Site Section Links
Cultural Aspect Links
It is my style or preference to have people draw their own conclusions before suffering my own, because if they come to essentially the same, then I have a much greater assurance that my own reasoning process is sound. Yet, I am comfortable putting down a few of my concluding thoughts.
In my wide-ranging canvass of religious thought, I have never come across anything very close to the vision that I have painted or implied in this website. It should come as no great shock to think that possibly all before us have missed the true vision so far. Have we not programmed ourselves to fail to understand the mind or will of god by making it a priori mystical, transcendent, or alien, beyond our ken? Have we not further conditioned ourselves to focus on our weakness, our inferior status, our misery, our disempowerment? Have we not been overly influenced by the consistent message of relentless indifference from physical reality of our lack of value? We have overwhelming evidence that even the best of humanity can be fundamentally wrong, even in most of the scientific or academic disciplines. Can we not see that the message from god that will make THE difference has been buried under "scripture" that is NOT the word of god?
At least one salient point is worthy of note: The composition of this vision is educated by significant learning in most of the intellectual disciplines or fields, including cosmology, chemistry, physics, geology, biology, paleontology, archaeology, mythology, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, etymology, ancient chronology, etc., a life long interest and some formal seminary courses in Christian theology, and a variety of advanced degrees from the school of hard knocks. It is restricted and contained by being faithful to proper philosophical principles and sound science, by being intellectually responsible. And last but not least it has also been influenced by my being a son, a father, a brother, a close friend and companion, a colleague in a close group of scientists and scholars, and having been a business partner, husband and lover.
It is often said that Man can never be satisfied! If this is so, are we not then either fundamentally flawed in nature beyond any possible personal fault of our own, and/or is the very fabric of reality not suitable for us? Without believing either of these positions, cannot we see that the IF-I-SEEK-US package is a legitimate state of being for the whole of humanity? It is a condition and situation any humane, rational, sane, and mature person can want and live with and be elated by for all eternity.
Is it not conceivable, even arguable, that if the Universe was originally created for our benefit, then IF-I-SEEK-US IS achievable because it is the intended norm, and it would be a return to normalcy? Would it not also follow that unfallen humanity−those that chose to believe in equality−live in and have never left this state of being, and they are the ones in control? However compassionate and humane they might be, they would not be in the business of enabling spiritually troubled people to continue to use such power and intelligence for such perverse purposes as have been done and demonstrated already by our human family. Consequently they will not impose it upon or share it with us without our spiritual healing. They will also not violate our personal, familial, or global corporate sovereignty unless our volition and will so direct it.
It is likely that after the fall of man, presumably an event long before but leading to the end of the golden age in antiquity on earth, humanity became hopelessly lost in a spiritual fog of incorrect and destructive concepts. Is it not likely this was the factor condemning all of humanity to our hapless state of tortuous limitation, disempowerment, and victimhood? A pall was cast upon the whole creation, and the rest of those in the universe, being aware of what is happening on earth, could not help but be solemnized by our tragedies and suffering.
In a world of depravity and confusion, where the paralyzing noise to signal ratio was increasing and the spiritual fragmentation of the race was accelerating, help was needed. Can we not see that Jesus, as the originator and ordained representative of unfallen humanity, came to reveal the correct conceptual vision of god and ourselves, and rectify our distorted views? But humanity has misunderstood and/or ignored his message and amalgamated his pliable words to the prevailing religious ideology of the time. This was itself derived from institutionalized mythology as a result of fallen man anthropomorphizing the ancient planets and their destructive activities in the Solar system.
The implication is that we are NOT condemned to just age and die, all the while hoping that within our lifetime Jesus will come back to save us. Imminent salvation is proclaimed to be available to those who understand Jesus' words and come into unity of purpose, values, and paradigm of reality, an understanding of valid concepts worthy of a God. According to the promise, once two or three individuals are able to achieve this, whatever they ask will be received or accomplished. It would be presumed then that once individuals regain contact with unfallen humanity and become literal peers once more, such an event would rapidly precipitate a change beyond our incorrect assumptions of what is currently realistic. Does it make sense that the Universe is waiting for us to regain our senses and bid farewell to our current horrific state of existence, and that it is time to eliminate suffering and death at long last?
Two Major Premises
1. The Romantic Beginning of All Things: The universe was created by the consciousness of a single human entity who created a fellow being to share an extensive range of pleasurable and fulfilling experience in a reality that supported this visionary plan. If we do not arbitrarily and unduly limit the Originator, we can take our thinking out of the male gender box. Since it is widely recognized that males are more simple creatures than females, maybe it is appropriate to think of the Originator as taking on the female gender role, as, "In the beginning, She decided to do something risky. She created a man, mated with him, and had children gods." Is it easier to think that the male mind or psyche envisioned, designed and created the great dance of romance? Or the female? Is it more of a forgone conclusion that a created female would mate with a male originator, or conversely that a perfect male would mate with a beautiful and perfect female?
