"The high-minded man must care more for the
truth than for what people think." - Aristotle
Do we need a fresh theology?
Simple direct theology based on
Yeshua did not come to earth with a complex theological message but with
foundational truths. His claim was simple, direct, and staggering because it
was: "I am the way (the paradigm), the truth, the light and the life
source." However, CLAIMS are easy to make. What was needed was a
DEMONSTRATION! Did he not come with such a one that was intended to cut
through and set aside ANY if not all existing or traditional theology or religion?
This claim of his is either the most sweepingly arrogant, megalomaniacal, and
specious one it is possible to make, OR it is true. There is NO middle
ground! The pattern and content of his life and death either endorse
this claim fully, or they don't. You get to choose, but before you do, you
may want to consider being intellectually responsible in dealing with the
Yeshua's emphatic request was that we listen to HIM, and believe what HE says.
He indicated that ALL others that came before him were false prophets or
false shepherds. His intent was that we understand God and ourselves,
who and what we really are. His instruction was to seek the truth above
all other things and "It shall be opened to you" and "You WILL find".
His claim is also that this would LEAD to understanding God ("And this IS the life source
[salvation, among other things] for the ages, that they understand
you and he whom you have sent"). (See
Understanding God) This would be the key to effective and
complete freedom and receiving the entire package of what we as his
brothers and sisters intrinsically want and need–including imminent immortality. See
Imminent Immortality He
referred to this state as the "Kingship of the heavens." See
Kingship of the Heavens
He reserved his most intense disapproval for hypocrisy, not murder,
rape, armed robbery, sexual indiscretions, or other fallible human behavior. (See
Hypocrisy Analysis) His teaching on prayer was
that this coming of the Kingship is basically the SINGULAR thing for
which we should pray. (See
The Lord's Prayer) His promise was that
regarding these things
listed above, so doing would open the door to engendering the "God
Attitude" (Holy Spirit) that "would teach you ALL things" and "lead you into ALL the
Paraclete and Holy Spirit His own
corresponding desire–expressed to the Father in the most profound,
intense and emphatic way possible in the language and practice of his day–was that we
come into unity. See The Case for Unity
Without taking the final spiritual growth step regarding the
centering of authority and thereby internalizing it, a person CANNOT
deal genuinely with the ultimate issues and CANNOT understand nor
believe the message of the J person.
The framers of the US constitution did a marvelous and wonderful thing,
something quite extraordinary in terms of the historical development of
nations, when they stood up as a group and had the courage to say,
hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Did you catch it? "Self evident!"
They did NOT say we hold these truths because the Bible–or any other
selection of "sacred" writings–holds them to be so, or because it is traditional,
or because they heard a voice from the sky, or because they had a sleep
dream in common. This ultimate foundation is
the internal HUMAN reference, and IT MUST BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY
EXTERNAL SOURCE, AND THE EXTERNAL SOURCE MAY ONLY SUPPLEMENT AND
RESONATE, NOT OVERRIDE!"
The Pristine Jesus
Is this what current Christian theology and focus looks like today? I think not!
One partial exception may be that of the late Jack D Zwemer
(2017), who published an article in 1995 that
largely reflects SOME of the thinking of this site. See:
Destiny of Man for some
remarkably clear thinking about some of the major issues.
General Premise 2 - Psychology and thinking flawed
One major premise of this site is that humans are flawed. This is
news, you ask? Who would argue with this premise? However, it is the
nature of HOW we are flawed that is at issue here. The foundational
premise is that we are flawed in our psychology and thinking, not our
nature. Further, that it was the ancient global catastrophes, of concern to
all ancient cultures and replete in their mythologies, that fragmented the collective
consciousness and traumatized the psyche of mankind, sending us into a Collective Post Traumatic
Stress Syndrome of totally race-wide guilt, denial and amnesia. As more than one
philosopher and observer of mankind has stated, "Mankind DESIRES to be deceived!"
This bottom line premise means that never in all of recorded history
has ANYONE faced the ultimate issues while being open to the supreme
goodness of God, and it is about time that we
took a rational, logical and reasonable approach to doing so, an
approach that demands consistency and ideal goodness in our picture of God.
In other words, the premise means that the traditional thinking about
God is inadequate, misguided, and therefore is a "deal killer". For the
very triumph of goodness over evil, FOR US, the tenor of this thinking MUST be changed!
