What happens when a teaching explicitly rejects belief and assumption—but then describes Creation as all-knowing, almighty, ever-present, eternal, and dwelling within every human being without independently demonstrating those claims?
That does not automatically make the teaching false.
But it raises a question that cannot be avoided:
At what point does contemplation become discovery—and at what point does repeated contemplation merely confirm what the student was first instructed to believe?
“Understanding the Term Creation,” attributed to Semjase in Contact Report 18, presents one of the clearest early formulations of the Billy Meier concept of Creation. It describes Creation as ever-present, all-knowing, almighty, eternal, lawful, spiritually present within human beings, and ultimately superior to ordinary material existence.
This DSPES examination does not begin by accepting or rejecting those propositions. Instead, it asks whether the claims survive the standards they themselves invoke: truth, logic, facts, knowledge, investigation, and freedom from mere belief.
Among the Billy Meier materials, “Understanding the Term ‘Creation’” deserves particular attention because it does more than define a word.
It establishes an entire way of interpreting reality.
The supplied source identifies the material as an explanation from Semjase contained in Contact Report 18, dated May 15, 1975.
The teaching urges the human being to associate Creation with qualities such as ever-presence, omnipotence, and omniscience, and to contemplate Creation repeatedly until this understanding transforms consciousness and behaviour.
It subsequently describes Creation as infinite beauty, wisdom, knowledge, truth and certainty; says that Creation exists within every human being as a fragment of itself; and presents spiritual development as a path toward extraordinary clarity, freedom from fear, wisdom, power, and knowledge.
These are substantial propositions.
They are not merely observations about nature.
They constitute claims about the ultimate structure of reality.
DSPES therefore approaches the document neither as hostile criticism nor as devotional acceptance.
The question is simpler:
What survives when the teaching is measured by Truth, Light, Love, Power, Creation, Wisdom, and Life?
And there is an especially important reason for conducting this examination.
The text itself declares that dedication to the Creational Laws should occur through learning and using facts—not through belief, assumptions, serving, or submissiveness.
That is an excellent principle.
But if it is true, it must apply equally to religion, philosophy, Billy Meier, Semjase, the Plejaren—and DSPES itself.
No source receives exemption.
Original source:
https://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Understanding_The_Term_Creation
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Creation
In the examined document, Creation is presented as the ultimate Creational reality associated with omnipresence, knowledge, wisdom, power, truth, law and spiritual existence.
Creational
That which supposedly originates from, conforms to, participates in, or expresses Creation.
Creational Laws
The laws or principles said to govern Creation and proper human development.
Spirit
Within this text, the spirit is presented as a fragment of Creation residing within the human being.
Experience
A personally perceived state, event or condition.
DSPES accepts experience as evidence that an experience occurred, but distinguishes the experience itself from the explanation assigned to it.
Knowledge
Within DSPES, knowledge requires more than confidence or internal conviction.
It requires sufficient correspondence with reality through evidence, logic, consistency, causality, verification and correctability.
Metaphysical Claim
A proposition concerning realities that are not directly demonstrated through ordinary material observation—for example, an eternal spirit, omniscient Creation, or timeless spiritual reality.
THE CENTRAL CLAIM
Semjase's teaching describes Creation using characteristics traditionally reserved for an ultimate reality.
The human being is encouraged to associate Creation with:
ever-presence,
almightiness,
all-knowingness,
infinite beauty,
wisdom,
knowledge,
truth,
power,
eternity,
and the source or foundation of life.
The document also states:
Creation exists in every human being as a fragment of itself.
It then connects recognition of this proposition with the disappearance of fear and doubt.
DSPES therefore separates two questions that should never be confused:
Question One
Does the teaching contain valuable philosophical or moral principles?
Very often, yes.
Question Two
Has the teaching established that its metaphysical description of Creation corresponds with reality?
That requires a separate examination.
THE FIRST MAJOR DSPES QUESTION:
DISCOVERY OR CONDITIONING?
This may be the most important issue in the entire document.
Early in the teaching, the reader is instructed to respond to the word Creation as something beautiful and good.
The reader is then encouraged to associate Creation with:
ever-present,
almighty,
and
all-knowing.
Repeated contemplation is encouraged until these ideas produce transformation within consciousness.
Later, however, the teaching strongly rejects mere belief and assumption.
This creates an epistemological difficulty.
Suppose the sequence is:
A teacher supplies the attributes.
