A Christian YouTuber named David Wolcott did a video review of my book Christianity 2.0 in January 2025 which can be accessed HERE.
I had contacted David and asked him to do the review, and I appreciate his willingness to do so. He actually reads around 300 books a year, and he’s a pretty impressive guy.
To be clear, this is meant to be a friendly response, not an angry one. David does not consider my book to be legitimate (although he at least thinks it’s better than Progressive Christianity), but I have no ill will against him or anyone else who believes my book is false. I realize that my book is asking a lot, and I certainly wouldn’t expect someone as well studied in Christian theology as David is to just simply roll over and easily accept ideas that traditional Christianity considers to be unbiblical.
At the beginning of his review, David describes my book in a very interesting way. He calls it “a Gnostic approach to theology that uses an Akashic type sourcing for testing its truth claims.”
Gnostics were a second-century Christian sect that believed the Hebrew god was evil because He created the world and forced us all to dwell in the flesh. They also believed that there was another God who was higher than the Hebrew one.
I don’t consider myself to be a Gnostic. I don’t believe there is more than one God. And I don’t believe that the creation of this world was an act of evil. However, I can see how someone might connect my book to Gnosticism because I repeatedly call for disavowing the angry God of the Old Testament. I just think it is a stretch to describe my approach as Gnostic.
“Akashic type sourcing” is a reference to muscle testing, and I have no beef with this. David says he loves the idea of muscle testing but believes there is no indication that God has given us such an ability. There’s never been an example from God of something like muscle testing where Christians can access knowledge on command. So because the Bible never mentions muscle testing, David says we can assume it is not a legitimate practice.
I’ve always assumed that the reason the Bible doesn’t mention muscle testing is simply because its many writers didn’t know about it. As for why God wouldn’t have revealed muscle testing to the world way back then, I suspect that it was because only people with integrity (a level of consciousness at 200 or higher) are capable of doing the test. Today, only 15 percent of the world’s population meets this threshold. In Biblical times, it was probably in the low single digits. So what would have been the point for God to reveal the practice of muscle testing when so few people would have been capable of using it?
Man’s greatest defect is the inability to tell truth from falsehood. This is the greatest source of mankind’s troubles. So is it really so hard to believe that God in His infinite mercy would provide a compass that would allow us to overcome this liability?
David describes muscle testing as divination, which the Bible forbids. I disagree with this description. Divination is defined as a way to access the unknown through supernatural means. But there is nothing supernatural about muscle testing. You are simply using the muscles of the body to test for a positive or negative response. I really don’t see how it can be thrown in the same lot as tarot cards, numerology, and astrology. He also says that miracles can happen to people, but people’s lives don’t revolve around miracles. He believes that miracles are not supposed to be a regular experience for us. But I wouldn’t describe muscle testing as part of the miraculous. It is a completely natural method of discovering truth (although at first glance it may not seem that way). To be fair, I have used Radical Truth to heal people, and that could be described as miraculous (It certainly felt miraculous at times). However, I didn’t so much heal people as show them how they could heal themselves. In my book, I mention an Australian woman who had mumps on her face. With muscle testing, I discovered that she had a lot of unconscious guilt which was the source of her condition. By showing her how to release her guilt, she was able to be healed. But there was no supernatural power involved in the process.
Another problem David has with muscle testing is that, because there are three requirements that must be met in order to have permission to test (the person must have integrity, the intention must be integrous, and it must be in the highest good), it places the validity of the test on the sincerity of the tester instead of the accuracy of the tester. In science, it doesn’t matter if the intention is integrous or not. If the method is legitimate, you will always get the same result. He feels it’s not a scientific test because there is no way to know for sure if the three requirements are being met, so you can’t know if the answer you are getting is correct.
I agree that the three requirements are problematic in the sense that they make muscle testing’s accuracy impossible to verify with the normal scientific method, but it has to be this way. Imagine how dangerous it would be if criminals and terrorists could access the test.
In my book, I also talk about Christ Consciousness. But David seems to think that my version of the term is the same as that of Progressive Christianity, which defines it as a universal Christ that exists inside every person. In other words, we are all divine. We are all Christ.
I profoundly disagree with this definition of the term (If we are all divine, then the very idea of divinity is meaningless). However, I won’t repeat my own definition of Christ Consciousness here. It is fully explained in the article Did Jesus Really Predict the End Times?
