Post #184 "Christmas-Reality or Non-reality?"

Again, what is Real? Is Christmas Real? Are we celebrating what we say we are celebrating? We say we are celebrating the birth of Jesus, the Christ. Or are we just enjoying being with family and friends, a celebration of human love? Either way, Christmas seems to be about love. But is the love we celebrate, either way, religious or nonreligious, Real love? Do we know what real love is or do we know Real love as we know Reality itself, which definition has so far totally eluded scientists and physicists?

Let's return to the religious definition of Christmas because this is the root, no matter how we feel or how we celebrate. Religion celebrates the birth of a baby boy in Bethlehem, as the Christ, as the Son of God. In other words, religion celebrates that God became man, That Jesus through his birth became humanity, that God, through human birth, became humanity, that God willing, out of love, entered our world and became one like us. But it doesn't end here? Does not religion go on to assume that we, in a sense, trade places with God? That as God becomes one of us, we become one with God?..........that we become God!!!??? Is this not the basis of who we think and believe we are? In our striving for Perfection are we not striving to replace God by assuming God's characteristics, by assuming God's persona, by assuming God's Perfection? What is perfection anyway but becoming God? After all, God and Perfection are One, as God is One.

So looking again at Christmas....is Christmas not a celebration of our ability to assume and expect, of ourselves and of each other--- Perfection? Is not then, Christmas a celebration of our accomplishment of attaining the fulfillment of our dreams, our desires, and, yes, our choice? Is not Christmas the celebration of humanity becoming One with God...of becoming God ?

Is this, then, Reality or non-reality? Can intelligence, can humanity, become God? Can what is image become what is Real? Of course not! Reality is Reality. Non-reality is non-reality. This is the proof of the Reality of non-reality, of the Reality of Nothingness. If we live within our own image, the image we have created, we cannot see or perceive in any way that which lies beyond our vision , beyond our senses, beyond our rationality, and way beyond anything we could ever dream, desire, or chose to be.

post #183 "The Search for Reality"

This writing is a presentation of thoughts and findings that flow from deep levels of consciousness and awareness that have seen the properties of creation: Time, Place, and Matter, as dreamed, as desired, and as chosen by the collective consciousness and the collective unconsciousness as nebulous and as image. These findings and this view flow from deep levels of consciousness and awareness that have removed layers of debris to emerge from bedrock and from beyond bedrock to that of First Cause. It is not intended in any way to present an argument, to debate, or to offer a persuasion, for if this were so, it would qualify as a religion or as a science or both. It is neither. It is, however, the accounting of a serious search for Realty...for the truth of Reality. This writing is the presentation of an alternate, of a search for another view, for another proposition. This writing looks for other answers to that of our contemporary ideas of truth that are totally oblivious of Reality.

This writing is for those who are not satisfied with what has been presented as fact and as truth by religion and by science, or any other source. It is for those still wondering, still searching. This writing is for all those who are still thinking that satisfactory answers have not yet been found. This writing is particularly for those who have been disappointed, hurt, disillusioned, and even horrified by what they have been given as truth. This presentation is another way of looking at what is found at bedrock way down beneath the layers of civilization. This presentation is a different approach of the First Cause that has raised the basic questions as to who we are, how we came to be, and as to what is our purpose. Other First Cause questions on 'good and evil' and questions on God, are looked at from a perspective that reaches way beyond the outer limits of religion and science. This search finds truth by looking deeper than surface truth at which most lives are lived in the superficial world of today.

Post #182 "Elimination of Reality"

One cannot become the other if the other still exists. In transference, the one desiring the transfer, bottom line, desires the removal of the other from the scene. There can be no transference if there are two claiming the same identity. It would be even better if the other ceased to exist. The other must be eliminated, one way or the other for a true transference. Removal of the other is mandatory. How can one claim to be the other without claiming all that makes up the identity that is desired, the identity that is envied? Identity is made up of the other's special attributes, all those attributes that initiated the desire in the first place. The desired attributes would include characteristics, possessions and all attributes. Only by the total elimination of God can one claim possession of God as one takes on the essence of the other and becomes God. How is this transference then accomplished? We all know that what is real cannot be eliminated. What is the real purpose for creation? Is the real purpose for creation the elimination of God? Is creation the act of building walls to block the presence of God, or better yet, of Reality? The walls of creation must be built that Reality will seem to be eliminated....will only SEEM to be eliminated. But the walls of creation or any other walls cannot eliminate that which truly exists in and to Reality. Its all just a sham, a pretense. Pretense...here lies the impetus and the means to create. What does intelligence create? We create what we desire. We create what we envy. We create to become that which we desire. We create what and when our desire is totally unreachable and unachievable and even, at a certain point in time, inconceivable. We cannot totally remove Reality. We can only hide behind the walls of our own building....the walls that remove ourselves not Reality, for Reality is. Desire cannot be inconceivable in Time, for desire begat Time as desire also begat Place and Matter. Time as place and Matter is nebulous and can be tipped upside down and downside up and inside out and outside in, the ending confused with its beginning and the beginning confused with its ending.

Creation begins with desire. Desire calls forth choice. Desire and choice are basic energies as Matter is energy. Matter is organized energy. Time and Place are organized energy. Creation is organized energy. Creation is information from the past, present, and future. Creation was created, is created, and will be created. Because energy has pattern, form, and frequency, it is information. Energy stores information, thereby confusing beginning with ending and ending with beginning. Creation is the effort and the choice of the collective consciousness and the collective unconsciousness; all consciousness supplying information, all consciousness doing what consciousness does, which is choosing

Post #181 "Becoming God II"

Knowing our inabilities, we long for Perfection. Longing for Perfection, we dream, we desire, we choose.... to create Perfection. Perfection is the result of our dreams, our desires , and finally our choice, for the function of Intelligence is choosing. Intelligence chooses. From how we perceive ourselves, others, and our surroundings, we create those qualities we feel will bring us to the desired Perfection. We create the qualities we wish to become. We find that we are weak. We desire power, so we image our dream of what all-powerful would be. Our God is all-powerful. We struggle with ignorance. We dream of what all-knowing would be. Our God is all-knowing. We dream of being accepted and loved. We find that we are destructive and mean-spirited, so we dream of being loved and all-loving. Our God is described as all-loving. Power is what we create power to be as we create knowing and loving and all the other characteristics we use to create our God. God is not what God is but what we need God to be. We create what we would become. We desire to be Perfect because we see our God as Perfection. We observe the God of others and deem that God, to be other than who we are and, consequently, other than our God. Our God becomes The God, become God the Perfect God. Any other God is a false God and becomes our enemy to be defeated by our God of Perfection, for there can only be One God and that God is my God.

