?
When something is truly fundamental, so very much may be built upon it, and so very much more may already rest upon it without us knowing. A fundamental discovery would, by definition, have the most far-reaching significance and implications. It would have meaning in far and diverse
subjects. This, many complained about. But my understanding is that this is exactly what ought to
be expected from any discovery that should properly be called "fundamental".
(Return to top)
FONT size=6 COLOR="FF0000"
FACE="Futurist condensed, Koshgarian-ligh,Tempus Sans ITC, Futura Lt BT">