"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes
the existing model obsolete.” - R. Buckminster Fuller
Site Approach and Purpose
Rationale for the site
Maybe somewhat disregarding the advice in the quote above, this site is intended to
be a fundamental challenge regarding the lack of intellectual
responsibility of ALL the world's religions and their theologies. The
objective is to produce the First and Last Intellectually Responsible
Theology (FLIRT). The objective is
also to challenge 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 by electricity, and are also missing the picture
of what happened to the Earth and its people in pre-historical and early
historical time; thus they are resisting the real major factors and
true underpinnings of human history and have replaced these with a hodgepodge of modern
Thus the site contains a considerable amount of material dealing with ancient
catastrophe and its cause, which is based in solar system disasters
delivered by electrically interacting planets, the ancient wars of the
Gods with their exchanges of thunderbolts. See Saturnian Scenario for why the author has not
only adopted this thinking but why it is of the utmost importance.
Legitimacy of the Challenge
I can concede that it is not appropriate to challenge or attack even a position,
much less widely held religious or scientific doctrine, without first doing
do diligence in exploring the support for that position and without
listening to its proponents. In both the realms of theology and the science
disciplines listed above, I grew up with and spent half a life time
listening to and being indoctrinated with both prevailing religious and
scientific doctrines. If there were not profound and intractable
problems, I would have–maybe not comfortably–stayed with the herd.
Paradigm Change Needed
Thus the majority of the site is devoted to making previously
opaque issues transparent and understandable by building a new model or
paradigm and sub-paradigms that deal with the important issues. The
rationale for doing so is usually made clear, and the new thinking is
supported with information, rationality, logic, and reason. The capstone
justification for every idea on the site is its
INTEGRATION with all the other issues, information and facets with which we are faced.
This site is significantly about theology. So what? There is plenty of theology out
there, thousands of books on the subject, probably more than any one person
can assay. So why do we need some more? How does any new theology cut through all the interminable claptrap of Kant, Hume,
Hegel, Tillich, Feuerbach, Marx, Schweitzer, Kierkegaard, Teilhard de Chardin, ad nauseam?
For those well versed in theological terminology, how does it go way beyond
latitudinarianism and antinomianism? What makes the material on this site substantially different
enough to warrant investigation?
Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are
made by questioning answers." - astrophysicist Bernhard Haisch
Before we can answer those questions, we have to ask more
questions. How do you argue against longstanding, prevailing views that have
been adopted by civilized society's institutions for centuries with much
of it for millennia, yet is almost thoroughly wrong? How do you suggest that
the entire world, down to every last man, is enmeshed in a false paradigm of
God and reality? In the past you could get crucified for doing that!
Nowadays, you just get dismissed and isolated as a crank or lunatic.
To illustrate, I will note an incident that involved me many
years ago that not only "kicked me down the road" to seeking better answers,
but to shore up my logic and reasoning and develop a different paradigm. It
also dramatically illustrates the issue of the last question. After an
informal dinner at a fellow church member's home, I found myself in
discussion with a prominent visiting clergyman, and the issue of God's
foreknowledge came up. The prevailing view of most of the denominational
members including this clergyman was to interpret the Bible passage of God
knowing "the end from the beginning" to mean that he knows exactly what will
happen throughout the eternal future. This is called Calvinism, "determinism"
or "double pre-destination.
I was presenting good, valid arguments against this
logic-violating position, when the pastor-evangelist interrupted me and
proudly announced that he could trump my arguments and said, "Well! I see
what you are doing. You are using HUMAN logic!" End of discussion, because
how can you disparage a beloved clergyman who was a guest in the home of
adoring adherents? I COULD have challenged him by saying that HUMAN logic
was the only kind that I was aware of, and asking what brand of logic he was
using, but that would have only shown him up for being pitifully illogical.
Sub-Paradigm 7 -
A different starting point
In an age when "muscular atheism" is pitted against
"muscular religion" in hundreds of books, thousands of articles and
lectures, what is needed is a more profound starting point. What is the MOST
unusual and profound aspect of this site IS this different starting point,
which is our own legitimate needs and
desires. As the philosopher Schopenhauer said, "A human may very well do
what he wants, but cannot will what he wants".