My interest is both specific and explicit, and comprehensively
defined–I want everything that legitimately supports the sustenance and
enhancement of life that I am aware that I want and need, and more–the
IF-I-SEEK-US package prominently displayed on this site! And I have
extensively defined that set and explained that these needs and desires
are intrinsic, universal, and legitimate. Instead of dismissing or
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
PRIMARY context. If the proffered belief system doesn’t offer a
reasonable pathway to these results, 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; and how to get rid of them
without just going into denial and suppression.
Herein lies the real challenge leading to the real solution, to
define God in a MORE meaningful and adequate way than
through nature, through the world OR through tradition.
So, the working premise of this site is that we DO need a new
theology, and that badly. But before we can deal with a fresh theology,
we need a legitimate and relevant definition of "God". A proper definition of
"God" will induce a new thinking or theology and help keep us
on the straight and narrow. The proposed source of material information
for this fresh theology–the J person–may be a surprising one, because as far as existing religion or
theology is concerned, never has so much been promised and so little delivered!
How badly are we stuck?
Since I almost always try to gently steer a prolonged friendly
conversation toward meaningful, and many times, philosophical issues,
I often talk with people who are driven to exclaim that they don't have
a belief system, or doctrines, or concepts. This usually prideful
exclamation is now always greeted with, "Oh, that's the no-belief belief
system" or "That's the no-doctrine doctrine or the no-concept concept".
The point here is best stated using the double negative–we cannot
not have a belief system, or doctrines or concepts! The issue is
NOT whether we are going to have these, but whether the ones we MUST and WILL have are
valid, i.e., ARE effective, consistent, AND productive.
The issue is almost always NOT whether we believe or how fervently we believe but WHAT we believe and WHY!
Overwhelmingly people in the world wind up with the belief system,
the world view, into which they were born. They were "injected"
and "infected" with this
belief system and programmed by it, and are seemingly incapable of changing
it or becoming free of it, and are overwhelmingly left being victims of it. Yet, what kind of mature,
responsible sovereign human being would settle for something–more important than
anything else in his life–that is slapped onto him by others? Here are
questions concerning some ultimate personal issues:
1) Who gets to choose what I believe? Me or someone else?
2) Who gets to define certain words like "goodness" and "evil"? Me or someone else?
3) Who gets to decide what is ultimately good? Me or someone else?
4) Who owns, or is responsible for, what I think? Me or someone else?
5) Who gets to judge how I feel? Me or someone else?
6) Who owns my life? Me or someone else?
7) Who should be responsible for my destiny? Me or someone else?
Let’s set, in a frank, honest, and meaningful way, the context in which we find ourselves.
First and foremost, we are born into a dirty, messy, CONTAMINATED, pathological,
troubled, insane, and dangerous world under a sentence of death with a
limited lifespan. Seemingly the best we can do, given good training and good
luck, is to not shorten this lifespan too much. We must run a vicious
gauntlet of accident, disease, toxin exposure, flawed genes, inadequate
nutrition, temptation for excess, and other common threats
to our health and welfare; and we must
carefully guard and protect these with good hygiene, diet and general habits, in order
to accomplish even this losing-more-slowly regime.
Unless we have
and designed this life for ourselves, we are born with a set of personal specifications,
traits, characteristics and attendant geographical, geopolitical,
cultural, regional, religious, social, and family factors with which we had
absolutely NO volitional involvement whatsoever. NONE! We need say little more about the context
after birth than what Thomas Hobbes said, “The life of man [in a state
of nature is], solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”
We also find ourselves in a world of 7.6 billion people with a hundred
thousand competing and mutually exclusive and partially mystical belief systems, each claiming
to be the way, or the truth. Meanwhile not one of these ideologies,
religions, denominations, organizations, nor groups or individuals is in
a majority. Every religion, ideology, value system, organization,
sect, doctrine, denomination, and individual is actually in a minority.