In Christianity 2.0, I argue that most of the Old Testament books should be removed. David labels this argument as Marcionism, an old Christian sect from the second century which believed the God of the Old Testament to be wicked. This group also rejected much of the Old Testament.
David then makes an interesting argument. He quotes Matthew 22 in which Jesus says, “You shall love God with all your heart.” David then says that Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6, meaning that Jesus is referring to the God of Deuteronomy (i.e. the Old Testament). This is the God that Jesus is commanding us to love.
David also brings up Isaiah. He mentions that Jesus doesn’t say to listen to only some of Isaiah, to only some of the prophets. He simply says, “The prophets” (meaning all of them).
On the surface, these arguments make sense. Jesus does not directly contradict the Old Testament. As to why, I believe it is because you need to meet people at their own level if you hope to win them over. If Jesus had attacked the Old Testament, if he had claimed that it was in any way illegitimate, if he had claimed that some or many of the prophets were wrong, what do you think would have happened? The people would have rejected him. Therefore, he could not contradict the Old Testament directly, or at least not overtly.
But isn’t it possible that Jesus believed Deuteronomy’s command to love God was correct but not Deuteronomy’s depiction of God? And if Jesus believed that Deuteronomy’s depiction of God was correct, then why didn’t he describe God in the same manner? Why did he instead preach of a loving God?
Here are some of Jesus’s teachings:
Jesus therefore answered them, “Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise. For the Father has affection for the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does. He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel. (John 5:19-20)
Jesus says that he does what the Father does. Did Jesus act like the God of the Old Testament? Or did he offer a message of love, salvation, and forgiveness? We all know it was the latter.
But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back; and your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for He himself is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, even as your Father is also merciful. (Luke 6:35-36)
Jesus says that God is merciful and that he is kind towards everyone, even those who are evil. He says to love our enemies and be merciful. By doing so we “will be children of the Most High.” If Jesus believed the depiction of God in the Old Testament was correct, he surely would have said that we should condemn our enemies and try to destroy them, not love them and have mercy on them.
As you can see, by offering a different description of God, Jesus was able to challenge the Old Testament without directly attacking it.
The following question needs to be asked: Why does the Bible’s depiction of God change so dramatically from the Old Testament to the New Testament? I’ve never heard any Christian offer an even remotely plausible explanation for this, and the reason why is obvious: They can’t.
Now I’ve heard David and some Christians argue that the God of the Old Testament isn’t really angry and vengeful. They argue that he actually shows love and mercy a good deal of the time. To be fair, there are passages in the Old Testament that describe God in a loving manner. However, God’s love in the Old Testament is always conditional. He shows mercy in some instances but not others, and it isn’t always clear why. Some of His actions are truly mystifying, such as when God treats Job like a plaything and allows Satan to destroy his life just for the purpose of testing him. (Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6)
I was able to directly ask David about this, and he offered a decent answer. He said that he and many other Christians don’t always understand the actions that God takes in the Old Testament. They don’t understand why He offers mercy in one circumstance and condemnation in another. But they are able to accept it because it simply isn’t always possible to know the reasons why God does what He does.
I think this is a fair argument. But many people who notice these problems are not able to take such a leap of faith, and thus they reject the religion outright. There is no getting around the fact that the depiction of God in the Old Testament is a serious weakness that holds Christianity back. These problems are clear, and we cannot expect most people to simply overlook them. Some will, but many will not.
David notes my admission that the Old Testament books do have individual passages that have a high level of truth. He then makes another interesting argument. Using a Bible study website called Logos, he shows that there are 2574 cross references between the New Testament and the Old Testament. Because of this, David concludes there are simply too many good verses in the Old Testament for the books to calibrate in the negative range.
My response? He would be correct if these books calibrated at a very low level, such as 80. But most of the Old Testament books are around 170 (Anger), and a few are around 195 (Pride). So, yes, these books are below 200. Yes, they are in the negative range. But not by that much. If you remove the negative depiction of God, all these books would likely be above 200 (although you would have to dramatically rewrite many of the stories or lose them completely. It should also be noted that Esther and Song of Solomon do not mention God at all. They are below 200 for other reasons).
In fact, I did an experiment that I discuss in the article Raising Up Job. With muscle testing, I discovered that you can increase the calibration of the Book of Job from 198 to 353 with some relatively small edits.