We didn't design ourselves, including our intrinsic needs and
desires. The simple logic is that the designer/creator MUST be enthusiastic about
fulfilling those in his children. Else he is unworthy of worship and the
designation of being a God worthy of the term. In liberated thinking, he
would be condemned for child neglect or
abuse! Thus, identifying this set of needs and desires then guides and constrains
the interpretation of ALL other aspects of our theological thinking.
Once these non-negotiable needs and desires are identified
and embraced, only THEN can you hold up your current thinking against these
criteria. Only then can you start looking around for any agency that PROMISES or
OFFERS their fulfillment. Only then can you safely ignore or cast aside any
and every agency, paradigm,
philosophy, theology or religion that doesn't adequately address this
ultimate issue. This is one way to describe
the straight and narrow path!
7 Stages of Authority transfer
An important aspect of this starting point is self
actualization in terms of authority investment. The stages of
authority transfer often go like this, but it is the final stage that is important.
- Religious, academic, and governmental institutions
- Sacred writings/scriptures
- Authority is internalized
If you don't invest some kind of ultimate
authority/responsibility in your self, how can you trust yourself to invest
in an external authority?
Sub-Premise 8 - Questions of focus
An easy issue to decide but often not thought about directly
is whether spiritually it is more important to focus on WHAT to believe
rather than on intensity of belief. It is clear that those people we would
generally categorize as religious, focus not on challenging their belief or
better understanding but on bolstering or protecting their belief, and the religious
organizations universally support and encourage this. They do this through
creeds, daily or weekly services and classes, preaching dogma, liturgy, art,
music, mantra, rites, rituals, ceremonies, sacraments, holy days and
holidays. music and hymns,
formal costumes, architecture, iconography, statuary, symbols, books,
literature and the media of books, literature, radio, television and
The relevant premise of the site is that understanding
ALWAYS precedes true belief, and thus the focus should be on understanding.
Furthermore, that the seeker of truth needs NONE of the above list of
techniques and is put off by them. Belief is NOT knowledge and always has a
dimension of choice involved; therefore the final criterion for true belief
is that a man ultimately is willing to put his life on the line for it in
one way or another.
Questions of style and approach
is more judicious at the very foundational level of the human soul, to
argue against the false or to argue for the true? If the most effective way is to do both, what
is the balance and which should the emphasis be on? Should the appeal be
couched in terms for the heart or for the mind? If the answer is both, what
is the balance and which should the emphasis be on?
Some would say that the cup must be drained of the false
before it can be refilled by the true. But this can be a useless analogy
except to not engage at all unless you see that the cup HAS been drained.
Humans are not cups to be drained by others, not even by God! They (you)
must be in control of their (your) own draining and refilling.
The Truth is apprehended by the mind, and then
affirmed by the heart.
The written word cannot approach you, smile, and look
you in the eye while conveying a sense of goodwill and respect. An
article cannot exude with facial expression and tone of voice a desire for fellowship, commonality, and greater
bonding unity. Its pathway cannot address any of the senses except the
eyes that channel information from the text to the mind. While this can be a
disadvantage, it can be a very good thing in that it cuts out all the
other sensory avenues that can influence the emotions to divert and swing the mind to go in
a false direction. So, welcome to the site of which you probably won't read much
unless you have drained the cup or are good and ready to do so.
Ready to empty the cup? Or at least consider it? Let's begin.
First Primary Premise:
There is a false global psychological conclusion, buttressed by our
experience, that has captured or captivated the human
race: That we cannot have the full package of our intrinsic and legitimate
needs and desires fulfilled.
If there is no God, this just becomes a "what is". Those that cannot
challenge this proton pseudos,
this "first lie" or "first falsity" and don't even want to deal with it–thanks to the prevailing religion of scientism–gravitate to various
"Godless" scenarios, like evolutionism, which incorporate the idea that
simply not in the cards that reality deals to us. Therefore, the existence
of any agency that
can assist us in realizing this potential fulfillment is denied.
Given that there is a God, there are two other proffered reasons for this
false conclusion: Either we don't deserve this, or God sees that it
isn't in our interest. The various religions embrace one or the other of
these conclusions to a greater or lesser degree and deal with them in
Thus the world of humanity is caught somewhere between unsanity and full-blown
insanity. Although they embraced SOME of the cornerstones of civilization,
logic and reasonableness, the very founders of classical Greek and Western
philosophy were nothing short of goofy, engaging in mysticism, reification
and reincarnation. They almost universally avoided this
primary issue; yet they have been lionized by
equally goofy philosophers and theologians. I am not devaluing their
contribution, but merely pointing out that they were far from being mature
in terms of intellectual responsibility.
