IF I SEEK US

Imminent FulfillmentImmortality,  Safety, Empowerment, Equality, KnowledgeUnity, Society

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to
  one who is striking at the root."
- Henry David Thoreau
Site Sections, Subject List, Reading Sequence, and Article Synopses

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
Introduction Articles
Word Definitions
Human Condition

Christianity Material
Bible/Canon Issues
Christendom Analyzed
Christendom Challenged
Christendom Condemned

Jesus Material
Jesus' Teachings
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels Canon

Philosophy Material
Paradigm Material
Philosophical Issues
Psychological Issues
Sociological Material
Theological Issues

Cosmology, Creation,
Geophysical Material

Cosmology Material
Creation Issues
Geophysical Material

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Archeology-Material
Chronology Revision
Language-Development
Misc Ancient Myth Material
Modern Mythology Material
Psycho-Catastrophe Articles
Saturn-Jupiter Material
Symbol Development
Venus-Mars Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium

Miscellaneous Material
Book Critiques Links
Misc Biology Links
Misc Issues/Conclusions
Poetry & Fun Material
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Spiritual Products online store

 

"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods." - Arthur Schopenhauer

8 Major Issues
Updated: 07/09/2019

Issue 1 - The Major or Ultimate Issue.  Do I get what I want and need or don't I? Is the Universe (the cosmos or system of all of reality) set up or structured for me to win and succeed by MY definition of succeeding, that is, is it set up for me to get what I really—naturally, intrinsically, legitimately—want and need, or do I have to change or adjust my deepest desires and needs to try to match what is offered?

Commentary - If it is not set up for us to win by the above definition, then are we not stuck ultimately trying to swallow its reality or circumvent it one way or another? Or, since we are defined as humans by our potential, our needs and desires, and a humane purpose and culturally transcendent set of values, are we not stuck changing ourselves fundamentally to being something that we are otherwise not? As the philosopher Schopenhauer said, "A human may very well do what he wants, but cannot will what he wants."
     My interest is both specific and explicit, and comprehensively defined—I want everything that I want and need, and more—the IFISEEKUS package! And I have extensively defined that set and explained that these needs and desires are intrinsic, universal, and legitimate. Instead of relating to these as being so outrageously and foolishly unrealistic and impossible, we should never be talking about “God” without having these in mind.
     In fact, we should NEVER be talking about ANY religious cosmology or system of belief without having these in mind as the primal context. If the proffered belief system doesn’t offer these, that should be stated prominently up front, and quickly an attempt should be made to explain why we have these needs and desires when they cannot be fulfilled.

Issue 2 - Ground of Being.  Does the physical universe have its ground of being in intelligence and will, or do intelligence and will have their ground of being in the material universe?  Which is the ordinate, greater or primary realm of reality?  Spiritual reality, which includes the non-material: intelligence, will, attitude, the humane qualities of love, compassion, romance, kindness, mercy and grace, anger, frustration, knowledge, etc.? Or physical reality consisting of the material universe, matter, dimension and motion—that which we can measure with physical equipment?

Commentary - Since every belief system must start with something, for this issue there are ONLY these 3 options: 1) Physical material is primary, existed first and the spiritual realities arose through a series of "happy accidents" as adjuncts and/or emergent properties of material structure, or 2) Physical material and the spiritual realities (intelligence, will, attitude, etc.) are somehow inseparable and both coexisted as ordinate, or 3) Intelligence, will and spirit existed first and designed and created (projected?) the physical material universe.

Issue 3 - Does the Creator Care?  Given options 2 or 3 above, does the creative agency care enough about us (its/his creation) and our unhappy condition to at least communicate with us in a special way (theism in contrast to deism) that can be meaningful and effective for an imminent resolution of the human condition?

Commentary - Is a creator that doesn't care about communicating clearly with us much less imminently helping us out, and doesn't offer us a way of resolving the human condition worthy of the term "God"? Theism posits that the Creator cares enough to give us a "special" objective, public revelation other than or beyond what nature, including human nature and self revelation, can imply. Atheism means "without theism", and deism posits a creator that is not involved enough to give us a demonstration or special apocalypse or revealing. By original definitions, deists and agnostics are technically atheists.

Issue 4 - Where Does Ultimate value Lie?  Does ultimate worth and value lie in the individual, or does it lie in something else, such as in organizations, institutions, sets of codes, physical and ethical laws, etc.?  Should individuals primarily serve the cosmos, the organization or the agencies, OR should these entities primarily serve individuals? Do organizations derive their value from serving individuals or do individuals derive their value from serving organizations?

Commentary - If the ultimate value does not lie in the individual, then is there a foundation for value in anything else?  How can an organization or any other structure—physical or spiritual—have any value outside of serving to sustain and enhance the lives of individuals?

Issue 5 - Equality and Peership.  CAN the creator offer to us equality and peership, or is the creator trapped in the box of being "other", superior, and relating to us as inferiors? DOES the creator offer to us equality and peership, or is the creator too egocentric, too afraid, or too alien to completely share with us those aspects and qualities that would enable us to choose to be equal and accept and receive equality?

Commentary - To impute dimensions, qualities and values that are alien or beyond human  upon the Creator is to introduce incompatibility and separation, which make a mockery of meaningful equality. Equality and peership mean that our worth and value, our needs and desires, our potential and abilities, our rights and privileges would be the equal to any life in the universe, including that of the creator.  It would mean equality through supremacy, not through inferiority or superiority.

Issue 6 - Love and Sacrifice.  Is the nature of reality such that love is always a win/win situation, or does love sometimes demand sacrifice?

Commentary - If we see love as not giving, sacrificing, taking or trading, but based around sharing, should it not always be a win-win for those involved?

Issue 7 - Morality and Ethics.  Are morality and ethics the same thing? Are ethics and morality related to a "code" or set of laws, or is morality determined by that which ultimately increases morale without violating ethics?

Commentary - Are not morality and ethics different aspects, but related? Ethics deals with what is loving, right or proper behavior, and morality relates to that which will ultimately increase our morale. What if Man was not made to be a "clockwork orange"[*] but made to live by inspiration from purpose and values, instead of trying to behave according to a set of rules or law?

Issue 8 - Is Evil Necessary?  Is evil a necessary part of reality, i.e, was it intended and created by the Originator? If so, what is its role, and do we have to live with it forever? Or was evil introduced into experiential reality in some other way?  By Mankind or some other agency? Was it a breakdown of unity?  Doing something wrong, or was it a FAILURE to do something?

Commentary - If actual "evil" is required to make or contrast with "good", then "evil" would seem to be valid and eternal. What if it was ever and only just the CONCEPT of evil or lack of fulfillment, and now also the memory, that makes the contrast effective? Actual evil must not have been designed or intended, but somehow introduced into an otherwise perfect universe! What is the rather obvious answer to the "mystery of iniquity", of how actual evil came to be? See: The Fall of Man

[*]  A term that reflects the incompatibility of the organic and living versus the mechanical and artificial.

Home   Site Sections   Complete Article Map   Contact   Store   Contributions