God is the model for Perfection, but the model for Perfection as I see it. As we determine Perfection we create the attributes of God. Throughout history, each people create God as representative of themselves. Then they become representative of their God, as in attempting to cover up a great deceit. Is it not deceitful to play a game of attempting to be what one is not? Is it not deceitful to design and define characteristics of a determined God that one can claim as one's own?

God holds the qualities most desired by humanity. God is my God. God is our God. No matter what is said, God does not belong to the masses, however God wants the masses to belong to himself and is so led to declaring and calling a war in that God's own name. It would then be, of course, a holy war. My God works for me and, then, I work for my God. It would be very difficult to work for someone else's God. It would be as difficult as cheering for a team that is not the team that one supports and backs, and identifies with. Now the individual identity of self and the identity of God as separate from self becomes muddled. The lines become blurred. Where does self leave off and God begin. Where does one's identity become the identity of God?

Post #180 "The projection of God"

The transference of humanity into God takes place as God is the image of humanity. God is created in the image of mankind. As Intelligence imagines Perfection, humanity's idea of Perfection becomes its God. Humanity images its own image of God. Imaging is done through transference. The transference of humanity into Reality cannot take place in Reality, as Reality is Reality and image is image. Only in dream and desire does the transference take place. A resultant projected image cannot become its own original. The image of God that results is actually the image of one's interpretation and impression of God. Hence, God becomes image. God becomes the image of humanity, the image of creation. Reality remains Reality. The projection of the desire to become God results in the image which is made up of one's own interpretation of who and what God is and especially what they need and desire God to be. God becomes archetype. In order for humanity to believe in the God it has created, it must do away with anything that goes beyond. This means confining God to what intelligence has created god to be. God must be confined. But it is not only God that must be confined within the limits of intelligence, creation itself must be confined within the limit and limitations of creation. God and creation can only be what intelligence allows it to be. Nothing can exist that does not begin within Time, Place, and Matter. Nothing can exist that lies outside the dreams and desires of intelligence. Until intelligence dreams and desires and images, alternate life or alternate dimensions do not exist.

The first step to becoming God after the dream and the desire is the determination of what qualities are desired. Which qualities are the one that will bring about Perfection as God is Perfection? The most obvious characteristics that seem to be universally desired are those characteristics that are considered the best and the most God-like, as in All-knowing, All-mighty, All-powerful, Most exalted and on and on. It doesn't take long, however, to realize that Perfection, the Perfection of God, does not exist in creation. The only way to become Perfect is to seek for Perfection outside creation. Not knowing what exists outside creation, we rely on our ability to create which is the same as to image. We dream. We desire. We image. We exist within our imaging. Our images are our creation. We do not know what is outside of creation. We do not even know that there is an outside-of-creation. We can only surmise what we long for. No wonder we do not know satisfaction and keep on longing.

"Post # 179 "Who, Really, is God?"

Who is God? Really! Who or What is God? Is God who God is, or is God who we make God out to be? Can we know that which we call, God? Can we name God and call God....God? When we say that God is in our lives, is that God the Reality or is that God that which we have determined God to be? Didn't the word 'god' come from ancient personifications of nature and the need to appease that which was feared? Do we not still try to appease that same fear? Basically, that fear is the fear of the unknown. Is not the fear of God, basically, the fear of the unknown? After all, God is the author of life and the controller of death. Was not that need to appease the unknown, the root of what we think of as worship? Is not worship a form of appeasement meant to soften God, to make God approachable, to form a relationship with God to do.....to do what?...to be our servant, to provide for us and grant our wishes, to give us power beyond our own finite power, to give us the power of God? Does not worship give us the right to the Name of our God, to be the God we claim and possess as our own even to leading us into battle ...and of course, to winning the war so we can fight in that God's name???  and make this God responsible for declaring war? And what about the other side, that side we are waring and fighting against, somehow they seem to be claiming the power of the same God, and are fighting, as we are, in that same God's Name under the same God's banner and for the same God's purpose.......Is this God, Reality, or is this God the God we have created? Its like we not only desire to become God but that we desire to become the God we have created. Our God seems to have all the same goals we do.,, in fact, seems to have the same characteristics.....seems to want what we want and to reject what we reject. This God we have created seems to have the same thoughts as we do that seem to concentrate on war, on 'besting'. on competition and winning everything at any cost, including, throughout history, more than billions and billions of lives. Something just is not adding up. If on the other hand we say that God is a God of Love, that God is a God of Life....now things really do not add up. The God of love would never admonish killing and torture, would never admonish competition that says 'I am better than you and I am going to prove it.' We would never see the God of Love and Life at sport competitions or any of the events that call forth worship.....worship of all the gods we have created, to whom we do homage, under whose banners we claim to march and begin wars for and die for. It just does not make sense...this God we have raised and then,  in God's own Name, thrown into the dirt as we march on over slain victims, killed to honor and obey our God.

We seek perfection. We seek God's Perfection. Its in our genetic make-up. Perfection is what we determine perfection to be and the definition is not always the same to everyone. To become perfect, to become God, for God and perfection are the same, we need to determine the qualities that we see Perfection made up of. Because we see God as all-powerful, power is the quality we seek to become Perfect, to become God. This need to be powerful, the most powerful,.... to be beyond the power of creation, to the power of God. Here we see that Perfection and God are the same thing. And in desiring Perfection, we desire to become God. There lies deep within humanity the desire to become God. The desire is meant to be hidden and denied. No one will admit to wanting to become God. What would people think? It is safer to admit to wanting to be perfect. In fact, this seeking for perfection has been turned into an asset and training begins very early in life. Training to be Perfect is our life. Its our culture. Its what we do. Its who we are. So who is God? What is God? Is there a Real God or just the God we have created? Does Reality have or need a God? Reality is Reality. We can't name it or change it or possess it. It is just there if we allow if to be. And if we do not allow it to be nothing is changed. Reality still Is...just not for us. Its just a matter of Choice, really.