Take Pythagoras, who was maybe the first man to call himself a
philosopher and who is considered by some to be the father of philosophy.
Here is what InfoGalactic online encyclopedia has to say:
Heraclides Ponticus reports the story that Pythagoras
claimed that he had lived four previous lives that he could
remember in detail. One of his past lives, as reported by
Aulus Gellius, was as a beautiful courtesan. According to
Xenophanes, Pythagoras heard the cry of his dead friend in the bark of a dog.
Brewer (1894), wrote (page 2293):
"Pythagoras maintained that the soul has three vehicles:
(1) the ethereal, which is luminous and celestial, in which
the soul resides in a state of bliss in the stars; (2) the
luminous, which suffers the punishment of sin after death;
and (3) the terrestrial, which is the vehicle it occupies on
"Pythagoras asserted he could write on the moon. His
plan of operation was to write on a looking-glass in blood,
and place it opposite the moon, when the inscription would
appear photographed or reflected on the moon's disc."
"Mesmerism was practised by Pythagoras, if we may credit
Iamblichus, who tells us that he tamed a savage Daunian bear
by “stroking it gently with his hand;” subdued an eagle by
the same means; and held absolute dominion over beasts and
birds by 'the power of his voice,' or 'influence of his touch.'"
"Pythagoras taught that the sun is a movable sphere in
the centre of the universe, and that all the planets revolve
round it. This is substantially the same as the Copernican
and Newtonian systems."
Principle of continuity
To speak of having past lives is a fundamental negation of self identity
and self worth. If I had a past life with a different name, family,
personality, memory, gender, characteristics, etc., it wouldn't be ME, and
likewise, any future life of such wouldn't be ME either. "I" am here NOW,
with infinite and eternal value! The real "ME" MUST have seamless continuity. Even if
this continuity is broken by death, in any "resurrection" or
"reincarnation" it must be picked
up exactly where it left off! All such spiritual paradigms that fail this
criterion violate this fundamental principle of continuity and are spiritual rubbish!
Take Socrates, who essentially committed suicide out of
perverse pride. Here is what InfoGalactic online encyclopedia has to say:
If anything in general can be said about the
philosophical beliefs of Socrates, it is that he was morally,
intellectually, and politically at odds with many of his fellow Athenians.
When he is on trial for heresy and corrupting the minds of the youth of
Athens, he uses his method of elenchos to demonstrate to the jurors
that their moral values are wrong-headed. He tells them they are concerned
with their families, careers, and political responsibilities when they ought
to be worried about the "welfare of their souls". Socrates' assertion that
the gods had singled him out as a divine emissary seemed to provoke
irritation, if not outright ridicule. Socrates also questioned the Sophistic
doctrine that arete (virtue) can be taught. He liked to observe that
successful fathers (such as the prominent military general
did not produce sons of their own quality. Socrates argued that moral
excellence was more a matter of divine bequest than parental nurture. This
belief may have contributed to his lack of anxiety about the future of his own sons.
Wow! what an arrogant nutcase. And moral excellence being a "matter of
divine bequest" is fatalistic and defeatist.
Take Plato, who "laid the very foundations of
Western philosophy and
Maybe the most disparaging thing that can be said about Plato is that the
best that he could envision was that "forms" were the foundation of reality.
Here is what InfoGalactic online encyclopedia has further to say:
In addition to being a foundational figure for Western science, philosophy, and
mathematics, Plato has also often been cited as one of the founders of
Western religion and
Friedrich Nietzsche, amongst other scholars, called
Christianity, "Platonism for the people." Plato's influence on
Christian thought is often thought to be mediated by his major influence on
Saint Augustine of Hippo, one of the most important
theologians in the
history of Christianity
...(2)There is evidence that Plato possibly took from Pythagoras
the idea that mathematics and, generally speaking, abstract
thinking is a secure basis for philosophical thinking as well as
"for substantial theses in
morals". (3) Plato and Pythagoras shared a "mystical approach to the
soul and its place in the material world". It is probable
that both were influenced by
Pythagoras held that all things are number, and
the cosmos comes from numerical principles. The physical world
of becoming is an imitation of the mathematical world of being.
These ideas were very influential in Heraclitus, Parmenides and Plato.