The inescapable logic is that at least most of these are wrong, and a
direct implication of what we see is that almost all, and possibly ALL, are wrong or false to some
How is this for additional context? The inhabitants of the world,
including those in western culture, get a "D" grade! "D" for being into
denial, delusion, diversion, drivel and distraction, decadence, degradation and dissolution,
dogma, drugs, drama, defeatism, death, and desperation to forget or
lower the level of awareness of the "human condition". On top of
alcohol, tobacco, gambling, pornography, horror movies and stories,
otherwise generally vacuous TV shows and movies, mind-numbing music, body-damaging
sports, reckless activities that risk the life of the participant, we have:
"The inhabitants of earth spend more money on illegal drugs than they
spend on food. More than they spend on housing, clothes,
education, medical care, or any other product or service. The
international narcotics industry is the largest growth industry in the
world. Its annual revenues exceed half a trillion dollars–three
times the value of all United States currency in circulation, more than
the gross national products of all but a half dozen major industrialized
nations." - James Mills, The Underground Empire: Where Crime and Governments
Embrace, (New York: Doubleday, 1986), 3. (Note: the numbers
are larger today)
We live in a world where: "One death is a tragedy, a million is a
statistic." - Joseph Stalin
Not so good, is it? Does anybody still have any hope that the
traditional religions, politics, thinking or paradigms will heal this
situation for us? See also Human context
Any religion or philosophy can be judged as good or evil, positive or
negative, productive or destructive, an asset or liability simply on
this basis: Does it increase the sustenance and enhancement of life, or
does it decrease or interfere with the sustenance and enhancement of
life? If it does not impact fulfillment in life it is without meaning,
and then should it not be discarded as an empty husk? Is not a good
religion one that promotes good physical and psychological health through
inspiration of purpose instead of recrimination and guilt?
The Dark Veil of Unreason and Hypocrisy
The thinking or paradigm behind the existing systems is usually
fear-based, confused and muddled, psychologically twisted, dark and
negative, uncritical, and often unstructured. The substance is generally
heavily infected with traditional aspects of ancient planet worship and ancient myth. These programs
tend to leave people in a state of denial or defeatism, ridden with
guilt, saddled with emotional burdens where some even descend into
withdrawal, suicide or physical self-flagellation. They leave others in a state of
irresponsibility, too character and value deficient to make good
citizens. In fact, groups for psychological healing exist to UNDO the damage wrought by oppressive religion.
A Leap in the
dark versus steps in the light
The conclusions of these systems are irrational (not fact supported),
illogical, unreasonable, unworthy of our idealism, and confusing, unworkable or
unproductive. They must be accepted by a faith that is a leap in the
dark rather than steps in the light of knowledge, reason, and understanding.
actually delivering what we actually want and need, the best these
systems can do is to offer a plethora of COPING mechanisms, and then promise
some kind of afterlife after suffering the “slings and arrows” of this
The result of these systems of thinking is a profusion of hypocrisy,
and a situation where we are on the verge of global religious and cultural
wars using new methods of terrorism and new tactics that include the
"martyrdom" of suicide bombers. With a predator-like calculation, some of
these extremist religious leaders actually take advantage of the most naive,
needy, and vulnerable young people to become nothing more than dehumanized
weapon delivery systems. But most others would at the least pressure
children before the age of majority to make a commitment–like getting
baptized–to their religion. When this is done to children before they have
matured to the age of reason, this is little short of spiritual pedophilia!
Think about it! Did your parents, teachers, pastors or priests teach you to
challenge and think about the existing dogma or doctrine or to just accept what they
or the authorities said?
- With this world being a cacophony of confusion and spiritual
fragmentation, how can we continue to cling to paradigms that have
failed miserably to clarify and bring us into better unity?
- How can we not understand that beliefs underpin the feelings and
emotions that inspire and constrain behavior?
- How can we continue to blame fantastical constructs like the
Devil instead of ourselves and what we believe?
- Where would we start in a zero-based reconstruction of our concepts?
- Can we set the stage for a meaningful challenge to existing
theology by squarely looking at the spiritual context in which we find ourselves?
- Can we identify and then deal with the ultimate human issues?
- How better to do this than to examine our own
religion and its conceptual underpinnings?
“We have said that religion is arguably the most
pervasive force in human society. This is both a historical fact
and a dynamic reality shaping our present and future world
community. As such, we must all take religion seriously.”
Charles, When Religion Becomes Evil, Los Angeles,
Publishers, Inc. 2002, p.
If you do not take the responsibility to define your God or what your God is like, you quite
literally have the problem of recognizing what may be God and other/or less
than God when confronted. Every dualistic religion that has a fallen superior
being has this evil agency sowing confusion, introducing counterfeit
concepts that are unworthy of a reasonable god. Even if the superior
evil agency or Devil is not real, the concepts that debilitate and
divide are real, and the confusion is real.
- How can we determine how contaminated with falsity we really are?
We might also ask ourselves the age-old question,
“What is truth?” Or, if we are comfortable with the concept of an
objective truth, better yet to ask how would we recognize truth or the body of
truth if we heard it or saw it?
Is there a universal, structured way to go about determining truth?
Do I trust myself to determine the truth?
To what extent can I trust others to help me do this?
The unequivocal need for faith in FINDING truth demands that we believe three things:
1. There must be
truth worth pursuing
2. It must be available for us to find and grasp
3. We must be able to recognize it when encountered.
The first premise bears worth looking at further, for if the truth is
not “good” for us personally, then why would we even want to find it?
If there is not a significant payoff, why would we want to know it?
Secondly, if it is not
available, then why invest any effort in a fruitless search?
cannot affect the underlying realities of these two issues and answers,
and can only choose to believe the positive or best. But we
can respond to number 3. We can, and must develop
criteria for recognizing truth!
What might those criteria be? Let us consider the original meaning of
the word “religion” by looking at its derivation. The first part of this
compound word is “re”, meaning to do over or again. The latter part
“ligion” has its roots in the Greek word for logic with a French
connotation for binding together. Thus we have “binding together again
with logic”. In its original denotation, what a great word it is and
what a wonderful sentiment it has. But when we look at the net result of
the world’s so-called religions, believing they have measured up to the
word’s promise doesn’t pass the laugh-out-loud test.
Does not our foremost criteria have to be that our worldview, our
“religion” is rational, logical, reasonable, and consistent?
Intellectually responsible? What person would be
comfortable in considering his religion or theology to be irrational? Or
illogical? Or unreasonable? Or inconsistent? If the truth is outside these
qualifiers, most of us in western culture would say, "Count me out." For
my part I am simply not willing to live in a universe where truth
is irrational, illogical, unreasonable and inconsistent!
Top of page 2
Note that Yeshua said to SEEK the truth; he didn't say to passively RECEIVE it.
"If it is something to be discovered by
search, the search must be free and untrammeled. If, however,
truth is something which has already been revealed to us by authority,
then it has only to be expounded, and the expositor must be faithful to
the authoritative doctrine. Needless to say, the latter was the
mediaeval conception of truth and its teaching." - Haskins, Charles
Homer, The Rise of
Universities, p. 51
General Premise 3 -
The Nature of Belief and Knowledge
As true as the above quote is, there is a third option that deals with
both an external authority and the internal authority of a spiritually
alive man. This is the option where our volitional involvement is
paramount, where NOTHING is allowed to violate our internal reference
point of the ideal. Every statement and concept from the external
revelation must be applied in a way that is consonant with what we think
is the best. Nothing short of this working together of the internal and
the external measures up to our being free and equal citizens of the
universe with personal sovereignty.
"Recent philosophical investigation has shown that metaphysical
assertions, and world views in general, are not verifiable in the
fashion that statements about experience are verified. But many
philosophers...have jumped from this springboard to the conclusion that
statements about empirical experiences are validated in some direct
fashion independently of any metaphysical assumptions. This
epistemological position rests upon an implicit and unrecognized
metaphysic which assigns a self-subsistent character to a "physical"
world independent of man who is merely an observer of this world.
At this point the methodological separation between observer and
phenomenon required by scientific work has become a conclusion about the
nature of the world itself." Emerson W. Shideler, Taking the
Death of God Seriously; The Meaning of the Death of God,
Vintage books, Random House, New York, NY p. 115.
Part of what is being said here is simply that one cannot "know" meaningful
things without belief, and one cannot "believe" meaningful things
without knowledge; and they both rely upon proper epistemology and
metaphysics. You cannot start with one and arrive at the
other, and it will not work to be active on one side and passive on the
other. To have any hope of transcending our victimhood, the "human
condition", we need to
be actively seeking and be open to an external reference of revealed
significant knowledge and truth. And the ultimate criterion should be whether
it offers what we intrinsically want and need.
In order to find the assurance of ultimate meaning, we need to take
charge and actively engage our volition. We need to be
understanding and choosing
what to believe from our own internal reference point in conjunction
with that external source or revelation. Both we and that
hopefully unimpeachable source must be committed and actively involved in the
apprehension and comprehension of ultimate meaningful Truth. Any chance
of that? To magnify that opportunity is the purpose of this site. Any
other purpose would be merely shallow and mundane.