Without question, there is a lot of gold in the Old Testament. It is their depiction of God that sinks most of the books.
David says that my book is based on the Gospel of Thomas, but this isn’t true. The original version of my book did not even mention Thomas. A few weeks after its release, I happened to read the book Original Christianity by Peter Novak. After doing so, I rewrote my book to include a section on Thomas. So while Thomas supports my book, it was never the basis for it.
David said he groaned when my book first mentioned the Gospel of Thomas. It’s funny because I thought that including a brand-new interpretation of Thomas and how it supports the central message of my book would actually make Christianity 2.0 seem more legitimate to Christians, but for those Christians who are familiar with Thomas and the scholarly consensus which holds it to be illegitimate, it appears this will not be the case.
David links the Gospel of Thomas with Gnosticism and argues that Gnosticism isn’t legitimate. I agree that Gnosticism isn’t legitimate. However, I don’t believe that Thomas is a Gnostic text, and I make a case for that in Christianity 2.0 which I’m not going to repeat here. David mentions that it is widely believed Thomas originated in the second century because one of its sayings appears to quote Matthew. However, I would argue there is a plausible explanation for this: The discovered version of Thomas is not the original version, and the saying that quotes Matthew was added much later. My own muscle testing confirms this, that 19 of its 114 sayings were indeed added later. The fact that Thomas consists of a list of individual sayings with no narrative to connect them makes the text extremely difficult to date by traditional methods. Because of this, I think Christians should not be so quick to write Thomas off.
At one point, David references Luke 7:22. When John the Baptist begins to have doubts about Jesus, he sends his people to ask Jesus if he is the one they have been waiting for. Jesus responds by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6. David emphasizes that Jesus did not tell John to try to reach a higher level of consciousness.
This is true. However, in my book, I offer an explanation for this which David unfortunately never mentions. I argue that Jesus had two sets of teachings. One set of teachings was for the vast majority of people, and the other was for advanced students. Jesus spoke of these advanced teachings in the Gospel of Thomas where he did indeed advocate for reaching a higher level of consciousness (i.e. unconditional love), although he spoke of this in a cryptic manner that has only recently been deciphered. Of course, David doesn’t consider Thomas to be legitimate, but by not mentioning this, it gives the viewer the impression that my book offers no answer to his argument.
You may ask: Wouldn’t John the Baptist have qualified as an advanced student? I would say no, because John wasn’t just advanced; he was super advanced, and thus he was not a student. John was already enlightened. His level of consciousness was at 930, almost as high as Jesus who was at 1000. Therefore, there would have been no need for Jesus to convey his advanced teachings to John. There would have been no need for Jesus to tell John to try to reach a higher level of consciousness.
David says that Progressive Christianity holds the same position as me when it comes to God. Well, not quite. Yes, like me, they say that God is love. But they also say there is no hell. I could not disagree more. There is definitely a hell. This brings up another important point.
The flaws of Christianity that my book tries to correct have greatly fueled the rise of Progressive Christianity. Progressive Christians are turned off by the idea of an angry God that judges us. They are also turned off by Christianity’s emphasis on guilt and sin (another gift from the Old Testament). I sympathize with them on these two things. They absolutely have a point. But by saying that Jesus’s teachings should be taken as mere suggestions rather than rules we are required to follow, they betray the religion. By rejecting not just the label of sin but the very idea of sin, they betray the religion. By saying that there is no hell and thus no consequences for actions that lack integrity, they betray the religion.
I believe that the kind of Christianity I propose in my book would be virtually progressive-proof. It resolves most if not all of the issues that Progressive Christians have with the religion but without sacrificing its integrity.
David argues that what I am proposing isn’t Christianity. I would agree that it isn’t traditional Christianity. Rather, it is an evolved Christianity. This will certainly make it a hard sell for most people. But for those who need convincing, there is a quick way to confirm what I am saying is true: Do Iboga.
Iboga is why I believe my book will eventually find a large audience. People will do Iboga and reach unconditional love. Every person who reaches this advanced spiritual state is able to counterbalance the negativity of four million people. Think of the impact this will have.
A good analogy would be a large, heavy ball that rests at the top of a hill. It’s very hard to get it moving initially, but once it starts rolling, gravity and momentum will carry it forward, and there will be no stopping it.