Aristotle claimed that the philosophy of Plato closely
followed the teachings of the Pythagoreans, and
Cicero repeats this claim: "They say Plato learned all
things Pythagorean" (Platonem ferunt didicisse Pythagorea
Take Aristotle, the historical first master of
analysis. Aristotle proposed a
geocentric cosmology wherein the Earth was the rotten, evil
center of rotation for a universe of shells, the outermost being perfect and the domain
of Heaven and goodness.
Here is part of what InfoGalactic online encyclopedia has to say:
He believed all peoples' concepts and all of their knowledge was ultimately
perception. Aristotle's views on
natural sciences represent the groundwork underlying many of his works.
Aristotelianism profoundly influenced
Judeo-Islamic philosophical and theological thought during the
Middle Ages and continues to influence
Christian theology, especially the
Neoplatonism of the
Early Church and the
scholastic tradition of the
Roman Catholic Church. Aristotle was well known among medieval Muslim
intellectuals and revered as "The First Teacher".
Aristotle simplistically proposed five elements:.
Earth, which is cold and dry; this corresponds to the
modern idea of a solid.
Water, which is cold and wet; this corresponds to the
modern idea of a liquid.
Air, which is hot and wet; this corresponds to the
modern idea of a gas.
Fire, which is hot and dry; this corresponds to the
modern ideas of
plasma and heat.
Aether, which is the divine substance that makes up the
heavenly spheres and heavenly bodies (stars and
Aristotle was quite insightful when it came to what he called causes, and
proposed 4 types:
- Purpose, dealing with will, intentionality, need and .desire
- Material, dealing with the substance or material of which something
- Formal, dealing with the form or essential arrangement
- Efficient, dealing with cause and effect
So much for Aristotle. All in all, a mixture of good and bad.
Take Chrysippus, a stoic philosopher, who reportedly died laughing at his
own joke. How psychologically stable, intellectually responsible and
spiritually mature do you think Chrysippus was?
Finally, one last statement from InfoGalactic:
God, according to Aristotle, is in a state of
"stasis" untouched by change and imperfection.
The bottom line here is that NONE of these "great" philosophers dealt
with the real, ultimate issues but only secondary aspects. We can only
speculate that they had no stomach for it.
Second 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 real issues.
This baggage, this framework, effectively precludes or PREVENTS a
reasonable consideration of the truths that really matter, yet it is burned into
the mind of the greater population, and even the scholars have lost the
ability to sort out the mythology from the genuine. Many, of course, just dismiss it all
and become cynics.
The premise that should demand our attentions is that Mankind has
seriously misunderstood the Originator and our relationship, and we have let an ancient MYTHOLOGICAL
paradigm and understanding thwart a true understanding of the Originator's great
apocalypse or revealing. The great demonstration was NOT
appreciated for what it was, and the words and message fell on
perverse hearts and deaf ears. Not only have we missed understanding the
real essence of godhood, but 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 it is the root of 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.
Creator versus God
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.
You can FEAR the creator, but you can't really worship him if his
creation is not set up to deliver or match our desires and needs.
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 such evil as
the human condition 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 regions that are options for the development of faith, the internal and
In his own life, the author had to start this phase of his journey
completely over 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 be
to offer in order to be accepted as God, and worshipped rather than resented?
Third Primary Premise:
The third primary premise is that spiritual growth and welfare is NEVER
promoted by law and legalism, but ALWAYS by belief and commitment inspired
by a vision of the future that appeals to everyone's self interest. Hence,
the Kingship of the Heavens and the IFISEEKUS package. "Nuff said!
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?
The author saw that 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 we are starting with, what is right
for us. Is this the right place to start? The premise
of this site is NO; the
right place to start is by looking at ourselves, by looking inside. The starting question
What do I really–intrinsically, legitimately and ultimately–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
originally created a system to deliver what we really–intrinsically and
legitimately–want, and that "salvation can fall nothing short of this!
Fourth Primary Premise - The ultimate issue
Once having identified what he intrinsically wants and needs, the author then looked around to see if there was any likely
candidate who was EVEN OFFERING that total package. This approach has engendered 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 really 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 70 articles dealing
with the planetary catastrophe so pronounced in the Old Testament and
other ancient scriptures so very influential still today. An education and understanding of
ancient mythology is a real eye opener, and sweeps away much related mysticism and myth.
But, the bottom-line, overriding issue is ALWAYS whether we get what we need and want, or not.
