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

Should not intelligent, reasonable men of good will be able to agree on all things that matter?

"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, Article Synopses and other features

Introduction Material
Introduction Articles
Word Definitions
Human Condition

Christianity Material
Bible/Canon Issues
Christendom Analyzed

Jesus Material
Jesus' Teachings
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels Canon

Philosophy Material
Academic Education
Paradigm Material
Philosophers of Note
Philosophical Issues
Philosophy Metaphysics
Psychological Issues
Religious Miscellaneous
Sociological Material
Theological Basics
Theological Issues
Theological Misc

Theological Skeptical

Cosmology, Creation,
Geophysical Material

Cosmology Material
Creation Issues
Geophysical Material

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Chronology Revision
Golden Age Themes
History Revision
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
Site Features Links
Site article checklist
Spiritual Products online store


"The truth will set you free."

Can We Agree?

1. Can we agree that there are two factors or developments that underlie any or every thing meaningful, and that these two aspects are the sustenance and enhancement of life? That every issue needs to be looked at in the context of these?

2. Can we agree that all are worthy of being treated humanely, without imputing equality in any physical or mental dimension?

3. Can we agree that we have been born into a world of billions of homo sapiens with a multiplicity of competing and mutually exclusive belief systems, each claiming to be the way, or the truth? Can we agree that not one of these ideologies, religions, denominations, organizations, groups or individuals is in a majority, but that every one of these is in a minority?  Can we agree the inescapable logic is that at least a majority of these are significantly flawed, and a direct implication of what we see is that almost all, and possibly ALL, are wrong or false to some degree.  In this context can we agree that we should be primarily CHALLENGING our belief system rather than defending it?

4. Can we agree that the foundation/paradigm behind existing systems usually is:

a. Fear-based?
b. Based on ancient myth and mysticism?
c. Inadequate, unsound, confused and muddled?
d. Dark, negative, and psychologically twisted?
e. Structurally and organizationally deficient?

5. Can we agree that the major conclusions of these systems usually are:

a. Irrational (non-factual), illogical, and unreasonable?
b. Unworthy of our idealism?
c. Hopelessly unworkable, unproductive in terms of resolving the human condition?

6. Can we agree that the prevailing belief systems are at best JUST coping mechanisms for the "human condition?

7. Can we agree that we are all born into a dirty, messy, pathogenic, dangerous, troubled, insane world under a sentence of death? And that we did not ask for or design this for ourselves?

8. Can we agree that our belief system should deliver us, "set us free" from the "human condition", FROM A WORLD OF EVIL WE DID NOT DESIGN?

9. Can we agree that we will eschew dogmatism in our discussion?

10. Even though it may entail our utmost exertions, is it possible by dint of excruciating effort for us to come into essential intellectual consonance so that we eschew expositing and explaining our beliefs, dogmas, tenets, doctrines, and positions with obscurant, mystical or obfuscating terminology?

11. Can we agree that truth or lack thereof in our belief is more important than the intensity of belief?  Can we not see that many and various individuals have been willing to be burned at the stake or willing to commit suicide for their unsound and even barbaric beliefs?

12. Can we agree that "The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr"? That learning and understanding must precede proper belief?

13. Can we agree that when we verbally discuss we are always sharing limited perspectives, concepts or feelings, not necessarily the last word of truth on the issue?

14. Can we agree that knowledge and belief, though different, are inextricably linked?

15. Can we agree that there is a culturally transcendent set of values that we would call human or humane?

16. Can we agree that spiritual reality (intelligence, will, etc.) is primary, that the ground of being for physical reality is the spiritual and not the other way around?

17. Can we agree that one necessary accomplishment of a spiritually mature person is to internalize authority and take full personal responsibility for what he may believe?

18. Can we agree that one must first have faith in oneself before one can legitimately put faith in any external source?

19. Can we agree that the value of the individual is supreme and that organizations acquire value only insofar as they serve and support the individuals, and not the other way around?

20. Can we agree that the truth is not something that can be "spread" like peanut butter or mayonnaise, nor is it something that can be injected into another person, but that it can only be induced and inspired?

21. Can we agree that the “no-belief belief system”, the "no-concept concept", and the "no-doctrine doctrine" are each oxymoronic, and that it is NOT an option whether to have a belief system, concepts, and "positions", but the best option is to be careful and intellectually responsible in what position we take, what we commit to as belief?

22. Can we agree that no sound person desires to die except because of suffering, be it physical or psychological?

23. Can we agree that we should elevate substance over style in our discussions and spiritual content evaluations?

24. Can we agree that one earmark of everything meaningful is organization?

25. Can we agree, given that the word "love" is so nebulous, used so widely in range of meaning, that it is more meaningful for a person to say, "You know, you make me feel well loved" than it is to say "I love you"?

26. Can we agree, given that rationality pertains to apprehending the facts, logic pertains to assembling the facts into structure and conclusion, and that reason incorporates both of these and adds purpose, that the truth never violates valid rationality, logic, nor reason?

27. Can we agree that we will show up for our discussions primarily listening to understand, more as intellectually responsible sharers, not as indoctrinators?

28. Can we agree that leadership is always a temporary service, never should be sought for itself, is legitimate only through inspiration rather than through domination, and is ONLY valid as long as it is serving the right purpose and values?

29. Can we agree that being a responsible human being firstly means being intellectually responsible for what we believe and promulgate?

30. Can we agree that that which is moral is that which ultimately sustains and enhances life and increases morale?

31. Can we agree that it is at least as noble to change one's position or concept of the truth as it is to propose or hold a correct precept or concept?

32. Can we agree that it is more difficult to know that which is the right thing to do, than it is to do that which we think is right?

33. Can we agree that healthy skepticism is quite appropriate and a lie fed to an overly receptive mind can become a great "truth" to that mind?

34. Can we agree to refrain from promoting defeatism in our discussion?

35. Can we agree that significant aspects of the phenomenological world, i.e., ontology, cosmology, physical science, mythology, geology, history, anthropology, psychology, biology, etc., should educate and condition our belief system?

36. Can we agree that mankind needs spiritual healing as a prerequisite to full and complete emotional and physical healing?

37. Can we agree that what we ultimately desire is the complete "" package , i.e., Imminent Fulfillment, Immortality, Safety, Equality, Empowerment, Knowledge, Unity, and Society?

38. Can we agree that in our discussion we should maximize our unity by focusing on and increasing our agreements rather than focusing on and hammering out our differences?

39. Can we agree that the bottom-line end-result that we–and every other conscious being including God–universally desire is to feel good?

40. Can we agree to gather in good will to reason together toward unity rather than to argue or triumph?

41. Can we agree that gurus, preachers, teachers, and lecturers–outside of any tangible service they might perform–are assets or liabilities SOLELY on the basis of whether their message content is true or false?

42. Can we agree that no substantive value is derived from gurus, preachers, teachers, and lecturers because of their intensity, style, charisma, charm, enthusiasm, formal authority, credentials, popularity or sincerity?

See also:
Disingenuous Argument Techniques
Distinctions Between Intellectuals and Pseudo-Intellectuals
ISEEC Knowledge Types

Home   Site Sections   Article Map   Contact   Store   Contributions   Survey