↓
The student repeatedly contemplates the attributes.
↓
The attributes become deeply internalised.
↓
The student experiences Creation through those attributes.
↓
The experience is taken as confirmation that the original attributes were true.
The problem is evident.
The conclusion may already be embedded within the method used to reach it.
DSPES therefore asks:
How do we distinguish discovery from reinforced interpretation?
Repeated contemplation can certainly transform human perception.
Meditation can alter attention.
Prayer can alter emotional experience.
Philosophical contemplation can alter worldview.
Repeated ideas can become psychologically powerful.
None of those facts automatically prove that the metaphysical explanation attached to the resulting experience is objectively correct.
Therefore:
The experience may be genuine while its interpretation remains unverified.
EXPERIENCE IS EVIDENCE—BUT EVIDENCE OF WHAT?
The document states that the person living with clarity of consciousness develops a spiritual-fine-sensitive feeling in which the Creational becomes more real than bodily feeling.
The person is then described as filled with:
peace, strength, joy, knowledge, wisdom, truth and hope.
DSPES does not dismiss such experiences.
A person may genuinely experience:
deep peace,
extraordinary clarity,
unity with nature,
freedom from anxiety,
profound meaning,
or an overwhelming sense of transcendence.
But the Law of Causality asks another question:
What caused the experience?
The experience alone cannot decide between competing explanations.
Was it:
Creation?
human consciousness?
meditation?
expectation?
neurological processes?
philosophical conviction?
emotional transformation?
some combination of these?
or something not yet understood?
An experience establishes that something was experienced.
It does not automatically establish the cosmology through which the experience was interpreted.
THE “FRAGMENT OF CREATION” CLAIM
The statement that Creation exists within every human as a fragment is particularly important.
The text later explicitly identifies the spirit as a fragment of Creation residing within the human being.
DSPES separates three propositions.
Proposition 1
Humans are physically part of the universe and natural order.
Supported.
Proposition 2
Human life operates within lawful natural relationships and cause-and-effect.
Supported.
Proposition 3
A literal non-material fragment of Creation exists inside every human being as an independently real spirit.
Not established by this document.
The first two propositions cannot automatically prove the third.
To move from observable biological participation in nature to a separately identifiable metaphysical entity requires another evidentiary bridge.
That bridge is not supplied here.
Therefore DSPES does not classify the spirit-fragment claim as disproved.
It classifies it as:
NOT ESTABLISHED.
That distinction matters.
IS CREATION REALLY ALL-KNOWING AND ALMIGHTY?
The teaching tells the reader that Creation is all-knowing and almighty, and connects this knowledge with inner security and protection from foolish thoughts or wrong feelings.
This contains at least two separate claims:
Metaphysical Claim
Creation possesses unlimited knowledge and power.
Psychological Claim
Recognising this condition causes profound protection against mistaken thought and emotion.
Neither follows automatically from the other.
DSPES therefore asks:
How was Creation's omniscience determined?
How was omnipotence established?
What observation could distinguish an all-knowing Creation from a universe governed by extremely extensive but impersonal laws?
What could falsify the proposition?
Can people sincerely devoted to Creation still make mistakes?
If yes, the language of immunity is overstated.
If no, the proposition requires very strong evidence.
The document does not supply such evidence.
DSPES Judgment
NOT ESTABLISHED
“THE FUTURE ALREADY EXISTS IN THE PRESENT”
The text states that, for the spiritually oriented human being, the future already exists in the present and that tomorrow's problems can therefore be addressed now.
This can be interpreted in two very different ways.
Practical Interpretation
Present causes create future consequences.
Therefore intelligent decisions today influence tomorrow.
This strongly aligns with DSPES:
Causality
Prudence
Long-Term Consequence
Responsibility
Generational Duty
Metaphysical Interpretation
The future literally already exists as an ontological reality.
That is much stronger.
The supplied document does not demonstrate it.
Corrected DSPES Formulation
The future need not be assumed literally to exist within the present in order to recognise that future conditions are substantially shaped by causes already operating now.
The practical principle survives.
The metaphysical extension remains unestablished.
THE CREATIONAL LAWS:
A STRONG PRINCIPLE WITH AN UNFINISHED FOUNDATION
One of the strongest passages in the entire document states that dedication to Creational Laws should be expressed through the learning and utilisation of facts rather than through belief and assumption.
DSPES strongly agrees with this method.