A whole new world is coming. And it is coming sooner than you think.
I had contacted David and asked him to do the review, and I appreciate his willingness to do so. He actually reads around 300 books a year, and he’s a pretty impressive guy.
To be clear, this is meant to be a friendly response, not an angry one. David does not consider my book to be legitimate (although he at least thinks it’s better than Progressive Christianity), but I have no ill will against him or anyone else who believes my book is false. I realize that my book is asking a lot, and I certainly wouldn’t expect someone as well studied in Christian theology as David is to just simply roll over and easily accept ideas that traditional Christianity considers to be unbiblical.
At the beginning of his review, David describes my book in a very interesting way. He calls it “a Gnostic approach to theology that uses an Akashic type sourcing for testing its truth claims.”
Gnostics were a second-century Christian sect that believed the Hebrew god was evil because He created the world and forced us all to dwell in the flesh. They also believed that there was another God who was higher than the Hebrew one.
I don’t consider myself to be a Gnostic. I don’t believe there is more than one God. And I don’t believe that the creation of this world was an act of evil. However, I can see how someone might connect my book to Gnosticism because I repeatedly call for disavowing the angry God of the Old Testament. I just think it is a stretch to describe my approach as Gnostic.
“Akashic type sourcing” is a reference to muscle testing, and I have no beef with this. David says he loves the idea of muscle testing but believes there is no indication that God has given us such an ability. There’s never been an example from God of something like muscle testing where Christians can access knowledge on command. So because the Bible never mentions muscle testing, David says we can assume it is not a legitimate practice.
I’ve always assumed that the reason the Bible doesn’t mention muscle testing is simply because its many writers didn’t know about it. As for why God wouldn’t have revealed muscle testing to the world way back then, I suspect that it was because only people with integrity (a level of consciousness at 200 or higher) are capable of doing the test. Today, only 15 percent of the world’s population meets this threshold. In Biblical times, it was probably in the low single digits. So what would have been the point for God to reveal the practice of muscle testing when so few people would have been capable of using it?
Man’s greatest defect is the inability to tell truth from falsehood. This is the greatest source of mankind’s troubles. So is it really so hard to believe that God in His infinite mercy would provide a compass that would allow us to overcome this liability?
David describes muscle testing as divination, which the Bible forbids. I disagree with this description. Divination is defined as a way to access the unknown through supernatural means. But there is nothing supernatural about muscle testing. You are simply using the muscles of the body to test for a positive or negative response. I really don’t see how it can be thrown in the same lot as tarot cards, numerology, and astrology. He also says that miracles can happen to people, but people’s lives don’t revolve around miracles. He believes that miracles are not supposed to be a regular experience for us. But I wouldn’t describe muscle testing as part of the miraculous. It is a completely natural method of discovering truth (although at first glance it may not seem that way). To be fair, I have used Radical Truth to heal people, and that could be described as miraculous (It certainly felt miraculous at times). However, I didn’t so much heal people as show them how they could heal themselves. In my book, I mention an Australian woman who had mumps on her face. With muscle testing, I discovered that she had a lot of unconscious guilt which was the source of her condition. By showing her how to release her guilt, she was able to be healed. But there was no supernatural power involved in the process.
Another problem David has with muscle testing is that, because there are three requirements that must be met in order to have permission to test (the person must have integrity, the intention must be integrous, and it must be in the highest good), it places the validity of the test on the sincerity of the tester instead of the accuracy of the tester. In science, it doesn’t matter if the intention is integrous or not. If the method is legitimate, you will always get the same result. He feels it’s not a scientific test because there is no way to know for sure if the three requirements are being met, so you can’t know if the answer you are getting is correct.
I agree that the three requirements are problematic in the sense that they make muscle testing’s accuracy impossible to verify with the normal scientific method, but it has to be this way. Imagine how dangerous it would be if criminals and terrorists could access the test.
In my book, I also talk about Christ Consciousness. But David seems to think that my version of the term is the same as that of Progressive Christianity, which defines it as a universal Christ that exists inside every person. In other words, we are all divine. We are all Christ.
I profoundly disagree with this definition of the term (If we are all divine, then the very idea of divinity is meaningless). However, I won’t repeat my own definition of Christ Consciousness here. It is fully explained in the article Did Jesus Really Predict the End Times?