Post #178 "The Creation of God"

In the projection of Reality onto the surface called earth, called universe, called creation...what happens to Reality? What happens to the original...the one that is imaged? What becomes of the original if the projection is successful? If the image of the Reality sees itself as that Reality, could that original continue to exist? The answer is "no", the original could not be allowed to exist, especially to the image, for if it remained, the image would always be the image. The image does not desire to be an image but to be the original, to be that which has entity, to be that which had infinity. But what happens? What really happens? Could there be an exchange of places between an original and its image? Could the image become that Reality, become that desired God? If so, what happens to reality? What happens to God/Reality? We know that Reality cannot be projected, but creation does not know this, or if it does know it way down deep, it surly cannot risk admitting it. So going from the viewpoint of the created, what does Intelligence suppose happens to Reality that it believes it has traded places with? And by trading places, means doing away with Reality. For the image to be successful in fulfilling desire, the original must be done away with. The image must be killed or in some way utterly destroyed.

When the desire to become God, to become the Reality, projects into space, it returns as an image  rather than as transference had taken place as intended. The energy of desire projects into space, churns the primordial waters, and returns as it cannot penetrate the walls of its own creation. The desire cannot attain access to Reality as Reality lies beyond the walls of creation and so returns to its sender as an image of the sender's own attributes. When the desire is to become God, to become Reality, the desire cannot attain to God's Reality. The desire to become God, to become Reality returns as an image of the desired in the desirers' characteristics. The result is very distorted and actually the opposite of that which is desired. Where infinity was the main desire, finiteness resulted. Where entity was desired, brokenness resulted, where knowledge of love was desired, hatred, competition and wars resulted. The desire to become Reality creates God as the image of Reality rather than the desired perfection of a successful transference based on Intelligence's ideas and dreams and desires, based on Intelligence's preconceived ideas of Perfection ,and hence, of God.

The result of the projection of Reality onto and into Intelligence is creation. All that has been created is the image of the intention to become what one is not. The image is returned to the one desiring transference who now, incorrectly, identifies with the image as self. The image is a reflection of what the person assumes is God, and incorrectly setting God into the position of Reality rather than the archetype of one's own dreams and desires. The person imitates and becomes their own interpretation of God rather than actually becoming Reality for they have God and Reality confused because they do not know Reality and so have named and designed God to their own specifications and needs. One assumes that becoming God, becoming Reality is a process and that they are in the process. They see their lives as preparation for becoming God/Perfection. What lies behind or beneath the
creation of God other than the desire to become the other? We become what we dream and desire. When the desire is unknowable and unattainable, we create the image and pretend that we know what we have chosen. We desire Reality but it does not exist for creation, so we image it and call it God. We strive for the Perfection of the God we have created to represent our dreams and desires.

Post #177 "Transference into Reality"

Can transference take place if the one desired remains? How can one become the other if the other remains? If a transference truly takes place, how could the one desired remain? There is no way that the desired one could remain. So what becomes of that one, the other one, the one that was the object of desire? In the transference, does that one not lose identity and become 'no one'? Can transference truly take place if desired one remains? If Reality is what is desired, can desire alter Reality or does desire alter only the one desiring to become Reality, to become God? If Reality is desired, does this in any way change Reality? Of course not, there is no way creation can change Reality or even touch Reality in any way. For one reason, creation and Reality are not in the same level or same degree or same dimension, in other words, in the same mode of existence, for existence is not possible for image. As the host of the image, Reality can have an effect on creation for creation images Reality. Creation, however, as image, can have no effect on Reality. Yet, would not transference demand the removal, or better  yet, the death, of that other one. That other one that seems to stand in the way of creation achieving its goal of becoming God, of becoming the Reality. So, if that which is and is of creation desires to become God or become Reality, God and/or Reality must be removed. Creation must believe that the transference has been accomplished and God and/or Reality are gone and never existed. Creation must believe that it alone has all that was desired and dreamed about that was God, that was Reality. Creation must believe in its infallibility, its infiniteness, and in its entity.

On the side: Within creation, what if the one desired was a god? Could a god lose identity? What would become of the other one, thee one that was the object of the desire? What would become of that other one, the one that lost its identity? Can transference truly take place if one remains ? Can being desired alter Reality? Would not transference demand the death of that other one? What if that original was a god, could a god lose identity? History would prove that many gods have lost identity. Do we not, daily, come in contact with and hear about gods that have lost their identity? What is a god anyway, but that which is worshipped? When a god is no longer worshipped does that god then exist? Has transference taken place?

In projection, an image of an original or a host is projected onto a surface that seemingly changes the reflecting surface so that it is meant to resemble the original. In transference the reflecting surface becomes the original. The reflecting surface is that one desiring to become other than it is. Example:  A desires to become B through a transference of B's persona or B's essence onto A. Through transference, the image is seen to change places with the desired object. Ideally, if the transference went as planned, the one that desires would see itself as the Reality, but in the case of becoming God or becoming the Reality the one that desires becomes a distorted and inverted image . Actually, the opposite effect is all that is achieved. That which has now become image sees itself as having transferred and takes on the new role. It is, however,  only role playing. The transference never took place. At least not as planned and hoped for.

Post # 176 "Projection of Reality's Image"

Creation is the projected image of Reality. Can Reality be projected? Can Reality be projected or is it an impression of Reality which is projected, making creation the result of Intelligence's dreaming and desires? If Reality is able to be projected, Reality must be knowable or at least, readable. Is Reality knowable? Is Reality readable? Again, can Reality be projected or is the perception which designs its own impressions of Reality that is projected? Can Reality be known through its image or is the projected image of  Reality not Reality at all, but the image, the image which is the opposite, the distorted, the reversed, the inverted , and opposite of itself? Then, is creation that which Intelligence imagines or images? Projection requires a surface on to which to project an image. Of course, the projection of Reality onto a surface would be impossible and would result in great distortion. Besides the image being greatly distorted to the point of being unrecognizable, the image is distorted also through  the fact that surface of creation is not at all compatible to the projection of Reality. In fact, as afore mentioned, it is not possible to project Reality, only an impression can be projected so the result is great distortion and the reverse of what was expected. Reality can be known only through the image.....Reality is opposite creation, consequently, Reality cannot be comprehended. Creation longs to be as Reality, as intelligence longs to be its impression of its God. Although creation longs to be Reality, creation cannot even comprehend Reality. Where there is finiteness....infiniteness is longed for. Where there is brokenness, entity is longed for. Where there is no truth, truth is longed for. Creation does not know infiniteness. Creation does not know entity. Creation does not know Truth.

If Reality could be projected on to one that dreams, desires and chooses to become the Reality, to become God, would the planned transference take place? Would this desire, would this choice, would the resultant projection bring about the transference of one into another? What if the dreamer, the one who desires, the chooser, believes that the transference has taken place or is about to soon happen, would it not be much of what our existence is about here on earth, here in creation? Do we not already believe ourselves to possess God?