We NEED there to be an agency worthy of the term God, and
one that has communicated with us, and not just claimed but
DEMONSTRATED unmitigated human goodness, else we are
in deep trouble! But, HOW can a reasonable person believe that?
Every endeavor can be thought of as having at least these three aspects:
purpose, strategy, and tactics. So let us lay out those aspects right up front.
Not being impressed by the state of the world nor the condition of Mankind,
the purpose of the site is a grand one. It is to deal with the ultimate
issues–especially the real essence of godhood–and to overcome,
that is, transcend the "human condition" and
usher in an age of unsurpassed success, fulfillment and enhancement of
life. The purpose is for all of us to win the entire package of what we
legitimately, intrinsically need and want.
Could the primary problem in the world possibly be in what we believe?
The overriding strategy is to CLARIFY the issues in a world where confusion is running rampant.
The strategy is also one of helping people to wake up, come out of
apathy, detachment and indifference so as to become capable of holding
their belief systems accountable to worthiness, goodness, CONSISTENCY and coherence.
To not do this is be irresponsible and the most fundamental level.
This is a strategy of engendering a real
core group of people who come out of denial and admit that
something is really more fundamentally wrong with traditional approaches and belief
systems than has hitherto been realized. It involves inspiring and
helping these people to take matters into their own hands as best they
can by focusing and thinking critically with a continual personal demand that they
understand the reality of the physical, spiritual, psychological, and
intellectual situation that they are in. And then doing so by coming into
unity of purpose, plan, values, and paradigm through the rigorous application
of honesty, courage, good will, rationality, logic, reason, and the inspiration
from a historical demonstration. In essence, by simply being intellectually responsible.
Is the pathway an arduous, burdensome ordeal, or is
it the greatest adventure that can be undertaken?
Furthermore, by acknowledging our need for external help. BUT, is there
real evidence of any such help? Is there any demonstration of it, any credible offer of that
help? Or, are we not seeing the evidence, appreciating the credibility of the evidence?
Even if we were to see it, does the demonstration and associated offer contain any
instructions or directions?
Another major premise is that so far
the directions or instructions have been largely unrecognized and ignored.
Therefore, one way to describe the strategy of this site is that it is
an attempt to assay and portray from many different facets and issues what is
monstrously wrong with the Judeo-Christian paradigm or approach, as well
as that of all other religions.
The tactics are simply these:
1. Assaying frankly and honestly the
context and situation in which we find ourselves, the so-called human condition
2. Seeing, admitting and proclaiming the UNACCEPTABILITY of this context and situation
3. Challenging EVERY aspect of previous philosophy, theology and
personal thinking that smells like it needs a good airing with merciless examination.
4. An important one is getting down to basics, and to define the
parameters or set OUR specifications for there being a God worthy of the
term. In other words, the major tactic is to REFRAME everything in terms
of the ultimate issue: Can we as humans receive or engender in a timely manner what we
legitimately want and need?
Another tactic is to challenge and de-mystify our thinking about God,
because any revelation by God is vitiated by the confusion of
mysticism. Are not revelation and mysticism opposing and incompatible?!
6. Continually realizing that our current lives are on the line,
continually holding our feet to the fire by making sure that everything we
come up with is consistent with our better-focused definition of God, consistent with
the whole and entire set of beliefs, and promises to be a reliable part on the pathway to
the success of achieving ultimate success.
Not the least of the tactics incorporated into this site is the attempt
to familiarize people with the relevant aspects of overall human
psychological, social, religious, racial makeup, and thereby
especially with what really happened in the ancient times.
The widespread myth of the "Garden of Eden" should be clearly seen as an
allegory, part of the Hebrew mythology. There was a time in the history
of the earth and its people known as the "Golden Age"; and the various
myths concerning the "age of perfect virtue", the "Isle of Avalon", the
"Garden of Eden", the "time" before time, etc. are myths that reflect that
age. The theme reflected in these myths is universal, including virtually all ancient cultures.
A lot of substantive work has been done to reconstruct
the radically different environment of those ages and the earth-shaking
events that have so profoundly affected all religions and cultures to this
day. However, the vast majority of people, including scholars,
scientists, and theologians are totally ignorant of these developments,
how badly the body of ancient literature and myths have been misinterpreted,
and how far from the truth the current understanding of
these myths really is in terms of their original meaning.