In Christianity 2.0, I argue that most of the Old Testament books should be removed. David labels this argument as Marcionism, an old Christian sect from the second century which believed the God of the Old Testament to be wicked. This group also rejected much of the Old Testament.
David then makes an interesting argument. He quotes Matthew 22 in which Jesus says, “You shall love God with all your heart.” David then says that Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6, meaning that Jesus is referring to the God of Deuteronomy (i.e. the Old Testament). This is the God that Jesus is commanding us to love.
David also brings up Isaiah. He mentions that Jesus doesn’t say to listen to only some of Isaiah, to only some of the prophets. He simply says, “The prophets” (meaning all of them).
On the surface, these arguments make sense. Jesus does not directly contradict the Old Testament. As to why, I believe it is because you need to meet people at their own level if you hope to win them over. If Jesus had attacked the Old Testament, if he had claimed that it was in any way illegitimate, if he had claimed that some or many of the prophets were wrong, what do you think would have happened? The people would have rejected him. Therefore, he could not contradict the Old Testament directly, or at least not overtly.
But isn’t it possible that Jesus believed Deuteronomy’s command to love God was correct but not Deuteronomy’s depiction of God? And if Jesus believed that Deuteronomy’s depiction of God was correct, then why didn’t he describe God in the same manner? Why did he instead preach of a loving God?
Here are some of Jesus’s teachings:
Jesus therefore answered them, “Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise. For the Father has affection for the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does. He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel. (John 5:19-20)
Jesus says that he does what the Father does. Did Jesus act like the God of the Old Testament? Or did he offer a message of love, salvation, and forgiveness? We all know it was the latter.
But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back; and your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for He himself is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, even as your Father is also merciful. (Luke 6:35-36)
Jesus says that God is merciful and that he is kind towards everyone, even those who are evil. He says to love our enemies and be merciful. By doing so we “will be children of the Most High.” If Jesus believed the depiction of God in the Old Testament was correct, he surely would have said that we should condemn our enemies and try to destroy them, not love them and have mercy on them.
As you can see, by offering a different description of God, Jesus was able to challenge the Old Testament without directly attacking it.
The following question needs to be asked: Why does the Bible’s depiction of God change so dramatically from the Old Testament to the New Testament? I’ve never heard any Christian offer an even remotely plausible explanation for this, and the reason why is obvious: They can’t.
Now I’ve heard David and some Christians argue that the God of the Old Testament isn’t really angry and vengeful. They argue that he actually shows love and mercy a good deal of the time. To be fair, there are passages in the Old Testament that describe God in a loving manner. However, God’s love in the Old Testament is always conditional. He shows mercy in some instances but not others, and it isn’t always clear why. Some of His actions are truly mystifying, such as when God treats Job like a plaything and allows Satan to destroy his life just for the purpose of testing him. (Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6)
I was able to directly ask David about this, and he offered a decent answer. He said that he and many other Christians don’t always understand the actions that God takes in the Old Testament. They don’t understand why He offers mercy in one circumstance and condemnation in another. But they are able to accept it because it simply isn’t always possible to know the reasons why God does what He does.
I think this is a fair argument. But many people who notice these problems are not able to take such a leap of faith, and thus they reject the religion outright. There is no getting around the fact that the depiction of God in the Old Testament is a serious weakness that holds Christianity back. These problems are clear, and we cannot expect most people to simply overlook them. Some will, but many will not.
David notes my admission that the Old Testament books do have individual passages that have a high level of truth. He then makes another interesting argument. Using a Bible study website called Logos, he shows that there are 2574 cross references between the New Testament and the Old Testament. Because of this, David concludes there are simply too many good verses in the Old Testament for the books to calibrate in the negative range.
My response? He would be correct if these books calibrated at a very low level, such as 80. But most of the Old Testament books are around 170 (Anger), and a few are around 195 (Pride). So, yes, these books are below 200. Yes, they are in the negative range. But not by that much. If you remove the negative depiction of God, all these books would likely be above 200 (although you would have to dramatically rewrite many of the stories or lose them completely. It should also be noted that Esther and Song of Solomon do not mention God at all. They are below 200 for other reasons).
In fact, I did an experiment that I discuss in the article Raising Up Job. With muscle testing, I discovered that you can increase the calibration of the Book of Job from 198 to 353 with some relatively small edits.