But an important question immediately follows:
What exactly qualifies something as a Creational Law?
It is not enough to say:
This is a Creational Law because the teaching identifies it as one.
The law itself must be discoverable through reality.
Otherwise circularity appears:
The teaching is true because it corresponds with the Creational Laws.
while simultaneously:
The Creational Laws are known because the teaching tells us what they are.
DSPES requires a different sequence:
Reality
↓
Observation
↓
Recurring relationship
↓
Causality
↓
Independent verification
↓
Formulation of law
↓
Continued testing and correctability
That gives the law an existence independent of the teacher claiming it.
THE EXTRAORDINARY CAPABILITY CLAIM
The text states that the spiritually thinking human being attempts to make possible what ordinary human beings regard as impossible—and succeeds.
If intended metaphorically, this may refer simply to extraordinary perseverance and human development.
If intended literally, however, it becomes an empirical claim.
Empirical claims can be tested.
The more extraordinary the claimed ability, the more important controlled verification becomes.
This document supplies no such demonstration.
DSPES Judgment
UNSUPPORTED IN THE PRESENT SOURCE
Again, that does not mean:
impossible.
It means:
not demonstrated here.
ABSOLUTE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLAIMS
Several statements imply that advanced spiritual orientation can bring:
freedom from fear,
freedom from doubt,
immunity from wrong thoughts,
freedom from temptation,
protection from negative influence,
and exceptionally stable inner certainty.
The text also describes calling upon the highest power of Creation as protection against negative influences.
DSPES can strongly affirm the underlying goals:
self-mastery,
discipline,
courage,
emotional stability,
resilience,
and
freedom from destructive appetites.
But absolute language introduces a factual problem.
Words such as:
always,
never,
nothing,
immune,
and
absolute
create universal propositions.
One legitimate counterexample may be sufficient to invalidate a universal formulation.
A more defensible formulation would therefore be:
Disciplined orientation toward truth, wisdom, meaning and self-mastery may substantially reduce destructive fear, strengthen resilience, improve judgment and weaken unhealthy impulses.
That is measurable.
Absolute immunity is another matter.
WHAT ABOUT THE REJECTION OF “GOD”?
The document criticises religions that equate Creation with “God” and describes the religious title negatively.
DSPES agrees with one important principle hidden inside that criticism:
Definitions must not be confused.
Creation should not automatically be equated with every historical human concept called God.
But DSPES does not therefore conclude:
God is unreal because Semjase says so.
DSPES distinguishes the Eternal Source (God) from Creation.
Therefore both propositions require examination:
God = Creation
and
God does not exist.
Neither becomes true merely by definition.
Escaping religious dogmatism does not justify creating an anti-religious dogmatism.
The Law of Truth applies in both directions.
A LOVE-PILLAR PROBLEM:
CAN WE KNOW ANOTHER PERSON’S HIDDEN MOTIVE?
The document goes further than criticising doctrines.
It says that even peace-makers, religious saints, emergency helpers, medical workers and others performing outwardly noble actions can be spiritually insignificant, and suggests that such persons are often motivated by adventure, pity, self-pity and other defective impulses.
There is a valid principle here:
An outwardly good act does not automatically prove a pure inward motive.
A charitable action can be performed for prestige.
A peace campaign can conceal ambition.
A religious act can conceal hypocrisy.
DSPES accepts examination of motive.
But justice works both ways.
A teaching cannot know another person's hidden motive merely by declaring it.
Therefore the Laws of:
Evidence
Justice
Honest Testimony
Compassion
and
Proportion
require restraint.
Sweeping statements about entire classes of helpers need corresponding evidence.
DSPES Judgment
STRAINED UNDER TRUTH AND LOVE
IS MATERIAL LIFE ONLY A FLEETING PHENOMENON?
Near the end, material life is described as fleeting, while spirit, Creational presence and the reality of Creation are described as timeless and imperishable.
The first proposition is straightforward:
Human material life is temporary.
Mortality is observable.
But mortality alone does not prove:
an eternal spirit,
timeless consciousness,
an imperishable spiritual realm,
or any particular theory of post-mortem existence.
The argument:
the body dies
therefore
an imperishable spiritual reality must remain
requires additional premises and evidence.
DSPES therefore separates:
Human mortality — established.
from:
Imperishable metaphysical spirit — not established by this text.
