Q&A #94 Physical Death

8

Why did BJ not address physical death in his vast writings and what happens to the innate intelligence at that moment? Was it because of the influence of reincarnation (Eastern Religion), the idea of matter being transformed from death (universal matter) to life, (innate matter) and his rejection of Bible Belt (Judaeo Christian) theology or a combination of all three?

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 8 comments

  1. William 07/13/2017, 2:12 am:

    I cannot believe BJ missed a topic. If he felt reincarnation or transformation I think he would have mentioned it. I think, possibly based on my own prejudices that he knew the truth of eternal life or for the rejectors eternal death, and would not come to grips with it. But this is an interesting observation.

    • Joe Strauss 07/14/2017, 11:08 pm:

      Dr. William Hollensed, Bj did look into and wrote about far eastern religions in his Green Books and apparently did not ever do a comparison of religions. I base my thoughts on the fact that he never identified God as the Judaeo-Christian God, or the Trinity. I think because it was a controversial subject and because most of his followers saw God in the Judaeo-Christian light, he just avoided further description. But he also mentions other theological concepts in a non christian manner, perhaps turning many off to chiropractic philosophy (truly sad IMHO. He did describe matter changing from universal matter to innate matter and back again which supports reincarnation if you take away the spiritual aspect of mankind, something he was apt to do. I once had a missionary/chiropractor tell that me in the last few months of his life a pastor (from the Quad cities area) led him to faith in Christ. But that was after he had stopped writing.

      • William 07/17/2017, 9:20 pm:

        In thinking about your comments BJs audience would have been biblically literate. By not pursuing either faith or secular but going down the middle he avoided a lot of controversy. For years I translated his teaching to conform with my faith. I stopped this when it became apparent doing so did nothing to point people to faith. I do agree that faith is a subject not germane to chiropractic philosophy. I hope the report of BJ coming to faith is true. He was a great man.

        • Joe Strauss 07/18/2017, 1:01 pm:

          Dr. Hollensed, I’m not sure that BJ’s audience was “bionically literate”. I tend to think they (his early audience)was deistic-ally literate but did not have a Judaeo-Christian one and was apparently influenced by astern religionsduring his life.As I think about it the principles exactly demonstrate deism. Like Thomas Jefferson (a deist), BJ’s not acceptance of miracles in his Green Books and Major Premise was clearly a deistic view and not Judaeo-Christian. He never gave any indication that he had a Judaeo- Christian/Trinitarian view. While his writings covered chiropractic more clearly than anyone else, I would think that if he had a theistic view rather than a deistic one, that would have been evidenced.I believe my writings while emphasizing chiropractic philosophy /objective they also demonstrate my strong Christian perspective.

          • Claude 07/18/2017, 1:17 pm:

            It seems to me that COTB is turning into a faith/belief blog rather than chiropractic philosophy which is based of rational logic and mostly deductive reasoning once you accept the universal major premise that belongs to everyone WHO choose to appropriate themselves of it… as chiropractic did.

            Chiropractic is SEPARATE and DISTINCT from EVERYTHING ELSE and INCLUSIVE of EVERYONE… that includes everyone with or without faith.

          • Joe Strauss 07/21/2017, 2:32 pm:

            Claude, mixing falls into two categories, “medical” and “spiritual/religious” mixing. Most people practicing the former do not even read this blog. The Palmers understood the former (DD said “I take my chiropractic straight” but some of their writings, incorporated the meta-natural what they called the spiritual, now mistakenly described as the metaphysical. I don’t think most TSCors understand that separate and distinct difference between meta-natural and spiritual/religious, even by reading your well written book. After all, DD did not, writing: The Religious Duty of a Chiropractor and BJ did not either, implying universal intelligence was God and innate intelligence is “God in man”. The Bible says “the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit…” BJ was a natural man, albeit perhaps the greatest that ever lived,but this does not substitute for understanding spiritual things, they are not in the same category or can be understood apart from supernatural teaching This blog is an attempt to define/correct both of these differences by clearly pointing out what the physical aspect of chiropractic is and is not and what the meta-physical is and is not.At times , in doing that we must identify what is medical, (addressing medical conditions, what is meta-natural (your book), and what is religious/spiritual, found in THE BOOK. and what BJ and TSCors. misinterpret from his writings.

  2. Howard Hadley 07/13/2017, 5:15 pm:

    I’m with William. Very interesting observation. I don’t recall BJ making reference to reincarnation either, though. Did he? I also am unaware of him rejecting Judeo-Christian theology. Did he?

    • Joe Strauss 07/14/2017, 11:19 pm:

      Howard, You are correct. (See my comments/reply to Dr. William Hollensed). BJ never mentioned reincarnation to my knowledge but he sure spent a not of time writing about and studying eastern religions and much of his writings were anti-christian, particularly in ignoring/denying the Deity of Christ.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *