Freethinkers are those willing to use their minds without
prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash
with their own customs, privileges or beliefs. This state of mind
is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is
absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless. - Leo Tolstoy
What can be said about almost all human beings is that they
do not demand answers to the deepest questions nor success
and goodness to the highest level. - Site Author
IF I SEEK US[*] HOME PAGE
[Opening commentary]: As physical beings we all get
our physical heritage from our biological parents. Not only did we have no
input into this heritage, but except for some cosmetic changes, there is
usually little we can do to change that inherited package.
As psychological beings we get our psychological
heritage from those that raised us, and also from a wider array of
sources--relatives, peers, teachers, leaders, heroes, anyone we model after.
Likewise as in our physical heritage, we have little to no input into this
important aspect of ourselves. In this arena, we can have a greater but
still limited impact
As spiritual beings, belief and value programmed by an
even greater community, we also had very limited input into the package as
it stands at maturity. However, in this arena, in contrast to the preceding
ones, we can take all but total control, and make extensive changes. Which
one of us was lucky enough to have received the ideal or perfect set of
values and beliefs, before we were able to take intellectual responsibility
for this MOST important aspect of ourselves? WHY, at any significant
provocation, would we not be ready to challenge and change or remodel this
most important heritage?
When a person, a website, a movement or any agency comes
along and posits that almost every aspect of what is accepted or believed is
significantly confused, distorted, or contaminated with falsity, why would a
reasonable person consider such a proposition? The first thing that is
required in order to reasonably consider such a conclusion is a rationale
for how or why that may be!
Consequently, NOT the least important piece of the IFISEEU
intellectual and spiritual
reconstruction is dealing with the great global catastrophe that was
delivered from the sky. This astral catastrophe--cross culturally known as
the flood or deluge--was not only extended in time but was followed later by
a series of lesser but still devastating global catastrophes. These
disasters left an indelible mark, not only upon the surface of the earth,
but far more importantly, upon the collective psyche of Mankind, and left us
all to some degree in a state of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
These global catastrophes resulted in the destruction of a
more Edenic environment on the earth, savaged the population, destroyed our
collective consciousness with its telepathic communication ability, and left our race psychologically unhinged and
prone to escapism, perversity, self
collective amnesia. The spiritual and
has been fragmentation of any meaningful kind of unity and the development
of a huge body of outlandish myth, philosophy, theology and
ceremonies and practices even involving destructive sacrifices
ranging in value from a handful of food grain to human life, especially
virgins and children!
It left us with attendant wars and strife on ALL levels
from that of the internal self, to siblings, parents, families, tribes, cultures and nations.
The premise is that it takes a concerted effort to be
responsible enough in order to find solid ground and challenge ALL OF IT
to over come and correct this inherent confusion. See:
of the Reconstruction
The extent of intellectual knowledge and spiritual
change becomes almost unmanageable for modern man. A
greater reconstruction is the rationale for the site!
rebuilding our value and belief system
In seeking truth and building a new
belief system, there is only ONE building site: our own minds. If we find
our current belief system flawed or inadequate, we cannot go to a new site
and build a completely new structure. We must perforce remodel or rebuild
what we have,
and that requires de-construction or destruction before the construction can begin.
The foundation of any belief structure is the paradigm,
so let us understand that we must remodel or replace the foundation. A
belief system is like a tree that cannot be replaced unless the existing root is
destroyed. So, let us heed the words of Thoreau and strike at the root.
would now ponder the human condition without having on his mind the words of
David Bohm, "If mankind is to survive, some fundamental psychological change is needed"? We
can also ask, "What fool would undertake a battle where, as Count Galeazzo Ciano
said, "Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan"?
Yet, the battle for truth
undertaken here is a philosophical/spiritual one, and dare not be lost; and the expectation is one of
winning. So, starting with an overall attempt to clarify major issues, here
are some relevant considerations:
Although the author disagrees with some of what
every other philosopher has written, most of what is in the philosophical
section has been proposed by some or at least one of these predecessors.
Of course the author has not canvassed every piece of
literature in the English language, much less that of other languages, but he
HAS been paying attention with his ear to the ground. As far as what can be
determined, what is NOT out there are the core theological ideas presented
in this site.
Let's ask a critical question: Who is the ultimate, final arbiter of truth?
This site is constructed for those that have internalized authority and can say with
confidence that THEY are. I am for myself; YOU are for yourself. It's not
that any of us are the final or ultimate SOURCE for truth, but we have the
human responsibility for choosing and believing what is true. Otherwise, we
are merely sophisticated but programmable meat sticks, at the mercy of the
most potent influence. This may be the most important question and issue of them all!