It should be noted and well understood that ancient
mythology was NOT an attempt to fabricate fiction, but was developed as highly stylized and
spiritualized stories reflecting what happened to the ancient peoples. A
VERY powerful approach known as "comparative mythology" has been
developed and used quite successfully to unravel the literal formations
seen in the sky and the catastrophic global events that transpired. This approach primarily
concentrates on the facets of various mythologies that agree enough to
be identified as referring to the same experiences or phenomena that had such an impact.
Thus, quite a bit of myth foundation material has been
incorporated into this site, understanding though that a large library could be filled
with the pertinent text. This material and the understanding that it
engenders is INVALUABLE, partially because it shows us how deeply
immersed we are in the "modern mythology". Not the least of the reasons is that
it shows us the origins of so many otherwise false concepts of God and the
plethora of religions now extant. These are actually all largely based on
ancient planet worship mythology developed by people that were
psychologically destabilized and were NOT being intellectually responsible.
Another tactic is to ask a lot of questions. Good, probing questions,
some of which may have never been asked before.
One of the often asked questions is why "bad things happen to good people."
Some people on earth somehow manage to develop into relative paragons of
virtue. They become wise, kind, gracious, generous, responsible,
helpful, loving, etc. individuals, everything that the religions of the
world ask for. Some dedicate their lives to focusing on service to the
betterment of mankind, and yet they are not exempt from tragedy and dying.
people that "believe" they are not going to die, just go ahead and decay
with age and die anyway. Why? This site endeavors to answer these
questions in a way that is different from the traditional answers that cannot be right.
Since Christianity taken as a whole is the largest, most prominent
religion of the globe, and that the other religions consider that Yeshua is a mere prophet, "Holy Man" or
influential teacher, a significant amount of material on the site has
been included to deal with this issue and various other aspects of Christianity.
Finally, the ultimate tactic is to challenge ourselves to be intellectually
responsible, to grow up intellectually, spiritually, whereby we
internalize authority, realize and embrace our sovereignty and thereby take personal responsibility for our belief system.
The simple summation would be: acting on the instructions and directions
(from God?) that have been given
to us by his crucial demonstration and revelation.
Some pertinent context in America
Approximately 90 percent of Americans claim that they have never doubted the existence of
God and a goodly part of the rest claim to believe in God though sometimes having
doubted. Maybe some of the 90 percent are not being totally honest,
have conveniently not remembered, or don't understand, because even
beginning to be inclined to think about wondering whether you should
think such a thing and then backing away because of fear or religious
conditioning really amounts to the same thing.
However, it is good to
get this non-issue out of the way. It is illogical to not believe in a
creator of some kind, because 1) things are continually being created or caused and
because you cannot begin with nothing, you must start with something. As Heidegger put it, "Nothing
nothings!" Or put it this way: if you start with nothing you cannot
ever have anything, because even the potential for something is something, not nothing.
Fifth Primary Premise - Should We Care about a Creator?
So now we can entertain the idea of the existence of a Creator of some
kind. So what? A creator is not necessarily a god,
that is a GOOD creator with a good purpose, values, and plan. A creator can just
create without regard for what we would consider as human or humane values. Maybe the
creator is intrinsically sadistic and designed things to be bad for us rather than good, in which case he/it should be
considered as the author of evil and is unworthy of the title God? Or maybe he/it
is indifferent, doesn't care? That pretty much leads to the same final conclusion.
So, the issue should not be whether a creator exists or not! The
REAL issue is whether or not that creator is
qualified to be thought of and called "God" and worshipped rather than
resented or even feared? The issue is ME
and that "God", the interaction of that "God" and me.
The influence on the quality of MY life from that "God". The impact of MY needs
and desires from that "God". MY destiny and "God". Is "God" any good
for ME personally and someone I would want to live with? Is "God" TOTALLY good
for me personally? And if so, how? And what, and when, and where, and, and WHY!!?
No neutral independent position
The material in this site is not
being written or presented from a "neutral" position like that of an
arbiter in a dispute or a chairman conducting a debate. Recent
philosophical work has shown that man cannot disconnect himself from the
reality he is considering and this author finds no position in the
physical and metaphysical cosmos on which to take a distant,
disconnected, non-involved stance in order to independently and
impartially weigh all the evidence and coolly make a "decision" (See
decision in definition section). It doesn't work that way. One
must take some kind of intellectually or spiritually involved position
and plunge in with what one has and start learning how to swim. This
does not mean that one has to lose sensibility or objectivity nor does
it mean that one cannot move one's position or modify or change beliefs
as the journey unfolds.