RELATIVE PERFECTION AND ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY
The document eventually speaks of both relative perfection and absolute certainty.
These expressions are not necessarily direct contradictions.
Something could theoretically be relatively perfected while a particular fact about it remained certain.
But another difficulty appears.
The same teaching emphasises:
continued searching,
continued investigation,
continued development,
and continued recognition.
That raises important questions:
Which conclusions are absolutely certain?
What establishes their finality?
Could future knowledge correct them?
If not, how was that immunity from correction established?
If yes, why describe present knowledge as absolute certainty?
DSPES therefore regards absolute certainty as stronger than the evidentiary foundation provided in this document.
THE SELF-SEALING PROBLEM
A worldview becomes difficult to examine when every possible outcome confirms it.
Consider the pattern that can emerge:
A person who recognises Creation gains understanding.
A person who does not recognise Creation is insufficiently developed.
Positive experiences confirm alignment.
Negative experiences may be blamed upon insufficient alignment.
Agreement demonstrates understanding.
Disagreement demonstrates lack of understanding.
Such a framework risks becoming self-sealing.
A genuinely testable proposition must permit the possibility that evidence could show it to be mistaken.
Therefore DSPES asks every doctrine:
What observation would cause you to revise this claim?
If the answer is:
Nothing,
then the claim has moved beyond investigation into protected belief.
WHAT THE TEACHING GETS STRONGLY RIGHT
The examination should not become an exercise in finding faults.
There are substantial strengths.
“Understanding the Term Creation” repeatedly encourages:
truth,
logic,
knowledge,
wisdom,
love,
searching,
personal development,
self-mastery,
patience,
freedom from submissiveness,
and
living according to lawful reality.
Most importantly, it explicitly rejects mere belief and assumptions as the proper foundation for understanding Creational Laws.
DSPES considers that principle extremely important.
But it must be universal.
If humans should not blindly believe religion, they should not blindly believe extraterrestrial teachers.
If humans should test claims about God, they should test claims about Creation.
If humans should reject assumptions, they should not convert Semjase's statements into knowledge merely because the source identifies them as such.
And DSPES itself must submit to exactly the same rule.
THE SEVEN-PILLAR SCORECARD
| PILLAR | RELEVANT MINOR LAWS | DSPES FINDING | SCORE |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRUTH | Reality, Correspondence, Evidence, Consistency, Causality, Non-Contradiction, Verification | Strong commitment to truth and logic, but several major metaphysical and psychological claims exceed the evidence supplied. | 5/10 |
| LIGHT | Understanding, Knowledge, Discernment, Transparency, Clarity, Discovery | Strong encouragement to seek understanding, but key concepts remain insufficiently operationalised and independently testable. | 5/10 |
| LOVE | Compassion, Mercy, Justice, Relationship, Service, Peace | Universal love is strongly affirmed, but sweeping judgments concerning religion and hidden human motives weaken proportionality and justice. | 5/10 |
| POWER | Authority, Responsibility, Consent, Stewardship, Self-Mastery, Accountability | Strong emphasis on self-mastery and freedom from submission; weaker where unverified certainty can become another form of authority. | 6/10 |
| CREATION | Nature, Cause-and-Effect, Growth, Order, Balance, Limits, Interdependence | Order, nature and lawful development are strongly recognised. These observable realities do not by themselves establish omniscience or a metaphysical spirit-fragment. | 6/10 |
| WISDOM | Prudence, Coherence, Sound Judgment, Correctability, Tested Knowledge | Persistence and searching are strengths. Absolute claims and limited falsifiability weaken correctability. | 6/10 |
| LIFE | Dignity, Preservation, Restoration, Community, Continuity, Mortality and Limits | Life and growth are highly valued, but the leap from observable mortality to imperishable spiritual reality is not demonstrated here. | 6/10 |
OVERALL DSPES ALIGNMENT
39/70 — 5.6/10
Classification:
PARTIALLY ALIGNED — CENTRAL METAPHYSICAL CLAIMS NOT ESTABLISHED
This score is not a calculation of the probability that the Billy Meier teaching is true.
It measures how completely the propositions presented in this particular source satisfy DSPES standards of evidentiary and structural examination.
WHAT WOULD STRENGTHEN THE CASE?
For the strongest claims about Creation to advance from teaching toward independently established knowledge, the following would be required:
1. Define Creation Precisely
What exactly is being claimed to exist?