Post #175 "Lost Reality"

What is Real? What does Real mean? Have we confused what we think of as real with Reality itself? There is Reality and there is the image of Reality. We do not understand that if Reality exists, non-reality must also exist. To get any understanding of what is Real ,we must distinguish what is Real from what is the image of Reality. That which is created is not real but is image. Creation is the image of Reality. As Creation is created, creation exists in its own created Time, in its own created Place or surfaces, and in and on its own created Substance. But neither its Time, its Place, nor its Substance is the 'stuff'' of Reality. Image can only reflect in its own Time, Place, and in its own Substance all of which are nebulous and do not exist to Reality. Creation is made up of the dreams, desires, and the choice of Intelligence. Intelligence chooses. The function of Intelligence is Choosing. What is created begins and ends and consequently does not exist at all to and in Reality. Creation is image. To those in creation, to humanity, there is great confusion over God. Creation has created the God of Creation so consequently is unable to see that which is Reality and sees and replaces Reality with its God, god and gods...all representative of humanity itself. The God of Creation is the image of Reality. The transference had to be made to allow for Intelligence to become God for there lies deep within humanity the desire to become God. Intelligence can never become other than what it is for creation is image. As Creation is image, creation's God is image. Creation and its God are the image of Reality.

Intelligence Choose to become what it is not. The result is image...what Intelligence sees itself as. Intelligence creates Perfection and then tries to live in that perfection. So to, Intelligence creates God as Intelligence sees God as perfection. The result is the image of Reality, known as God. Would not an image be the distorted reproduction of its own efforts , thereby creating itself and providing for its own reality? Image is projected desire that forms matter from its own energy when coming in contact with is own created surface. Image is energy that grows from desire. Desire created the energy from which choice brings about created reality. Can an image that has resulted from projection of an interpretation of Reality onto a created surface be without distortion? Can Reality be projected in the first place? Can Reality be projected or is the 'imaged' reality that which is projected? If Reality could be projected on to Intelligence as in humanity, that humanity that desires and chooses, would the planned transference take place? Would this desire, would this choice, would this resulting projection, bring about the transference that would change one into another? What would happen, then, to the one who is the object of the desire and the choice. Could this 'primary', this desired Essence, still exist? Of course, it could not exist in the newly created scene of Time, Place and Substance with its image functioning as God of Creation. The deal of the transference is that only one remain. Only One can exist. The desired primary Essence must be dealt with...must be destroyed. A entirely new scene would result, for God is One. Only one God can remain. Creation can not deal with Reality so has removed Reality by erecting its walls of earth and galaxy, blocking any possible view of Reality. How could reality be seen if so desired? .......through religion?........through science?

Post #174 "Searching for Answers"

Is it possible to find answers to life's ultimate questions inside the confining walls of religion and science? Do religion and science hold, each within its own walls, the very essence of life...the very essence of existence? Can religion claim ultimate and exclusive truth? Can science claim ultimate and exclusive Truth? Since neither system claims reliance on the other or even a sincere cooperative effort or collaboration between each other, one could assume that each system has determined and claimed its own 'ultimateness' and exclusiveness, again proving the controversy is not reconcilable.

Can Reason be a determinate to the faculty of faith? Can Faith occur on a one party basis or does it take a giver and a receiver? Is Faith the acceptance, the unquestioned acceptance, of an other's experience or at least, opinion? Can Faith result in one's own personal and uninfluenced experience? Is Faith ever able to be tested by the search for evidence as in archaeological excavation? And then, does Faith become Reason if tested? Is Faith the result of imposed power over unsuspecting victims? Is Faith the victim of Reason? Is Faith dictated by the power of Reason, as in "you must believe and believe in, what I tell you or you are guilty of sin"? Does Reason seek a victim and threaten the victim to uphold dictates saying it must believe and abide under penalty of sin that which Reason has determined to suit its own use and need? Is Faith the result of threats for the sake of accumulating power over a victim? Does Reason, control in the long run-Faith? Is Faith blind? Does Faith accept and believe in that which Reason imposes or does Faith react to that which Reason imposes? Is Faith imposed under penalty of sin if not accepted and abided by? Is Faith the captive of Reason under duress? Is Intelligence free to accept the true data that is present to it? Can and does faith react or does faith rely solely on its own facts established through first party revelation? What of second and third party revelation?What about revelation that is based on the written word that has been written and rewritten, altered and transposed? Does Reason control that which is beneficial or that which is destructive or both?Does the power of reason build walls? Is Intelligence limited, imprisoned, or freed by Faith? Is Intelligence limited, imprisoned, or freed by Reason?

Does religious Faith control that which is beneficial or that which is destructive? Does the power of Faith build walls? Does Reason precede Faith? Does Reason provide the power tool that convinces, persuades, and effects Faith? is Faith the result of displays of power that effect and impress, persuade, and in many cases, threaten? Is Faith freely offered and freely accepted? Is Faith questionable or is faith infallible? Is not 'questioning' that which determines just what is Faith from what is Reason? What of trust? Does Reason allow for trust? Is it possible to have a Faith that is based on trust and not control? Where do we go for the answers to life's ultimate questions?

Post #173 "Behind Walls"

Just what is the purpose and function of walls? What is the basic intention behind building walls? Do walls keep in or do walls keep out? What about the walls of religion and science? What are the walls that determine the parameters of religion and science? What are the walls that determine religion and science's ethics and moral codes? What are those walls that confine by 'keeping in' and confine by'"keeping out' of religion and science? Are there other walls, besides the walls of religion and science that slice off what lies beyond their own parameters....those 'other' walls that keep in and keep out? Is it possible that in all situations of life on earth, humans build walls? Do these walls that define marked off areas fit into one of these two categories of religion and science or is it possible there may be a third or even a fourth category?

Is wall building an inherent , trickle-down characteristic, then, of humanity,  as division is an inherent faculty of creation, division in both cases bringing about Time, place, and Matter? Can we assume that Time, Place, and Matter are the basic foundation walls of creation built by humanity, and as well through the collective consciousness? What about those walls , constructed through the limitations of Time, located through the limitations of Place, and hidden and smothered through the limitations of Matter...those walls behind which each concept of division seeks its own existence? Is it possible that the walls of creation are the walls of the human intellect, those walls of unquestioning Faith and the walls of empowering Reason?