"For now, it is our present dilemma which
must be considered, the life situation with which we are confronted." - From Hunter, Robert,
The Storming of the Mind, Doubleday & Company, 1972, p. 18.
"Arthur Koestler has expressed it perfectly:
'All efforts of persuasion by reasoned argument rely on the implicit assumption that
homo sapiens, though occasionally blinded by emotion, is a basically
rational animal, aware of the motives of his own actions and beliefs–an
assumption which is untenable in the light of both historical and
neurological evidence. All such appeals fall on barren ground;
they could take root only if the ground were prepared by a spontaneous
change in human mentality all over the world–the equivalent of a major
biological mutation. Then, and only then, would mankind as a
whole, from its political leaders down to the lonely crowd, become
receptive to reasoned argument, and willing to resort to those
unorthodox measures which enable it to meet the challenge. It is
highly improbable that such a mental mutation will occur spontaneously
in the foreseeable future. . . . '6
"Koestler here recognizes the
multidimensional nature of the trap in which we find ourselves.
Not only are the meta-problems themselves completely resistant to our
traditional problem-solving techniques, but the perceptions and
cognitive and intuitive reflexes which we have at our disposal do not
even allow us to see this failure; let alone clearly perceive the
nature of the solutions now required. We are trapped, as it were,
in an invisible prison, unable to see that we are, in fact, imprisoned
by the limitations of our perceptions, and therefore more or less
unconscious of the need to escape, to climb over the walls and move at
will through other perceptual worlds wherein a new order of answers
might be found. Unaware that we are trapped, bounded by very high
walls, locked into complex cages, we fail–to begin with–to recognize
our situation. This basic failure does not allow us to begin to act."
From a slightly different angle we can see, as reported by Will Durant
in The Story of Philosophy, of what Schopenhauer observed:
"No: it is impossible to solve the metaphysical puzzle, to discover the
secret essence of reality by examining matter first, and then
proceeding to examine thought: we must begin with that which we know
directly and intimately–ourselves. 'We can never arrive at the real
nature of things from without. However much we may investigate, we can
never reach anything but images and names. We are like a man who goes
round a castle seeking in vain for an entrance, and sometimes sketching
the facades.' Let us enter within. If we can ferret out the ultimate
nature of our own minds we shall perhaps have the key to the external
"Nothing is more provoking, when we are
arguing against a man with reasons and explanations, and taking all
pains to convince him, than to discover at last that he will
not understand, that we have to do with his will."
What is this "will" that is so perverse that it would override the
rational intellect and so powerful that it can? "Will" is a
wonderful thing in that it is an integral part of us as human beings,
and the best of us treat other people's will as sacrosanct unless it
threatens us personally. But how did it get to be an obstructor instead
of a servant? How do people wind up with a will that can ignore the best
and most humane aspects of the individual's own belief system, engender
greed, wage war, alienate and kill other people, and even commit
martyrdom over ridiculous doctrines and dogmas?
Religions have answers farcical and fantastical to these basic questions.
The traditional “God” centered ones bring in “hierarchies of holiness”,
demigods and demons, powerful "spirit beings" that all but control us,
and personal pogroms that would cauterize our finest dimensions just
because they are so powerful and thereby fraught with risk in usage. The
newer “Godless” ones bring in vague, ultimate concepts like
“evolutionism”, spiritual realities being “emergent properties” from
organizations of matter, and concepts like the whole physical universe
is an intelligent organism. But what they
DON'T have is any assuring rationale for why
their thinking is still not inside the "box" introduced by Koestler and
Schopenhauer above. What they don't have is a truth package that gives
real leverage on the will through SELF-INTEREST and INSPIRATION!
We know that the self-appointed "apostle" Paul was moved to cry out in desperation over his own
perverse will that countermanded his best and fervent intentions. This
leads us to question whether he found an adequate answer.
"I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but
I do the very thing that I hate."
Paul wound up defending the idea that with his mind he served the law
of God, but with his flesh he served the law of sin. In other words, it
was quite all right with God to leave him in this abject state without
material healing in order to constantly express his–God's–grace. The
solution was to die believing in grace and be resurrected with a different, "sinless" body.
Isn't this far from ideal?