"Whoever finds himself is superior to the world!" Gospel of Thomas 111
YOU Should Be in Control
Thus the site material is for those that are now willing to be
responsible, NO LONGER willing to be manipulated or to NOT be in total control of their
belief system. If you have any other answer to the question above, you
should not bother reading further, because it will probably ONLY raise your
blood pressure. If you continue, by coming out of the
twilight zone into the
full light of intellectual responsibility, YOU will be in control of accepting or
rejecting the information and arguments. The site author wants to INTRODUCE
you to truth, share it with you, make it easier for you to see, but doesn't
intend to force it into you. If it was not meant to be this way then
why doesn't the Creator, God, Ultimate Reality, or whatever, just inject us
with the truth and be done with it?
There are two primary approaches available in order to
communicate information and ideas: 1) pictures and 2) words, in sound or
text. Do you see any pictures yet? No. Do you hear any sounds? No. That
leaves us dealing with words in text. As the song says, "It's only words,
and words are all I have to steal your heart away."
Yet, it seems that the very WORDS of our language have been
corrupted and blurred. Let us now remember that if you cannot define a word, you
don't fully know what it means when you hear it or use it. This is vitally
important because we will be looking closely at key words--often poorly
defined--that are used to apply to and understand the ultimate issues.
There is little reason to read this site IF you are satisfied
with your key definitions and foundational beliefs. On the other hand, if you are
seeking answers to the ultimate issues or even up for a challenge, then this
site may be for you, because the material presents a different FOUNDATION
for the context in which we find ourselves. The arguments should offer
refreshingly better, clearer and more meaningful definitions of the key
words, and questions and issues that pertain to us in the "human condition".
[Warning] This site is going to expose you to serious
challenges to and revisions of the prevailing thinking in almost ALL of the
major intellectual disciplines, both in science and philosophy, and especially theology.
Some key theological questions that need better answers:
- What is a "God"?
- What would we want "God" to be like?
- Does what we want and need have any influence on "God"?
- What makes Yeshua God?
- What do we mean by "Salvation"?
- What would we like salvation to be?
- What do we mean by "Heaven"?
- Why are we still condemned to die?
- Is there an afterlife?
- What does the word "Sin" really mean?
- What does it mean to "Believe"?
- Do we need to change our nature in order to qualify
for any salvation?
That there is confusion (con = with, fusion = melting) in
our world, who can argue? But how much confusion? How deep does it go, how
wide does it range, in terms of contaminating or blurring our thinking and
spiritual vision in philosophy, science and religion? How far off the mark
are our major institutions of academia, church and state?
One simple example is that of
matter versus energy. Most people would think of these as opposites, but
actually, energy is always and only matter in motion, thus not a
foundational thing in itself and not an opposite to matter. Energy is
convertible to mass and vice versa but mass is not matter, but only a
variable property of
matter. The opposite of material reality is not energy but spiritual
Another example of confusion involves the word "spirit" itself. It's foundational
definition is mentality or attitude, a most important, intangible, non-material reality, yet sometimes
it is misused to denote a quasi-material entity like a ghost.
If you are seeking the truth, you have been led to
challenge your beliefs from time to time. So, not to put too fine of a point
on it, this site is about the issues relating to RELIGION! And about coming
out of confusion through Intellectual Responsibility. One issue that we
should all face, the question that we should all ask ourselves is: Are we
going to HAVE religion, i.e., be in control of it, OR, is our religion going to HAVE
us, be in control of us? A
corollary question: Is our religion going to be intellectually responsible
or not? These are binary choices; no need for any middle ground.
First of all, the author of the site "claims" to be a
highly intelligent, highly educated, man of good will, a man who strives to
be intellectually responsible, who values the truth at the highest level, who chooses to
favor the best
premises instead of the lesser or the worst,
and who wills to be constructive rather than destructive.
Secondly, the author further claims that he does not pass
up opportunities to challenge his own belief system, and continues to hold it
to the standard of ALWAYS being logical and reasonable. He has made
irrevocably the CHOICE of
internalizing authority and thus being in control of his religious beliefs. He did not get to where
he is now, without ALL of his indoctrinated beliefs being challenged, a LOT
of which were let go. Doing that resulted in a comprehensive rebuild of his
One major goal of the site is to not oversimplify them but
to crystallize the major issues so that the choice is binary, yes or no,
black or white. For instance, we all have been taught that God is the great
center of power and control in the sky, the fiat law-giver, the obedience and
worship demander. OR... maybe not!