2. Define the Creational Laws
They must be identifiable independently of the authority presenting them.
3. Show How Those Laws Were Discovered
Observation and verification should precede doctrinal certainty.
4. Separate Metaphor From Ontology
Is “Creation within us” poetic participation in reality—or a literal metaphysical entity?
5. Establish the Spirit-Fragment
What evidence independently demonstrates its existence?
6. Provide Unique Testable Predictions
What should be observed if the teaching is correct that would not otherwise be expected?
7. Test Extraordinary Capabilities
Claims of unusual abilities require controlled verification.
8. Examine Counterexamples
Do sincerely Creational people still experience fear, confusion and error?
9. Preserve Correctability
What would cause a teaching to be revised?
10. Apply the Same Test to the Teacher
No Plejaren, prophet, scientist, religious authority or human examiner stands beyond accountability.
CORRECTED DSPES FORMULATION
A more defensible formulation that preserves what survives examination without claiming more than the evidence permits would be:
Creation may be understood as the ordered reality through which nature, life, causality, relationship, growth, limitation and lawful consequence become observable. Human beings participate in this order and should seek to understand it through evidence, reason, experience, logic, moral consequence, continued investigation and correction. Personal experiences of unity, transcendence, peace or spiritual presence may possess profound value, but they do not by themselves establish a metaphysical interpretation. Claims that Creation is omniscient, omnipotent, eternally conscious, present as a literal spiritual fragment within every person, or capable of granting extraordinary powers must remain open questions until sufficient independent evidence establishes them. Creational Laws should be recognised as genuine laws only insofar as they consistently correspond with reality and survive examination under Truth, Light, Love, Power, Creation, Wisdom and Life.
This formulation does not deny Creation.
It prevents the word Creation from becoming another name for conclusions placed beyond examination.
7 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1. Does DSPES reject the Meier concept of Creation?
No.
DSPES distinguishes between rejection and withholding certainty.
Many principles in the text strongly correspond with DSPES—especially truth, logic, knowledge, love, disciplined development and rejection of blind belief.
The strongest metaphysical claims, however, remain unestablished in this document.
2. Is an unestablished claim the same as a false claim?
No.
This distinction is fundamental.
Not established means that sufficient evidence has not yet been supplied.
Disproved means evidence positively establishes that the claim is false.
DSPES must never confuse those judgments.
3. Why does DSPES question spiritual experience?
DSPES does not deny spiritual experience.
It distinguishes:
the experience
from
the interpretation of the experience.
A profound experience may be entirely genuine while several explanations remain possible.
4. What is the strongest part of Semjase’s teaching?
One of its strongest principles is the rejection of belief and assumptions as substitutes for knowledge.
The document calls for facts, learning, searching, truth, logic and wisdom.
DSPES strongly supports that method—provided it is also applied to Semjase's own claims.
5. What is the greatest weakness in the teaching?
The greatest weakness is the movement from repeatedly contemplated propositions to internal experience and then from experience to metaphysical certainty without sufficient independent verification.
That risks confusing psychological confirmation with external discovery.
6. Does DSPES consider the Seven Pillars superior to Creation?
No.
The Seven Pillars function as a framework for recognising whether claims correspond with reality.
The Creation Pillar concerns natural order, causality, growth, balance, interdependence, limits and sustainability, but it operates together with Truth, Light, Love, Power, Wisdom and Life.
The Seven Pillars therefore function as an integrated framework rather than seven isolated authorities.
7. What would happen if future evidence verified Semjase’s claims?
DSPES must accept the evidence.
Likewise, if evidence contradicted a DSPES interpretation, DSPES must correct itself.
A framework that refuses correction when reality contradicts it has abandoned Truth.
That principle applies to everyone.
CONCLUSION
“Understanding the Term Creation” is not an empty philosophical text.
It presents a serious attempt to direct human consciousness toward truth, knowledge, wisdom, love, discipline and a lawful conception of existence.
Those strengths deserve recognition.
But recognition is not surrender.
The text also makes substantial metaphysical propositions concerning an all-knowing and almighty Creation, a literal fragment of Creation within every human, spiritual perception beyond the ordinary senses, extraordinary abilities, timeless spiritual reality and near-absolute psychological transformation.
Those propositions require more than repetition, contemplation or personal experience before they can legitimately be classified as knowledge.
The most important conclusion of this examination may therefore arise from the teaching's own words.