Another way of saying the above, in street language, is that I/we have skin in the game!
So, this site is being presented from the perspective of another major premise or position:
We NEED there to be an agency worthy of the term God, and one that has
communicated with us and DEMONSTRATED unmitigated human goodness, else we are in deep trouble!
This site attempts to show that Yeshua–his life, message and
demonstration–can stand on his own in this regard, and neither his life nor
his message need validation from ancient prophecies nor mythology. We only
need a modicum of archeology and history, which we have, to dismiss the
whole thing as a total fabrication. BUT, Yeshua
carries a LOT OF BAGGAGE from misunderstandings that go ALL the way back
to his disciples and the founding developers of Christendom!
Premise List - Three following premises that are dramatic and
1) Mankind as a collective is psychologically damaged and unhinged,
and believes unworthy, superstitious, insane things about both God and Man.
The evidence for this is overwhelming and involves the rampant spiritual
fragmentation into over 100,000 identifiable yet unreasonable religions, and the ensuing endless troublesome and often violent
confrontations between individuals, groups, cultures, nations, fostered
largely by these religions.
2) We needed outside
help. Evidently sanity could no longer arise by itself inside the asylum that is
the human condition on earth.
3) Yeshua is the demonstration, that
inspiration, that help because this J-person is the very essence of a person worthy
of the term "God"; and we can know that primarily because of his life and
MESSAGE properly understood; and ULTIMATELY because we just wouldn't want God to be any other way
than the way he was when he walked on earth. This latter premise is
THE PRIMARY specification for accepting ANYONE as being "God".
Oh, NOT the J-person of Judeo-Christianity! Not the inscrutable,
transcendent, non-human God of power, domination and control! Not
the J-person that has been sterilized and distorted by traditional religion, buried by
the "sacred" scriptures and by the "apostles", but the real, historical J-person,
the one who had no truck with professional
theologians or even religiose people (See religiosity in definition
section), the J-person that can be recovered by the search for truth or uncovered by care
and logic and reasoning so as to be truly meaningful to any courageous
person committed to truth and honesty.
Because the name "Jesus" was not even his correct
Hebrew name, because it is so associated with the Christ or Messianic
framework, and because this name is now so associated with mawkishness and a maudlin
sentiment of submission, henceforth we will sometimes call this man LOGOS (See Logos in
the definition section), the J-person, or simply J.
If we can make this third premise "work", then great,
because this J-person offered MORE to his followers than any other
person has ever offered or even CONSIDERED in the entire history of
man. If we cannot make this premise work, then we should be off to something else.
In a way, this site has two major psychological bookends sometimes
characterized by Eros and Thanatos: 1) What Ernest
Becker has to say about
The Terror of Death;
and 2) what the J-person has to say about
Thus, this site is compiled for the serious seeker of truth, who upon being attracted to the
J-person as LOGOS or even just curious, is willing to narrow his focus and bring it to bear
upon this source of truth and wisdom. The person, who can see or consider that LOGOS came
NOT to be a sacrifice but to "show and tell" us the truth about what God is like, one
who can consider that HE COMMUNICATED EVERYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW about the Creator, and that his
message CAN be understood by the one willing to be rational, logical, reasonable and intellectually responsible.
About the Reformation
Consider the following quote from Philip Jenkins, "The Next Christianity", Atlantic Monthly,
"The original Reformation was far more
than the rising up of irate lay people against corrupt and exploitative
priests, and it was much more than a mere theological row. It was a
far-reaching social movement that sought to return to the original
sources of Christianity. It challenged the idea that divine authority
should be mediated through institutions or hierarchies, and it denied
the value of tradition. Instead it offered radical new notions of the
supremacy of written texts (that is, the books of the Bible),
interpreted by individual consciences. The Reformation made possible a
religion that could be practiced privately, rather than mainly in a vast
"This move toward individualism, toward the privatization of religious belief, makes
the spirit of the Reformation very attractive to educated people in the West."
However, as good as the change in focus to individuals is, the Reformation was primarily concerned with replacing
institutional authority with the Bible as "scriptural authority" being the primary basis. As good and valid as the throwing off of institutional authority was, is
it VALID to make commonly accepted sacred writings the cornerstone of a new
edifice? Obviously not!