Actually, what the "will" of Paul did not allow him to do was to question
the whole foundation of his thinking, his whole paradigm. He had a paradigm of God
being the source of fiat law backed up by punishment, corporate or individual, or, like
in the mind of Paul, some adequate substitute person for punishment.
Why is it that occasionally we are able to strain to see our own weakness but seldom if
ever are able to challenge our foundational thinking? Equally importantly, why cannot we see that
changing our foundational thinking changes our "will"?
What is being said in the above quotes is that we are obsessed and controlled by a
confused will, a will that is NOT worthy of us, a will that is NOT trustworthy, a will
that overrides that which we determine to do or not to do in our better
moments, a will that clearly does NOT even consistently have the best interest
of the individual and others, a will that shies away from
dealing with ultimate issues. Even though this subconscious
will is inconsistent, it is not WEAK but rather is STRONG.
What can be done? Is there any leverage we can get to
change it? Or is there a process whereby we grow toward a more desirable will?
The Ultimate Questions
This is where the hard question needs be asked, "Why,
in the name of God and the spirit of goodness, can't the universe be set
up to deliver the ENTIRE package of human needs and
desires indicated by the acronym at the top of these pages?" Or, "Is the
universe set up for us to win by the honest, universal human definition
of winning"? And the ultimate CHOICE is to believe that it IS
or ISN'T. Most people are quite uncomfortable in openly,
consciously choosing to believe that it isn't, but are staggered
at the thought that it might be. They might then have to live in the
context of that choice and actually go for the ultimate reward. Yet, it
always seems more comfortable and politic to stay in denial, to stay a
victim with the herd or flock.
Inside the modern mythology the choice is an easy one for the godless
evolutionist. The universe is the way it is, and Man had nothing much to do
with the deplorable human condition. The best we can do is work for
progress toward a better world, meanwhile coping and living like noble
stoics and hedonists sucking all the juice out of our mortal lives that
we can. Existentialism, the idea of creating temporary meaning within
ourselves where otherwise none exists outside, is the acme of secular
philosophy for the rational man. Believing there is no way to win and that there is no
afterlife puts a fashionable "edge" on the enterprise, and seemingly
justifies the drama to which we are all addicted.
But what if it IS available and the problem lies
in our own misconceptions? And, what if the package cannot be
delivered partially or piecemeal? What if it cannot come about unless we
seek it and demand success in finding and receiving it?
One thing is clear: there is no indication that anywhere in the
literature, ancient and modern, that man has entertained the delivery of
the ultimate in what he really wants and needs!
Unamuno–and others–go part way.
"All or nothing! ... Eternity, eternity ...
that is the supreme desire! The thirst of eternity is what is
called love among men, and whosoever loves another wishes to eternalize
himself in him. Nothing is real that is not eternal." - Miguel de Unamuno
What Unamuno means is that nothing that is not eternal has any "real"
meaning, a sentiment that Ernest Becker focused on in two
powerful books, The Denial of Death and Escape from Evil.
"Death is an imposition on the human race, and no longer acceptable.
Man has all but lost his ability to accommodate himself to personal
extinction; he must now proceed physically to overcome it. In
short, to kill death: to put an end to his own mortality as a certain consequence of being born.
"Our survival without the God we once knew comes down now to a race against
time. The suspicion or conviction that 'God is dead' has lately struck
home not merely to a few hundred thousand freethinkers but to masses of the
unprepared. Ancient orthodoxies may linger, but the content of worship
has begun to collapse. This is what makes our situation urgent: around
the world; people are becoming increasingly less inclined to pray to a force
that kills them - Harrington, Alan, The Immortalist, Discus Books, 1968, p. 11.
"The most imaginative philosophical and
religious answers to the 'problem of death' have become precisely
irrelevant to the fact that we die. Humanity's powers of
self-deception seem to be running out. Modern theological
word-games may be pleasing to seminarians. Let jazz be permitted
in the old spiritual gathering places. Such developments must be
understood as gallant but altogether pathetic holding operations.
"Emotionally, growing millions of us are in
crisis. 'Men are so necessarily mad,' wrote Pascal, 'that not to
be mad would amount to another form of madness.' Three hundred years
later, with the mass-communication of anxiety, and new weaponry and
drugs in our possession, we need only open the morning paper or sit down
to television, or look into our own lives, to observe signs of a growing
spiritual insurrection. Life as it used to be seems in the process
of slowly exploding. We wonder at the bursts of 'senseless'
violence that seem likely at any moment to invade our days and nights.