It tells the human being not to live by belief and assumption.
DSPES answers:
Agreed.
And therefore:
Do not merely believe religion.
Do not merely believe philosophy.
Do not merely believe Billy Meier.
Do not merely believe Semjase.
Do not merely believe the Plejaren.
And do not merely believe DSPES.
Measure every claim.
Follow evidence where it leads.
Correct error when reality exposes it.
Because if Creation truly describes the order of reality, then Creation cannot be harmed by honest examination.
Truth survives questioning.
Reality survives measurement.
A genuine law survives verification.
Original source:
https://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Understanding_The_Term_Creation
STANDARD CLOSING SENTENCE
Truth is measured, not invented. Reality is discovered, not created by thought.
CALL TO ACTION
Do not stop with this examination.
Read the original material yourself.
Separate what the source actually says from what others say about it.
Ask which statements are observable, which are philosophical, which are experiential, and which require independent evidence.
Then place every conclusion—whether religious, scientific, extraterrestrial, philosophical, personal, or DSPES—before the same Seven Pillars:
TRUTH — LIGHT — LOVE — POWER — CREATION — WISDOM — LIFE
The purpose of examination is not to defeat a teacher.
It is to prevent allegiance to any teacher from becoming stronger than allegiance to reality.
REFERENCES AND SOURCE NOTES
Primary Source
“Understanding the Term ‘Creation’” — Explanation from Semjase
The supplied source identifies the teaching as an excerpt from Contact Report 18, dated Thursday, May 15, 1975, 9:34 PM, from the Pleiadian-Plejaren Contact Reports, Conversations, Volume 1.
German title:
Verständnis von dem Begriff “Schöpfung”
Future of Mankind source:
https://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Understanding_The_Term_Creation
Contact Report 18:
https://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/Billy_Meier/Contact_Report_018
Translation Status
The source identifies the English material as an official and authorised translation of a FIGU publication while simultaneously warning that translation errors may occur because of difficulties between German and English.
The translation credits Vivienne Legg and Dyson Devine, with a November 2010 revision carried out in collaboration with Vibka Wallder.
The translators further explain that unusual English terminology may sometimes be deliberately retained because ordinary English words are considered inadequate representations of particular German concepts.
Accordingly, conclusions turning upon a disputed English expression should ideally be checked against the German original.
DSPES Source-Handling Principle
A verified quotation proves what a source said.
It does not automatically prove that what the source said accurately describes external reality.
Therefore:
Source authenticity ≠ claim verification.
Internal coherence ≠ external correspondence.
Personal conviction ≠ objective confirmation.
Personal experience ≠ automatic verification of its metaphysical interpretation.
Evidentiary Limitation
This examination concerns the claims contained in the supplied document.
Therefore the judgment:
“not established by this document”
does not mean:
“disproved throughout the entire Billy Meier corpus.”
Other Contact Reports or FIGU publications may provide additional argumentation.
If they do, those materials should be examined separately under the same evidentiary standards.
Translation Caution
Translation uncertainty must be treated fairly.
It may justify re-examining a conclusion if the German source materially changes its meaning.
However, translation difficulty cannot function as an unlimited shield protecting every difficult proposition from examination.
An authorised public English translation may legitimately be analysed according to what it communicates, while clearly acknowledging its stated linguistic limitations.
Final Source Principle
The source has the right to be represented accurately.
The claim has the obligation to survive examination.
Respecting a source does not require believing it.
Questioning a source does not require attacking it.
RELATED ARTICLES
What Is Creation? — The Fourteen Meanings of Creation
The Meier Framework Applied to Itself
The Law of Reality: The Final Measure of Every Claim
When a Belief Is Being Disguised as Knowledge
Why DSPES Does Not Belong to a Religious Framework
Reincarnation or Cosmic Transformation — A DSPES Examination of Contact Report 707 Part 2
100 Questions and Answers About Billy Meier’s Concept of Creation and DSPES
BLOGGER LABELS / SEO TAGS
DSPES, Creation, Billy Meier, Semjase, Contact Report 18, Creational Laws, Seven Pillars, Truth, Evidence, FIGU, Meier Examination, Reality
HASHTAGS
#DSPES #SevenPillars #Creation #BillyMeier #Semjase #ContactReport18 #CreationalLaws #Truth #Evidence #Reality #Wisdom #Knowledge #FIGU #CriticalExamination
No comments:
Post a Comment