Does religion need and promote these walls? Does religion need the parameters of Time, Place, and Matter? Does science need and promote these walls? Does science need the parameters of Time, place, and Matter? Are these walls beneficial or destructive to creation, particularly to humanity and to the planet that keeps and sustains life as we know it? Is humanity, and what the human intellect has created, beneficial or destructive to its own purpose and determination?

Post #172 "Knowledge beyond Faith and Reason"

This writing, then, is a search for truth. It is a search for Reality. It is a search for Knowledge. It is a search to know non-reality or created reality from Reality. It is a search to understand the reality of non-reality....the theory of 'nothingness'. This writing is an unfolding of a new perspective of the search for Reality that has thus far evaded physics and science which are unable to answer the question of  'what is real?' This writing also suggests that the search for Reality has also evaded religion. Religion, however, is not able, as is science to admit that it is also unable to answer the question of what is Real. Religion is not able, as is science, to admit or even comprehend that it does not have the answer to what is Real. But religion has used Reason to devise answers to the question, and then run their own answers through The Law and called it Faith. Since religion and science seem to be the components of the struggle of creation with Reality, this analysis has considered each proposition. This analysis, then, aims to bring about the realization of the limitations and fragility of the arguments of each side. The intention, then, to become more inclusive, is to move through these arguments, not to move around them or to ignore them as the search for truth mandates a willingness and effort to be aware of the arguments of each side of the controversy. If the arguments of either side were convincing there would be no sides and no controversy. The very fact that a controversy exists proves that the search for Truth is far from over. The continuation and even the acceleration of the controversy proves that neither religion nor science has provided satisfactory or acceptable answers. This writing, then, is a search for the Knowledge of truth beyond Faith and beyond Reason. It is a search for True Knowledge, the Knowledge that lies beyond creation. Only through True Knowledge can Reality be determined from non-reality.

What is the possibility of finding Knowledge beyond the Faith knowledge of religion and the Rational knowledge of science? What of a knowledge that would be accessible only through Choice?What of a Knowledge that would lie outside of self and need to be accessed through the outside rather than through the inside of self? Is it possible to access a knowledge of truth, stark Truth, unblemished truth, that lies outside the realms of religion and science....beyond the walls of creation?This truth by its very nature could not lie within these confining boundaries, nor within the confining boundaries of self. Is there a means of discovering Knowledge beyond the Faith Knowledge of religion and science's Knowledge through Reason? This Knowledge must be reborn if it ever existed. Can it be rediscovered again from beyond the walls that have been built and hidden behind throughout history, for Truth lies at bedrock? Each level, each layer, each generation, has further destroyed and buried all the Truth that went before until no sense or idea remains of what is really Truth.

The search for truth is personal and must spring from strong desire. The search is not easy. Truth must be desired, and then sought after, and pursued relentlessly. The search for Truth demands commitment. The search for Truth is not easily accessible for it lies well beyond and outside the confines of either religion or science. Moving beyond and outside science is admitting to and allowing the recognition of the possibility that there may be other levels of consciousness and awareness beneath the surface level of present everyday life and existence. Do other forms of Knowledge exist in other dimensions?

Moving beyond religion and science is allowing the recognition of the possibility that there may be deeper, much deeper levels of Knowledge beyond the Knowledge of Faith and beyond the Knowledge of Reason. This Knowledge would be, in a sense, beyond human power structures. This Knowledge would be best described as Awareness. It is an Awareness rather than anything gained through intentional an determined human thought processes, systems, actions, processes, or formulas. Religion and science are basically human actions, determinations, or human endeavors, based on process, formula, or planned actions by power seekers, and power structures. Indeed, religion and science are confined and confining, each comfortable in its own Knowledge and, consequently, each immersed in its own belief system, each within its own walls of its own creation.

Post #171 "Beneath Surface Truth"

This writing is about a third proposition, an alternative to the established belief and power systems of Tradition and to the developing systems of science and technology built on Reason. This path of a third proposition, will lead deeper and deeper beneath the surface levels of daily life, for Truth is not found there, but at bedrock, where all the debris of millenniums has not yet accumulated or in the case of 'future determining past', where all debris has been removed, and can thereby, no longer be available to be hidden behind. Truth is hidden. Daily life and present values exist in what appears or seems to be truth, but this truth is only on the surface of existence. This truth is surface truth. Surface truth is not Truth in Reality. Surface truth is true on its own level of existence, but this truth fades out, becomes nebulous, is not reliable once the level beneath is discovered, for the lower the level, the closer one arrives at Reality Truth. Surface truth becomes less true when the level below it is exposed until it is obvious there is no truth at all to be found at surface level. Surface truth is only true to and within itself, but not to Reality. So there is the truth of non-reality to non-reality, as in the image of reality being creation and the Truth of Reality found outside or beyond creation, as in pre-creation. The surface truth at the layer of our world today rules and determines the life-styles chosen by 21st century Intellect. Daily life and present values exist in what appears or seems to be truth, but this truth is only on the surface of existence. This is surface truth. Surface truth denies and suppresses these first-cause Truths and does not attempt to answer the fundamental questions that lie buried in human hearts

This concept, this third proposition, is not in any way another attempt of the continuation of the many attempts to reconcile this controversy between religion and science that has been raging since the 16th century. Actually, the roots of the controversy extend many centuries before the Age of Enlightenment into ancient nomadic life styles, or what could be referred to as a situation of uncivilized life versus civilization. From these roots the movement extends back and beyond, moving from future to past to the very heart of the controversy,and indeed, to the very roots of who humanity has become. Its all about non-reality versus Reality.

Although many attempts have been made, the controversy between religion and science is not reconcilable, indeed, the uncompromising struggle includes the struggle for moral authority. There is basic disagreement even in defining good and evil The search for understanding and knowledge of these basic issues, as noted above, must go deeper...much deeper, into the past, into the present, and down into the future for the future can be found at bedrock, where it all began. This presentation will often refer to going back to the future as it will be reasoned that the future has created the past...the outcome has determined  the beginning. The method of presentation is an unfolding. Points will be presented and have been presented and, then, allowed to unfold in succeeding posts until all eventually comes together. Perspectives, opinions, and conclusions  can then be drawn of the total writing, if so desired and chosen. This is a search. This is a search for Reality. So far this search has determined the existence of non-reality and so, the search for Reality must include the existence of non-reality for one does not exist without the other. We must understand 'nothingness'. So this search mandates the willingness to dig down to bedrock, beneath the fear of confronting what may be exposed. All preconceived notions, and ideas must be set aside to be able to grasp this concept. Many mountains of untruths must be revealed and removed as truth does not lie at the surface of our daily lives in the present day world where most living takes place.