Finally, the material on the site is going to challenge almost every
aspect of what is usually thought or believed EXCEPT that which we know internally–thus directly without any middle man–about ourselves.
Let me borrow and modify the phrase Victor Hugo used in his Preface to Cromwell (1827):
"And then, while critics fall foul of the foundation and the theologians of the
approach, it may happen that the site truth itself will escape them, passing uninjured between
their crossfires." Let the reader decide!
Basic Site Information
The pen is mightier than the sword. - Bulwer-Lytton
Alas, the question may be asked: Is it mighty enough?
The general premise of the site is that the world's
religious thinking and belief are mired in an ancient yet FALSE PARADIGM developed by
people who were
TRAUMATIZED by world-destroying global catastrophe. Thus in this prevailing
paradigm the foundational assumptions–including those of Christendom–have
missed dealing with some of the most important issues, have inculcated
various amounts–sometimes vast amounts–of mythological material from these
psychologically disturbed ancient authors of myth, and have simply failed to
address adequately and therefore overcome the human condition. The site
author sees that these prevailing foundational assumptions are actually
demeaning to BOTH God and Man. Against these
deplorable conditions I hereby raise my sword-pen!
The words "new paradigm" have been bandied about so much
that they are now trite, having lost most of their impact. But there is no
good substitute, for what is needed IS a DIFFERENT paradigm of the
Originator, and thereby including ourselves. It will not suffice to remodel the old paradigm, which is what has been happening for
the last 1300 years, because it needs to be decommissioned and swept away!
One of the late US presidents, Bill Clinton, used to remind himself to
refocus by saying, "It's the economy, stupid!" Likewise we often need to remind ourselves
by saying, "It's the paradigm, stupid!"
Sub-Premise 1 Integration
into the proper paradigm is paramount
It is impossible to understand humans, the human condition
and the history of the world without framing the information by, and
integrating it into, the proper paradigm. The author sees that the current paradigms cannot
adequately handle and clarify the reality of the crucial issues, and
thus what we have is
a hoary, time-honored but unintelligible jumble of confusion.
Therefore, this site is proposing, developing and
elucidating an ultimate, overarching DIFFERENT paradigm which has
historically, after the fall of Man, NOT been considered before. The
not really attempting to devise a "new" paradigm but rather trying to recover one which has been
lost and buried because of the fall. All of the important
issues that confront us take on new dimensions and require a different perspective within this paradigm, and
so the site attempts to visit each of these with new questions and new answers that are all reasonable, compatible
and integrated together.
“It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that
they can't see the problem.”
- G.K. Chesterton
The deplorable human condition prevails
The author of the site attempts to address both the important
issues and important information that confront us as human beings under the tragic
HUMAN CONDITION. Consequently, there is a lot of material on this site, all of
which except for a few fun items is adjudged to be seriously important and worthwhile.
Yet, almost all who begin to read the site will encounter concepts, ideas and statements that they either don't
understand, or with which they currently don't agree. The obvious advice is to
temporarily suspend a negative judgment, because further reading will usually make these issues
clear. Hopefully the answers are not only palatable but inspiring. Is it not
time that we focused on challenging our belief system instead of mindlessly
spiritual truth is not rocket science
Another general premise is that since we have DIRECT access to
our inner core spiritual truth, the spiritual issues–if we are honest with
ourselves–are actually EASIER to sort out than the scientific ones! AND
doing so promises to deliver ever so much more benefit to ourselves and the human race
than new scientific insights or technological developments.
Sub-Premise 2 -
Key word definitions are crucial
The very next issue that CANNOT be overlooked is the matter
of word definitions. Words and phrases are the lenses and windows that we
spiritually SEE through, not only in our own thinking and understanding, but also in
expressing to others what we intend, and in receiving what they mean. When
this channel of communication of meaning is inadequate, diverted or darkened
because of opaque, distorted, foggy word definitions, we all lose part of
the very essence of living in ALL areas: intellectually, spiritually,
emotionally, socially, etc. Corruption of words and language is corruption
of society in a primary way. Few realize that
George Orwell's nightmare, in his
novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is the idea behind “doublethink” or
to alter the nature of language. Thus the conceptual material on the site
needs to be elucidated with the proper definitions.