The content of this site offers a third alternative, one that SHOULD be
Instead of "radical new notions of the supremacy of written texts (that
is, the books of the Bible)" the thinking here is based upon the notion
of building our paradigm instead with information, insight and demonstration
from LOGOS, with his life and message, with a
rational, logical and reasonable understanding of HIS words, behavior and deeds.
This is NOT building on the Bible or other sacred texts but on something more
genuine and foundational.
This site is also an attempt to call into question some of the fundamental precepts and
doctrines of Christendom, especially concerning:
(1) the nature of the
kingship/kingdom of the heavens that LOGOS talked about more than
(2) the definition of the fundamental problem,
spiritual and psychological healing, and most importantly,
(4) his fabulously good news.
Some educated modern theologians give a more than tacit admission to the
fact that Christian theology is built on an Apostolic understanding of
the Bible rather than on the words and deeds of LOGOS. Because, even though they pay lip service to
the J-person being the revelation of God, they find it difficult to impossible to recover
the historical (real) J-person, and thus they wrongly FEEL they must rely on the record and
theology of the Apostles. They do not understand that they should
frame the J-person with the ultimate human issues and narrow their reliance
PRIMARILY upon the EYEWITNESS accounts of what he said and did. With care and
being intellectually responsible this can be supplemented by using
some of the secondary remembered statements and stories contained in the
If we were to be faithful to the statements of LOGOS we would
hold that He (HIS statements, actions and message) is to be the
cornerstone of our belief system, NOT what his followers wound up
believing, NOR some collection of material made sacred by
tradition such as the Christian "Bible", NOR any other theologies
or doctrines composed and written by other men, such as Paul.
Notwithstanding its value as a source of historical information about
the early believers and their experience, and its value to attest to the
factual reality of the J-person, his experience, and his follower's response to
that reality, the non-Gospel balance of the New Testament is nothing but a
false basis for
building our understanding of God, our theology. To be fair, that
objective basis must ALWAYS AND ONLY be the words, message and actions of
LOGOS presented to us through the eyewitness accounts and "selected,
acceptable" material from the compiled, non-eyewitness accounts.
Thus we have the premise that traditional thinking concerning "God" by
the human race has been profoundly inadequate and misdirected, and needs
to be upgraded to the truth. The claim here is that this is the first and
primary reason why Yeshua came, and came willing to make the ultimate
demonstration to support it. The message of the J-person may be all but
incredible in that it SEEMS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, and contrasts with and
is outside of our previous personal and collective experience in the
tangible and psychological realm of the universe as we know it.
Nevertheless, this very experience we call life in the "human
condition", which is more or less unhappy and ridiculous and ends in
death, should not be acceptable to the reasonable man, in that it
violates our most fundamentally human and Godlike qualities, our
idealism and our deepest and legitimate needs and desires.
Consequently, this is NOT primarily an "inspirational" site
nor a self help site offering "my wonderful
method" to help one COPE with reality but a site trying to appeal
to the higher faculties of mankind, our rationality, logic, and reason
in order to inaugurate not just coping and waiting but THE RESOLUTION!
The end of coping and waiting.
As well, this site is intended in part to be the ultimate intellectual/spiritual
PRIMAL SCREAM so that those that have "been there, done that" can feel
more justified in their frustration!
In a world where, for example "On average, 12
newborns will be given to the wrong parents daily", there is something
fundamentally wrong with our experienced reality and we should NOT
have to just endlessly cope with it! In a world where beyond providing
for the basics, the primary activity of Man is to seek escape from the
human condition through distraction, diversion and drugs.
Even our physical environment is NOT benevolent and the very essence and fabric of our
world reality is flawed, not JUST you and
me! WE did NOT cause it to be this way nor ask for it to be this
way, and yet we live at the effect of it and are under its evil,
including the capstone of a death sentence! Wouldn't we all agree
that this kind of reality
needs to be corrected or healed? If LOGOS does not offer a
reasonable method for accomplishing this imminently, then He is worse than irrelevant.
Yet his claim is that he IS offering such a healing resolution, and more!
So, another way of stating a major premise is that the confusion,
disharmony, evil in the world cannot be overcome or healed unless we
come into unity on the eternal principles, values and truths that make
it possible for an ideal and permanent society to thrive with an ever
increasing fulfillment, harmony and morale.
 The actual meaning of apocalypse
refers to a revealing or an unveiling, not to a climactic event of some
kind. See Parousia, Apocalypse Definitions