Post #170 "Seeking Purpose"

Of course, the question of what is the purpose of human life has been asked thoughout history. Has there ever been a satisfactory answer? Has not religion been looked to to provide the answer? It is true that many do look to religion for the answer, however, it seems that as time moves on, fewer and fewer people accept that religion has the answer. Would not the most popular answer be that most people seek happiness? But what do most people do to attain happiness; is it not to accomplish this goal through the pursuit of perfection? Is not perfection that which is most coveted, and worshipped? Is not perfection that which determines our heroes and brings forth from our very depths-worship? And, are not our gods determined by that which we worship?

Let's probe deeper. What is the root of our longings? What does the desire to become God come down to? Is not Fear at the basis of our identity? Going back to the mythological stories of Archangel Lucifer and Adam and Eve....what was their immediate reaction to what resulted from their choice to become God? It did'nt work out. The result was far from what they dreamed of, desired, and Chose. But we can see, can't we?.. that what was desired-to become God, was utterly an impossible hope. Somehow in the process, Intelligence realized or should have realized that something went wrong. The wished for transference did not take place, better yet, what happened was not at all what was planned. Strangly, the desire has not been eradicated but seems to have been genetically implanted and entrenched in consciousness. The Choice was and is the choice of all consciousness. That makes sense, of course, as consciousness is, as consciousness in Collective Consciousness. Some religions recognize this condition as the Original Sin. Surely this primal fear stirred the primal waters of pre-creation into a churning chaos. Creation accured as the result of fear of not becoming God, or not becoming Reality. How could there not be chaos? Was not the idea of god, gods or God born of this fear. Intelligence faced the threat of non-existence or non-reality. 

Post #169 "The Power of Knowledge"

Science, as religion, has also attempted to answer these fundamental questions of existence but readily admits there is still much that is unknown. Science has, however, answered enough questions to foster belief in its ability to eventually answer all questions. Consequently, science challenges religion's answers with its own answers to the basic questions of life. Science's answers are based, of course, on its own observations, interpretations, mathematical formulas, and outright, on its own speculation. Each concept, religion through Faith, and science through Reason, attempts to achieve ultimate power through determining the answers to creation's ultimate questions. Knowledge is possession. Knowledge is ownership. As previously noted, science, through rational knowledge, seeks to gain possession of creation, which basically, comes down to knowledge and the determination of life and its consequence---death. Science, confident in its knowledge and ability, is finally able to challenge religion's grasp of the source of ultimate power, but just what 'ultimate power' does science claim for its authority and credibility? If faith in the God of Creation is religion's source of ultimate power, what or who is science's source of ultimate power?

Science has created a world that is a scientific or mechanical world. The world has been transformed by science. Science is apparent in every aspect of life on earth. Every generation has become more and more dependant on science. Science has so changed the world that if its effect were removed, the world could not return to the more primitive ways of survival of preceding generations. Modern man simply could not cope or survive in the world of a few generations ago. Science has created but science has also destroyed

Science has indeed created the civilized world. Through humanity's power to reason, civilization rose from the wilderness. Civilization is a process that accelerates with humanity's power to Reason, but by what process? Here is creation's formula: dissatisfaction to desire, desire to dream, dream to image, image to creation, creation to dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction to death.

Is science's source of ultimate power really reason, the rational, the thinking power of fickle humanity? Religion's God of Creation is, obviously, all about creating, but science seems to also focus on creating. Science's method is, firstly, trying to understand what things are made of. Then from there, proceeds to determine where to fit into the grand scheme of things. In other words, science through trying to discover the secrets of creation, seeks and determines to control creation. Yes, science's ultimate power is Reason. Science depends on Reason to gain control over creation which includes power over life and death. So the big question finally comes down to ...does religion or does science have the most power and control over life and death, over what exists and what does not exist. Which system is in control and has power over creation? Which system possess creation and beyond creation to that which has not yet been created?

Post #168 "Who is in Control?"

Structured belief and law-enforcing systems were used and are being used to give power and thereby control to coalitions and institutions such as religion and the sciences. Are these systems, as in these religious institutions that claim divine appointment to direct and control our beliefs, values, and life choices, what they represent themselves to be? Does the right to claim divine power include the right to control civil governance? It seems that spiritual power could be seen as ultimate power which would give these institutions total power as history has supported. This is what the concern seems to be on the issue of separating church and state. However, government and politics are what these systems are really about. Often these power structures, especially in certain religions, operate very covertly, making it impossible to fully grasp the full impact of all under its control.

In all of this, religion claimed and continues to claim the Ultimate Power, that power being the Ultimate power of the God of creation. Religion claimed and claims its authority and its righteousness as God-given.Religion claims the right and the power to contain its God for its purposes. God-containment or God-possession is evident in the building of structures dedicated to worship.God-containment is focused in ritual, in the written word, in tabernacles, in sacraments and objects of worship such as in monstrances, in sacramentals, chalices, and in bread and wine. In other words, religion seeks to control its God as well as controlling all those others that are referred to as the masses, the unprivileged, the commonality, the un-chosen, all those outside the ordained Brotherhood.

What about science? What control does science have over life and death? Science has, as has religion, dared to provide answers to basic questions of existence, thereby trespassing on religion's sacred territory. In another sense, it could be viewed that religion is the precursor of science. It seems feasible then, that religion and science have the same purpose and focus but different approaches. It seems feasible then, that science and technology are also politically power-based and also aim at regulation and control. Is it possible that science also views this outside of itself as a means to personal wealth and status? If so, its no wonder that controversy arose at the noted inception of science and continues to exist

post #167 "Power Systems"

Are we short changing ourselves? Are we allowing ourselves to be limited or boxed in? Are the fundamental questions of 'Who are we?', 'Where did we come from ?', 'Where are we going?', and 'What is our purpose?' able to be honestly and acceptably answered by religion or by science? Are these fundamental questions, as seen by science as questions based on the faith/authority system of religion, questions that challenge its powers of Reason and Intellect? Does science, consequently, need to disguise its true purpose by blurring the lines between extending life and the consequence or the payoff, while in reality, actually destroying life? Will science destroy us before it can save us? Is science disguising its true quest to save itself from failing, from failing to achieve the state of Perfection, for failing to become the God of creation?