Along with so many facets of the human experience, like with
bodies and our institutions, word definitions tend to decay and cause
disruption and blurring of the intended purpose and meaning. Here are
examples from the world of finance: Debentures are now called bonds, while
the difference in what the words mean is crucial. A bond is backed by an
ASSET as well as the creditworthiness of the issuer, while a debenture
is backed JUST by the latter. Doug Casey gives other examples of definition
confusion and conflation:
time deposits and demand deposits, investments and savings, speculation and
gambling, shareholders and stakeholders, money and currency, etc. If this
kind of word or definition corruption can become endemic in the hard-nosed
world of finance, how can it be that
the arenas of philosophical and spiritual terminology are exempt or immune? If
words are not adequately defined, are they not useless for anything other
than confusion? See: The
Corruption of the English Language
Since many of the few dozen crucial words that relate to the
major issues have drifted
from their original or truer intended meaning, and now have vague, misguided, or
inadequate definitions, this site has put an emphasis on fundamental
definitions that are more consistent with the real issues. However, doing so
raises the possibility that the definitions are unduly designed or changed to make the
ideas work. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that the reader go through
the definitions and note that some may be surprising. Yet the reader will
see that many are not only now closer to their original meaning but have
the substance of relating to what matters, the sustenance and enhancement of
life. Let the reader decide as to the merits of the definitions. See: Key Term Definitions
Appeal to Two Audiences
The material on this site attempts to appeal to two distinct
categories of truth-seekers, the "believers" and the "non-believers".
Given that the Christian believer's default position is that
Jesus (Yeshua) is the Creator and "God", the site intends to present to the
truth-seeking Christian the idea that Christendom has substantially
misconstrued and misunderstood the actual J-person's intentions and message.
The support for this premise is primary and profound: Christendom is
hopelessly fragmented, contrary to the eloquently expressed desire of its
"cornerstone", and there has been no resolution to the human condition in
the intervening centuries. Never has so much been promised and so little
Thus the site endeavors to showcase the false doctrinal
constructions and replace them with more genuine and promising
While avoiding and/or rejecting any and all forms of
superstition and mysticism, the site material endeavors in an intellectually
responsible way to present to the truth-seeking non-believer a widely and
deeply supported rationale for why the real J-person should be considered as
the Creator and a God worthy of the term.
Naturally some of the material is of greater importance than
some other, and of course this evaluation of importance would vary from
person to person according to where they are and what their current needs
may be. Here are some salient points to help keep things in perspective:
First and foremost the thinking on
this site has been built upon what IS–WHAT HAS TO BE– PRIMARY, that which we KNOW
directly; not upon "spiritual" material from some external agency, source or writings, but
from what is meaningful to ourselves, what we intrinsically and legitimately need and
desire. We did NOT design these aspects of ourselves, and they are not in
controversy. Therefore, if the subject doesn't relate
to these two facets of ourselves, it is NOT an important issue! This is one
fundamental aspects of the site's approach that is different, and this point cannot be
Also, the creator/author
of this site has with the highest priority striven to make the thinking
and material intellectually and spiritually responsible by focusing on the
RELEVANT or ULTIMATE issues, letting sound philosophical, sound psychological and sound
scientific principles educate, influence, and constrain the logic and
reasoning that are reflected. Let the reader decide!
When people are adequately conditioned to not have
freedom, they lose the ability to appreciate it, are numb
to it and even afraid of it. Much of the time they can no
longer even imagine what it is like. Is this the underlying
syndrome and status of the earthly human race? - Site Author
Much of 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, but from one who has his own "skin in
the game", his own life on the line, AND from the perspective that I/we NEED
there to be a God WORTHY of the term "good". How good? Why not all the way
good? This again SHOULD be a binary choice! In this context, shouldn't we be
looking for reasons TO believe the best, instead of reasons to
NOT believe? Let the reader decide!
One persistent author rationale for the
site is that our thinking about God needs to be demystified, and for certain
important aspects of clarity needs to be decoupled from the term "Creator".
The term "Creator" points ONLY to design and production capability, yet the
term "God" should imply
much more, including ultimate goodness and caring involvement. The latter term
should reflect how such an entity relates to us in a way that doesn't DEMAND worship but INSPIRES it.
Does anybody want a friend or mate that demands love instead of inspiring it?
The modern cacophony of
Another major rationale for the site is that with modern
communicational technology–radio, television, and now the internet with
widespread access to both uploading and downloading websites, email and
social postings–the total number of
philosophical and religious ideas and variations is exploding in magnitude, and yet
there is no corresponding return to the foundation, no increase in dealing with the real issues, and
no increase in clarity.