Without question, there is a lot of gold in the Old Testament. It is their depiction of God that sinks most of the books.
David says that my book is based on the Gospel of Thomas, but this isn’t true. The original version of my book did not even mention Thomas. A few weeks after its release, I happened to read the book Original Christianity by Peter Novak. After doing so, I rewrote my book to include a section on Thomas. So while Thomas supports my book, it was never the basis for it.
David said he groaned when my book first mentioned the Gospel of Thomas. It’s funny because I thought that including a brand-new interpretation of Thomas and how it supports the central message of my book would actually make Christianity 2.0 seem more legitimate to Christians, but for those Christians who are familiar with Thomas and the scholarly consensus which holds it to be illegitimate, it appears this will not be the case.
David links the Gospel of Thomas with Gnosticism and argues that Gnosticism isn’t legitimate. I agree that Gnosticism isn’t legitimate. However, I don’t believe that Thomas is a Gnostic text, and I make a case for that in Christianity 2.0 which I’m not going to repeat here. David mentions that it is widely believed Thomas originated in the second century because one of its sayings appears to quote Matthew. However, I would argue there is a plausible explanation for this: The discovered version of Thomas is not the original version, and the saying that quotes Matthew was added much later. My own muscle testing confirms this, that 19 of its 114 sayings were indeed added later. The fact that Thomas consists of a list of individual sayings with no narrative to connect them makes the text extremely difficult to date by traditional methods. Because of this, I think Christians should not be so quick to write Thomas off.
At one point, David references Luke 7:22. When John the Baptist begins to have doubts about Jesus, he sends his people to ask Jesus if he is the one they have been waiting for. Jesus responds by quoting Isaiah 35:5-6. David emphasizes that Jesus did not tell John to try to reach a higher level of consciousness.
This is true. However, in my book, I offer an explanation for this which David unfortunately never mentions. I argue that Jesus had two sets of teachings. One set of teachings was for the vast majority of people, and the other was for advanced students. Jesus spoke of these advanced teachings in the Gospel of Thomas where he did indeed advocate for reaching a higher level of consciousness (i.e. unconditional love), although he spoke of this in a cryptic manner that has only recently been deciphered. Of course, David doesn’t consider Thomas to be legitimate, but by not mentioning this, it gives the viewer the impression that my book offers no answer to his argument.
You may ask: Wouldn’t John the Baptist have qualified as an advanced student? I would say no, because John wasn’t just advanced; he was super advanced, and thus he was not a student. John was already enlightened. His level of consciousness was at 930, almost as high as Jesus who was at 1000. Therefore, there would have been no need for Jesus to convey his advanced teachings to John. There would have been no need for Jesus to tell John to try to reach a higher level of consciousness.
David says that Progressive Christianity holds the same position as me when it comes to God. Well, not quite. Yes, like me, they say that God is love. But they also say there is no hell. I could not disagree more. There is definitely a hell. This brings up another important point.
The flaws of Christianity that my book tries to correct have greatly fueled the rise of Progressive Christianity. Progressive Christians are turned off by the idea of an angry God that judges us. They are also turned off by Christianity’s emphasis on guilt and sin (another gift from the Old Testament). I sympathize with them on these two things. They absolutely have a point. But by saying that Jesus’s teachings should be taken as mere suggestions rather than rules we are required to follow, they betray the religion. By rejecting not just the label of sin but the very idea of sin, they betray the religion. By saying that there is no hell and thus no consequences for actions that lack integrity, they betray the religion.
I believe that the kind of Christianity I propose in my book would be virtually progressive-proof. It resolves most if not all of the issues that Progressive Christians have with the religion but without sacrificing its integrity.
David argues that what I am proposing isn’t Christianity. I would agree that it isn’t traditional Christianity. Rather, it is an evolved Christianity. This will certainly make it a hard sell for most people. But for those who need convincing, there is a quick way to confirm what I am saying is true: Do Iboga.
Iboga is why I believe my book will eventually find a large audience. People will do Iboga and reach unconditional love. Every person who reaches this advanced spiritual state is able to counterbalance the negativity of four million people. Think of the impact this will have.
A good analogy would be a large, heavy ball that rests at the top of a hill. It’s very hard to get it moving initially, but once it starts rolling, gravity and momentum will carry it forward, and there will be no stopping it.
A whole new world is coming. And it is coming sooner than you think.