Science exerts its rebellion against religion by imitating religion's attempts to create and control created life, by its efforts to extend mortal life indefinitely, to creating life, and ultimately to creating new life forms, thereby competing with religion's quest for power over life, not only life here, but consequently, also, and particularly, eternal life. If science accomplishes its ultimate goal of perpetual physical life then what becomes of heaven and eternity? At this point, science also defeats itself, for if life would be a constant it would no longer be necessary to create it, and science as well as religion would be out of business. Interestingly, its success at achieving its goal would also spell its death.

A close and unbiased examination of history will not fail to raise the questions to that which religion has declared as God-inspired truth. These 'truths' of religion could indeed be seen as manipulated and contrived interpretations of occurrences, persons, and events throughout history. These interpretations brought forth measures that gave rise to The Law as in commandments, rules, tenets, rites, creeds and so forth, that were needed to establish and enforce authority. The Law, in turn, also served and influenced the interpretations. The Law separated grace from sin and sin from grace. The Law not only separated, but more importantly, defined. The Law defines, and consequently, labels. Sin is presented as the opposite of grace, which is God's blessing, thus defining and separating out those whom God has chosen from those whom God condemns and casts out. One could rightly wonder whether bad or sin existed before the Law came into being. It seems doubtful

Post #166 "Knowledge"

What are the possibilities that through the enthronement of Reason as the God of Creation, technology is moving the world and possibly beyond the world to total destruction, to a universe more and more under the control of Reason and less in touch with that 'something other,' that 'something beyond', that something outside the systems of Tradition/Faith and Reason/Intellect? And are there possibly other forms of knowledge, other ways of knowing or other levels of awareness besides tradition, the senses, and reason?

What of the senses? Returning to Rene Descartes in his writing Meditations on the First Philosophy, he says that , "The senses can't be trusted either. The senses deceive. I might be dreaming or drugged, or deceived by a malicious deity. If we are being serious about this project, then the sights and smells and tastes, no matter how self-evident must be doubted. Strictly speaking, I can't even be sure of the reality of my own body." Russel Shorto in his writing Decartes' Bones," P19, says that what is at issue here is the nature of the relationship between Faith and Reason and also the relationship between the spiritual and the physical worlds. In each, according to tradition and law, the former has precedent over the latter. In our present world, the situation seems reversed. The latter has precedent over the former. Then again, the battle line between Faith and Reason have never been clear-cut.

Decartes himself was not the cool rationalist that history has portrayed him as. He held sincerely to his faith, and while he was undeniably a modern philosopher, he also had one foot in the Middle Ages. In the manner of medieval philosophers, he incorporated 'proofs' of the existence of God into his philosophy. It was necessary for him, to prove both the existence and the innate'goodness' of God, for, given the corrosiveness of Cartesian doubt, these were the only assurances we have that the natural world really exists. It seems then, that his work was grounded in theology. This then seems to assume that Creation and science, plus Decartes' own philosophy, depend on God

post #165 "A Fragile World"

So what intrinsic values came of the two worlds under discussion: the world of Faith/Tradition and the world of the Intellect, the world of Reason? What intrinsic values came from the controversy that has raged for hundreds of years from generation to generation? One should ask to what degree, if any, the new scientific modernity succeeded in replacing traditional values with its own. What of seemingly noble values we see as having taken root in our present world? Can these traditional values be attributed to, or enhanced by, an evolving modernity? What of these values of tolerance, of peaceful co-existence, of democratic values, self-government, and individual rights, including the right to individual conscience and the right to question?

On the surface these values may be argued to exist and flourish in today's societies, but on a much deeper level of truth this seems not to be the case. It would be fair to ask if these values have ever really existed in recorded history, or more importantly, in creation. As previously noted, a serious look at all aspects of the present world situations cannot help but be alarming. On that very serious note, the world seems to be on a path of world destruction, horrifyingly, that path is a path of self-destruction.

Something has gone wrong or never was right in the first place. Is the world of science and technology, for all its condemnation of faith and tradition, on the same path it accuses religion of taking? It must have to do with life and death. It must have to do with Power. It must have to do with who is in power. It must have to do with Power and vulnerability, for power cannot exist without vulnerability and vulnerability cannot exist without Power. What of the basic questions, those elemental questions of humanity? Are these basic questions of humanity questions affected by Power and vulnerability? Have these questions been openly and honestly addressed by science? Has science addressed these basic questions that rightfully should result from the centuries of the quest for power over life and death?

Post #164 "The Search for Reality IV"

Anything less for science than conquering death is a loss of attaining the goal of Perfection. And a loss of Perfection creates death. The perpetual theme running through creation seems to be that 'we must try again and again' until we reach our goal of Perfection. We feel that the attainment of Perfection is our destiny and so we heavily invest in science and technology. If we think we have problems now, just try to deal with this one---what would the world be like when there is no death; when nothing dies? Would it be heaven, or would it be hell? Where lies that state of Perfection? What qualities can we give to defining and creating our God to come up to our expectations? What God are we creating? And is that God we have crated just like us?

So it seems that science, as well as,religion, can be held responsible  for the terrifying and uncertain state of the world we live in...the world we have created. Science can be held responsible through its technologies, for creating a world that is threatening destruction to its own existence. Is this the path to Perfection or is this the path to death? Where doe the quest for Perfection take us, to life or to death? Confronted by this observation, what then, is the underlying reason for science's challenge to religion? What is at the root of the issue?

What could those original challengers of the sixteenth century Age of Enlightenment have against the system of religion? Did the traditions of religion tread on the public or the personal values of an emerging New Age? Did those proponents of the New Age have problems with accepting wars that were based on values that were not one's own newly emerging values? Were there problems with accepting the divisions and prejudices of a system whose divisions and prejudices were not one's own? Were there problems with freedom, especially where one felt controlled, even though one would not hesitate to employ one's own wars or form one's own divisions and prejudices or control and regulate someone else if it served one's own purpose? Were there problems with a new system that tossed the controllers and the controlled into an upside-down and backward and forward controversy? Or was there a problem with who controlled life and death? Was there a problem with who claimed to be the God of creation? What of Perfection? Did each age have its own definition of Perfection-thereby each age having its own definition of God?