Since all beings at this point in time were equal in everything that matters, including creativity, another really beautiful idea is that at some point some creative person exclaimed that they had an idea to really jazz up this fellowship, sharing, intimacy and enhancement of life experience and morale. That person advanced the idea of producing two different genders. Seeing the potential merits, they would have been keen on this and would have all contributed to designing the various features of this sexual dimension, procreation and the romantic relationship. Once this was accomplished they all chose one of the two gender roles. There is really no good reason to think that the Original One thought up, designed or created everything, because his nature is to serve and find satisfaction and delight in the enterprise of his created equals.*
This latter vision highlights the distinction−in a very important arena−between the traditional concept of the creator as being the fount of every aspect of reality and we being the passive recipients of whatever he presents to us versus the vision that we are MEANT to be and the unfallen humans ARE active creative agents that not only participate in the unfolding of the creation of our reality, but are now in control of it in the collective known as "The Father". In other words, the number of creative agents in the universe is, or at least has been growing. As long as there is perfect unity of purpose, values and paradigm, and everyone essentially has veto power, the creation can unfold in wonderful ways that have never entered the mind of the Originator. He can now not only be delighted with his children but can be PROUD, PLEASED AND SURPRISED by their accomplishments! Just like human parents can be when their children live up to their potential.
2. Original Sin as Failure: The fall of our family was not initiated by any act of disobedience or conscious violation of God's will, but by NOT doing something. Since you cannot inject equality into another being without them remaining unequal, equality can only be offered or extended, not imposed. An equal must be involved with their own creation as an equal by CHOOSING to be equal in rights and value amidst an otherwise ocean of inequalities. No two human beings are equal in any specific dimension or aspect, but we can see ourselves and treat each other as equals. The Originator and the existing families extended equality to our family but our original ancestors FAILED to choose to be equal. This failure festered in the hearts of beings designed to not be inferior, and led to the downward spiral of separation and degeneration, all the while this fallen family was attempting to be superior by creating an alternate system, one of predatory competition that crossed the lines of the eternal values. The French would put them this way: Verité, Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité.
Some other points and perspectives:
Here are the three major aspects of the Gospel:
1. The nature, character and values of the Originator are totally and only human.
2. The centerpiece of the Gospel is that we are being offered imminent immortality and empowerment.
3. The capstone of the Gospel is that we are being offered equality through supremacy.
solution was, in effect, to start again now that the values and
mythologies of the past had been so thoroughly discredited...His
role was simply to see the problem with such tortured clarity that
it could never again be ignored. In his final years he descended
The quote above would apply to me if I had not the understanding that is represented by the material on this site.
Finally, I would recount part of a discussion over lunch with a close colleague and friend. Know that this colleague and I share a common and essential understanding of the major aspects of a world view, which includes the Electric Universe cosmology, the Saturnian Reconstruction of the ancient times, interplanetary electrical discharge being the major mechanism for most geological formation, spiritual reality being ordinate to physical reality, linguistic and symbol development on the earth, etc., and much, much more. After two decades now of talking with him concerning ultimate issues, arguing and then discussing, we are moving into more agreement but still short of unity on all of these. Knowing that both of us are aware that it borders on arrogance or even megalomania to believe you personally have THE TRUTH concerning God, knowing that I would take it to be a sincere and legitimate query, that I had asked myself this question many times, and that I would give a thoughtful, objective and measured answer, he asked me this question, “Michael, what is the bottom line that gives you such confidence that your particular thinking concerning God and reality are right?”
After thinking and composing my thoughts for a while, my answer was, “I am going to quote (misquote?) Keats when he said, ‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty.’ I think that my paradigm and my vision is true because I have earnestly been seeking the truth, and because my vision of it has the most sweeping grandeur; the most inspiring beauty; the most compelling elegance; the most reassuring consistency with all the facts, information, knowledge and experience that is available to me; the best coherence with my rationality, logic, reason, and romantic nature. It has the elevation of the humane values to the highest level, the greatest extent of plausible and defensible answers to the ultimate issues, and the most resonance with my inner core, with what I am, with what I want and need; that I can elaborate with word and pen. And it is grounded neither upon tradition,consensu nor fancy but upon eyewitness accounts of a historical demonstration.” His reply was, “There is no better answer than that!”
* The concept contained by the paragraph was advanced, not by the creator of the site, but by a fellow believer. When I heard it, even though it didn't agree with my then current thinking, I liked it and adopted it.