"You never change things by fighting the existing
Maybe somewhat disregarding the above advice, this site is intended to be a fundamental challenge regarding the lack of intellectual responsibility of ALL the world's religions and their theologies and also to much of the modern theory of mainstream science, especially in the fields of cosmology, geology, anthropology, linguistics and psychology. These disciplines are missing the big picture of how the physical universe is powered and structured, and are missing the picture of what happened to the Earth and its people in pre-historical and early historical time; and thus they are resisting the real major factors and true underpinnings and have replaced these with a hodgepodge of modern mythology.
The site contains a considerable amount of material dealing with ancient catastrophes and the cause based in solar system disasters delivered by electrically interacting planets, the ancient wars of the Gods with their thunderbolts. See Saturnian Scenario for why the author has not only adopted this thinking but why it is of the utmost importance.
On the other hand, the majority of the site IS devoted to building a new model or paradigm and sub-paradigms. The rationale for doing so is usually made clear, and the new thinking is supported with rationality, logic, and reason.
This site is significantly about theology. So what? There is plenty of theology out there, thousands of books, probably more than any one person can assay. So why do we need some more? What makes the material on this site substantially different enough to warrant investigation?
Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are
The Primary Premise:
Along with the other religions, Christendom is hopelessly infused−contaminated if you will−with ancient mythology and "traditional" thinking, structures, ceremonies, idolatry etc., that have nothing to do with the good news exposited and demonstrated by Jesus. This baggage, this framework, effectively precludes or PREVENTS a reasonable consideration of the truth that he represented.
The premise that should demand our attentions is that Mankind has seriously misunderstood God, and we have let an ancient MYTHOLOGICAL paradigm and understanding thwart a true understanding of God's great apocalypse or revealing. The great demonstration of God was NOT appreciated for what it was, and the words and message of God fell on perverse hearts and deaf ears. Not only have we missed understanding the real essence of godhood, but that this needs to be dealt with freshly in a careful, systematic, substantive way because this misunderstanding is the essence of what is called sin and evil.
In the three monotheistic religions of the West−Judaism, Christianity, Islam−the proposition that God exists is not an article of faith or religious belief. The first article of faith in all three religions is that God has revealed himself to us in Holy Writ or Sacred Scripture. Mortimer J. Adler, How to Think about God, MacMillan Publishing Co., 866 3rd Ave, New York, NY 10022, p. 16.
Hidden in the point of the quote above is the assumption that the CREATOR by default is a God worthy of the term. Apparently, every theologian to date has approached the subject with an existing or traditional paradigm or conceptual foundation and perspective that is heavily based in ancient mythology.
The author of the material on this site has taken a radically different approach, NOT accepting without an intense challenge that the creator is worthy to be called God, NOT accepting a priori that the creator is worthy to be the "king of kings", "lord of lords", the sovereign of the universe. And finally NOT accepting that the Creator is worthy of being worshipped JUST because of creation! Maybe the creator should instead be BLAMED for creation, not worshipped, because the origin of a life that is subjected to evil is no basis for worship in and of itself.
There are many approaches to building a new theology and a new belief system, and the hybrids are proliferating. You can build by using tradition, ancient sacred writings, mystical experiences, scientific knowledge, by looking for secret knowledge, or by using whatever pops into your mind. You can window shop and pick from the wide variety of ideas in the panoply of existing religions. But for the primary step there are only two options for the planting of faith, the internal and the external.
The author has started this journey by essentially giving up on God! But at some point he became uncomfortable by a vague but nagging awareness that maybe he hadn't done due diligence by even being intellectually responsible. This eventually led to three questions:
1. Why give up on God when you haven't even been intellectually responsible in seeking the truth and dealing with the real issues?
2. Why give up on God when you can easily see that the traditional and current thinking about God is so pathetically the product of ancient mythology, and so pitifully misguided, confused and inadequate?
3. Why give up on God when you haven't yet even defined God well enough to identify what he would have to be like or what he would have to offer in order to be accepted as God?
Questions are better than answers
Surely this is true when you are starting or starting over. There is a film documentary called I Am which frames its purpose with two fundamental questions:
1) What is wrong with the world?
Before one can determine what is "wrong", one needs to determine what is "right" in order to compare and contrast.
2) What can we do about it?
Now, these are good and fundamental questions, but they start by looking at the world, and we need to know what is right. Is this the right place to start? The premise is no; the right place to start is by looking at ourselves. The starting question should be:
What do I really want and need to be fulfilled and satisfied?
The author has continued his journey by looking inwardly to "brazenly" observe what he really −intrinsically and legitimately−needs and wants, and by extension what we all really need and want. The premise is that the ideal "God" would have created a system to deliver what we really want. The author has then looked around to see if there was any likely candidate who was even offering that total package. This approach engenders a new and radically different definition of God, because only one who offers the total package of what we legitimately need and want is worthy of being worshipped. You can FEAR the creator, but you can't worship him if his creation is not set up to deliver or match our desires and needs.
This has led to a radically different paradigm or framework for understanding both the NATURE and CHARACTER of God. Every question, every issue, every concept has been approached in the context of this overriding criterion: Is the conclusion consonant with the fulfillment of what I would want and need for all eternity, consistent with the way that I would do it and want it to be? If not, let's be on to something better.
Part of the substantial support for the urgency of developing a new understanding is to see the inordinate influence of ancient mythology on our "modern" theology. Consequently, there are over 60 articles dealing with the planetary catastrophe so pronounced in the Old Testament and so very influential still today. An education and understanding of ancient mythology is a real eye opener, and sweeps away much related mysticism.
But, the bottom-line, overriding issue is ALWAYS whether we get what we need and want, or not. *-*-*-