Sub-Premise 3 - A better definition of God
Therefore perforce–of necessity–this site has had to become a challenge to ALL extant religious thinking,
and thus represents a "starting over". It takes a radical, profoundly different approach from
religious tradition to defining God, because God HITHERTO has been defined in terms
of the following seven distinct aspects, with none nor all together being adequate:
1) Pre-ordinate, pre-existent, infinite, eternal terms. Infinite
is meaningless outside of being a useful mental, mathematical construct
like zero, and the other aspects may be necessary but except for eternal
are not particularly relevant to the issues that we face in the human
2) Power, control, and invulnerability. God CANNOT properly be defined by
power and control because power is neither good nor evil but a value neutral
thing that can be used either appropriately or abused. Generally anything but
self control is not good and any other kind of control of people is a bad thing without
freely given consent, and especially if it is
heavy handed or misapplied. Power and control need to be set aside
initially in our approach to defining God BECAUSE character, purpose, and
values are far more relevant and important.
3) Originator, creator and designer. These are terms that
pertain to a creative agency, but a creator is not necessarily a God. A creator
can be either good or bad, or neutral and non-involved.
4) Parent, father and provider. Our current experience in the "human
condition" makes a mockery of our being in a wholesome parent-child relationship
with God at this point. Anybody that lives in this world
can readily sense a disconnect and attest that something is woefully amiss here!
If the current conceptual "God" could be dragged into a domestic affairs court, he would be
indicted and condemned as an irresponsible, derelict, abusive father, and thrown
5) Mystical, vague and indefinite terms. Are we supposed to be
impressed by ineffability? Of course, to use these kinds of terms is the very opposite of DEFINING
and understanding God.
6) Smarmy, maudlin terms. Often it is simplistically said that "God is Love"! Those
that define God this way usually think that settles everything,
but they themselves decidedly have not developed an adequate understanding
and definition of love.
7) Terms of being transcendent, ordinate and superior. These may be aspects of a
overlord, dictator, ruler, or boss, but Godhood is something other than what
May a God therefore worthy of the term be reasonably
defined by anything other than by having the mature, ideal human character, purpose, and values?
Sub-Premise 4 - Ancient concepts of God were based on planet worship mythology.
Being a challenge to much previous thinking, this site proposes that the
world's religions–including Christendom–are fundamentally MISGUIDED in the way that
they think about, relate to, and treat the concept of God, and do so in contrast to the
posited Revelation of
God. This is foundational! Much material included in the site gives critical
information showing the role of planet gods in the ancient times.
Thus the site also takes a radically different approach from religious tradition
to LEARNING the truth about God, because hitherto God has been presented through
mythologies encoded in what are considered to be sacred writings. Consequently, there
is a huge amount of ancient mythology material on the site showing the development of
planet worship and myth-based concepts of God that so very severely and
adversely affect even modern
theology, even in the most advanced forms of Christianity and other
Sub-Premise 5 - Using the
human internal reference point
The site posits that we can only build a sound and proper
belief system upon faith in ourselves, which implies faith in the Creator,
and that we can only understand the Originator first of all
by understanding ourselves, and his needs and desires BY SEEING AND
UNDERSTANDING OUR OWN,
and that furthermore, there is nothing about God that is mystical or that cannot
be understood to the same degree that we can understand any other human being.
A foundational premise is that this "understanding" ALWAYS precedes belief in the
truth! A corollary is that it always precedes appropriate love and respect.
Sub-Premise 6 - Getting the FRAMING Right
The site posits that the Revelation of God was purposed for
this understanding, and is a clarification and confirmation of the above.
However, for Christendom, Jesus is currently FRAMED as God by the Old
Testament Law and the Prophets, and this approach, although traditional, is
NOT VALID. The proper FRAMING for the life and message of Yeshua as a
revelation of the Creator would have to surpass and be uncontaminated by
ancient mythology. The proper framing must be
the "human condition" pursuant to the ULTIMATE ISSUES that affect us, and
ONLY THEN letting knowledge of ancient culture and thinking educate us to
lesser issues like exegesis and translation of any ancient philosophical or
spiritual material, INCLUDING the Gospels. Finally, EVERY
piece of our integrated picture needs to be examined critically from the ultimate
perspective, the human internal reference point of idealism. And every piece needs to FIT and be COHERENT!