Yet is this sort of behavior necessarily irrational? If sanity now
calls upon us to accept death without hope, perhaps such recent
ceremonials as smashing pianos and guitars on stage may be viewed as
expressions of maddened realism." - Harrington, Alan, The Immortalist,
Discus Books, 1968, p. 11..
"Having lost faith, a great many men and
women have returned to the old superstitions now cloaked in new
disguises. God may have retreated, but the gods
today are by no means dead. Though disposed to destroy them, we
simultaneously bow down to some of the weirdest assortment of
deities ever known, such as History, Success and Statistics. We
worship purveyors of Luck, Fashion and couches, sexual statisticians,
psychological testers, polltakers, various merchants of paranoia, the
manipulators of public relations and television personalities–the
multiple gods of our quickening-century." - Harrington, Alan, The Immortalist,
Discus Books, 1968, p. 21
"The Immortalist position is that the
usefulness of philosophy has come to an end, because all philosophy
teaches accommodation to death and grants it static finality as "the
human condition." Art too, insofar as it celebrates or merely bemoans
our helplessness, has gone as far as it can. The beautiful device
of tragedy ending in helplessness has become outmoded in our absurd
time, no longer desirable and not to be glamorized. The art that
embellishes death with visual beauty and celebrates it in music belongs
to other centuries." - Harrington, Alan, The Immortalist, Discus Books, 1968, p. 25..
"The Immortalist thesis is that the time has come for man to get rid of
the intimidating gods in his own head. It is time for him to grow
up out of his cosmic inferiority complex (no more "dust thou art, and to
dust thou shalt return . . ."), bring his disguised desire into the
open, and go after what he wants, the only state of being he will settle
for, which is divinity." - Harrington, Alan, The Immortalist,
Discus Books, 1968, p. 26
Ask yourself honestly if the glass is half full or half empty. Ask
yourself if you would rather be an underling or pet, have eternal
inferiority even to a benevolent dictator; or whether you would rather
be an equal, a peer. Ask yourself if love can be demanded rather than inspired!
Divinity is Harrington's word for the IF-I-SEEK-US package being referenced
in the site heading. One perspective on the human condition and why we
remain in it is that we are not honest. We STAY in denial, we WALLOW in
mysticism and we LIE to ourselves, and there is a part of us that knows
this. Consequently, we do not trust ourselves and we have not enough
confidence in ourselves to take total responsibility to sort out the truth
for ourselves. The person with "no root in himself" feels it to be
temporarily better just to
plug into some popular or fetching belief system, easier to let some
priests, religious experts, gurus or charismatic leaders be his authority figures.
This type of person finds it better to be
pliable, affable sycophants in the religious minions.
Levels of Sanity
Another perspective has to do with the simple levels of sanity. The
difference between being insane, unsane, and sane can be
The insane person has a warped, distorted or
malformed concept of reality or belief system, and he actively goes
about trying to change the external to match his false internal concept.
They are driven to obliterate objective reality by projecting or imposing
their personal concepts upon it and actively try to force it to fit their
This often is so disturbing or dangerous that society incarcerates this
person in the relatively restricted and safe environment of an asylum.
The unsane person also has a warped, distorted or malformed
concept of reality or belief system that he clings to with "faith".
unsane is by far the largest of all three groups. They don't try to directly change actual reality or information about
it, but rather sometimes excuse but more often ignore, hide or deny it.
They essentially embrace whatever information or concepts that come to them
that "fit" their system and consciously or unconsciously ignore those that
The sane person
strives to keep his concepts and beliefs consonant with actual reality,
and changes his personal construct to match the external, and does so without
violating his internal reference point of idealism.
The bottom line here is that yes, we DO need a new theology, one that is
framed NOT by tradition, sacred writings, mythology, prophets and
mysticism but by the ultimate issue of fulfillment, by being consonant with our deepest,
natural and legitimate needs and desires. We need our theology to be founded
upon what we can KNOW directly: ourselves and our needs and desires! Failing that, just
the fear-mongering and pass me another dose of hedonism, please!
And I DO mean to suggest that a proper theological interpretation of the
reliable information that we have is as much or more an art, as much or more a work of the
imagination and volition, and as much or more a product of sound philosophical
reasoning as it is of historical and linguistic study. And of course, it
hinges upon an earnest seeking of the truth with an irrepressible "God"