The site claims that this radical, grounded approach has NOT been taken
consistently before and yet
is the ONLY proper one, and that WHEN taken will engender a FRESH
UNDERSTANDING, a spiritual reawakening, and a different and
proper understanding of "The Good News". This good news is FAR
BETTER than what has been explicated by formal religion so far, and includes a great and desperately needed
IMMINENT resolution of the human condition. Most importantly, one major
implication is that we should NOT be waiting
for God; because God is waiting for us! Even though the world is seemingly
at its MOST CONFUSED and darkest hour, the site proposes that positive developments
in understanding are now under way and
are imminent in fruition.
A key premise is that humans are meant to act out of
enlightened self interest. We WILL act out of self interest; the issue is
whether it be enlightened or not. See:
Some effort has been given to make it easier for the reader
to deal with the articles in the most sensible sequence:
To start, read the articles in the Site
Introduction articles section. Most of the articles under this heading are foundational.
Then read the IFISEEKUS articles. These very short items linked in the heading
succinctly lay out in general the sum total of what humans want and need to be
completely fulfilled and satisfied. This is what we naturally CARE about and with
which we are concerned.
Then read the articles in the
Human Condition section.
Somewhere along the way, you should probably want to look at the
articles in the Definitions section.
Most of the relatively short items under this heading are crucial,
because words are the doors and windows to valid understanding, and proper
definitions give us sharper vision and clarity.
IF you have a Christian background, or need to deal with
Christianity, then you should read the three sections of
Read the material in the Gospel Text Section in this sequence:
Introduction to the Gospel of John
Gospel of John
Gospel of Thomas
Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels Combined
The six sections of the
Combined Synoptic Gospels.
IF you desire further information about how to relate to
the Christian Bible, then you can read the articles in the
Bible Canon section
For correcting egregious misunderstandings of other issues see the
balance of the articles
To access a list of all the articles, use the Site Section
links in the left column, the article synopsis list in the header, or the
Site Article Map in the footer below. Whenever you want to approach the aspects by subject,
use the Subject List in the header.
A more complete Suggested Article
Reading Sequence with subject synopsis.
1. Neither the material nor ideas promulgated on this site have been delivered or
revealed by any supernatural agency nor supra-normal process or experience such
as visitations, voices, dreams or visions.
2. The site is not being promoted in any systematic way, but
only by word-of-mouth networking and email to friends and colleagues, and the material is for those that have
been exposed to it in this way or find it on their own.
3. Every single idea, concept or facet
proposed on the site, outside of articles authored by others, has been vetted by extensive discussion with at
least one other intellectually responsible person who understands it and agrees with it.
4. ALL of the material and
conceptual content judged worthy for inclusion is deemed to be understandable, sensible,
compatible and coherent with ALL of the other aspects of the proposed paradigm,
and seems good TO and good FOR the author.
5. In order to fully appreciate the material on this site, a person must have
authority, must have taken total personal responsibility for their own belief system, must
have a thriving hunger for the truth, and must have made an unequivocal
commitment to being intellectually responsible, that is to be honest, attentive, rational, logical and reasonable.
6. The site is not promoting, nor is it associated with any
grand theory of intrinsically evil, world dominating conspiracy, such as by
Satanists, Zionists, Bilderbergers, Khazairian Mafia, Rothschilds, Free Masons,
Federal or national banks, etc.
7. The "tone" of this site may seem negative at times,
but that is deemed inevitable when objecting to widespread, systemic and fatal error.
The overall message of the site couldn't be more positive. The criticisms of
existing religious thought are designed to resonate with those that have
been hurt and angry–as I was–by their previous religious experience.
8. Throughout the site, the Term "God" is usually
meant to imply a being that is ultimately ideal for us as human beings.
9. On a different note, modern archeology has
confirmed the general historical regional context for the New Testament, and no one
should doubt this.
[*] This site could have been called appropriately: "If I See" (IFISEE),
"If I See You" (IFISEEU), or "If I Seek Us" (IFISEEKUS). Since not all three
could be used for the domain name, IFISEEU was chosen. All three titles have
a somewhat distinctive focus, but the latter has the benefit of making an
aphorism that covers the full spectrum of human needs and desires.
Approximately 2000 years in the currently "accepted" or standard chronology.
 Why is it important to lead off with
such a statement of denial? Because, not only is it true, but to claim
otherwise is tantamount to being discrediting.
 One important exception
may be the thinking of Jack D. Zwemer, some of whose theological portrayal was largely
ahead of the pack back in 1995. See:
Destiny of Man