Post #163 "The Search for Reality III"

What of Perfection? Does the word 'Perfection' allow for that which does not last, that which runs its cycle and then dies? Of course, anything in creation, which is everything we know, soon becomes old and outdated. Out-datedness is when the state of perfection fails, when the state of Perfection becomes elusive, when the action of power no longer saves from death. Out-datedness is when the state of Perfection fails and must be reinvented and then, repeated as often as necessary. What fails to achieve Perfection becomes old and outdated, thus it must be destroyed to make room for the 'new' and up-dated, the reinvented. The process must destroy to make room for the 'new', the 'up-dated', the reinvented. The process of removing failed Perfection results in death---death to that which has failed---to the old and out-dated. Failed Perfection must be removed, must be banished as if it never existed, this process of removal is death. Failed Perfection thereby creates death. Death calls forth the need to recreate and then repeat itself, over and over again. The cycle begins again, death to life, death to life. With birth, the old and out-dated is replaced by the new. Science's plan is to replace the old with new and improved models and techniques until death is eventually defeated.Thus results the false idea of humanity approaching super status and near states of Perfection all the way to total Perfection The process of birth to death to birth and,again, to death, repeats itself over and over again through all the phases of Time.

Indeed, it is this process of life to death that called forth and created one of the elements of creation, Time. Thus the patterns of Time are established as nature repeats itself over and over again trying once more to get it right, trying once more to achieve Perfection, trying once more to become God. These are the patterns that create life's cycles. These cycles become the history of creation. Is this the Perfection that religion and science strive for? Religion has this trait of believing it has achieved Perfection covered by its Faith in the Perfection of its God and hence Perfection of itself in its God's Name. Science will have a problem with Perfection as science is dealing with the human Intellect in a human body and mind unless science is able to raise itself to deification. Of course, this is why science must set as its first and true goal-- the discovery or the creation of eternal life. Extending life alone, however, would not qualify science for deification. Deification would demand that science ultimately would conquer death.

Post #162 "The Search for Reality II"

In the search for Reality in science and religion, one could wonder, does science ever use Faith as a  means of attaining Knowledge and does religion ever use Reason as a means of attaining Knowledge? Does science ever depend on the word of its experts or is every fact tested individually by each scientist? On the other hand, what of religion? Religion could be seen as depending on the expertise of  its founding leaders as eyewitness to persons and events on which it bases its beliefs and tenets as in the christian religion's belief in its leader, Jesus, the Christ through the testimony of its apostles and disciples. Does science credit eyewitness as an acceptable means to attaining Knowledge? Most religions rely on an eyewitness accounting that is, then, handed down throughout history.

Would science allow eyewitness accounts to be acceptable as akin to establishing a bed-rock of fact? Rene Decarte's final book was written on the passions of the soul. It is interesting and seemingly contradictory to his total movement of Faith to Reason, that Decartes, at the culminating moment of his career, would refer to 'passions of the soul.' Russell Shorto, in his book Decarte's Bones, p.252 says that Decartes had "long realized that there was difficulty with his division of Reality into mind and body---the difficulty being to figure out how the two substances interacted." Decartes concluded that there must be a connection between the two. Is science Really replacing religion's Faith or is science replacing Faith with Reason to fulfill the human need to worship, in this case to worship at the altar of exclusive, self-perpetuating academic cults or individual fame and glory including the worship of possessions, or to put it more succinctly.... Self Worship? It would seem then that the creation of life would be the creation of the state of Perfection, the state of Knowledge/possession of Infinity--the unattainable and exclusive quality, usually associated with one's God and the perfect habitation of that God known by many names such as Heaven, Eden, Utopia, Shangrila, or Camelot.

Just what is the quality of that which calls forth worship? Would that quality not have to call forth acknowledgement of the finest, of the best, the most, in other words----Perfection? Worship, then, is the act of acknowledgement of who is our God. As Power has been determined as the action and effect of the Ultimate God/the Ultimate Power, power would be the means of identifying that which is Perfect. All that which is ultimate feeds into the Ultimate, it feeds into power. The 'All-knowing', the 'All-loving', the 'All-mighty', the 'All of anything and everything' is the state of Perfection by which God is identified. The 'most', the 'finest', the 'best', of everything creates the state of Perfection. Perfection is Power! Perfection is the identity and Power is the action of the Ultimate God of Creation.

Post #161 "The Search for Reality I"

The natural world can only exist as far as creation, but if the human intellect is boundless, then science also has created infinity. Is science discovering through its advancing technology that the universe is seemingly limitless or is science creating, through its powers of intellect, a limitless universe? Is science creating, through its power of imaging, a limitless universe? Did religion create the heavens to create a limitless universe? Is science really claiming that human Reason is limitless? The search for Reality continues to unfold.

As religion is about Faith and science is about Reason, the question arises; is Faith a faculty of the mind? If so, then, is the mind a faculty of the soul or of the body? Science does not seem to have a need for a soul. As Reason is most certainly a factor of the mind, would science view the mind as a factor of the body? If the mind is  a factor of the mortal and destructible human body, then does this not limit and inhibit the possibilities of the mind to become enshrined and deified as Human Intellect, the Font of Reason and the Ultimate Creator of the Universe? It seems that the distinction between religion and science is ecoming a bit blurred. The lines of division are becoming less clear-cut and distinct. Science has no alternative but to discover the means to create life and overcome death.

If science has researched and determined a new scientific fnding or fact, then would it not be expected that all those involved in the research would have to accept that new finding as fact based on the power of Reason? Would the acceptance, then, on the part of those not involved in the research, have to be on some degree of faith...faith in the reputation of the researchers or the 'experts', or would the new finding be subjected to universal questioning until a bedrock of fact was established by all? The situation would involve some of both modes of acceptance. Would not those farthest away from the field of the particular finding be more inclined to believe on Faith, and trust those they hold up as expert?

Post #160 "Ultimate Worship"

Is not total dependence on, desire for, and wonder at, forms of worship? Does not that which we worship determine that which we hold to be our God? No wonder religion is so threatened by science. Any discovery by science toward its goal of immortality makes the creation of life seem more possible. A step will be the creation of life, as we know it, in a test tube. That has probably already be accomplished. Every discovery of science threatens religion's Faith-based traditions. How religion had to scramble and feared disclosure, when science declared Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, a tribal God. When the creation of life and new life forms exist through the efforts of science, how could science not be expected to, rightfully, claim for itself the Ultimate Power as the God of Creation, as religion now claims Ultimate Power for itself; through its Knowing God, through its naming God, through its claiming God, through its efforts to enclose or its efforts to contain God, through seeing itself as representative of  God, and, in other words,  as actually being God on Earth. In summation, science's goals can be interpreted as directed to replacing religion's God of Creation with its very own God of creation---the God of Reason. Herein lays the root of the controversy.

Religion and science are indeed claiming the same turf and competing for the same goal. Religion clams the Ultimate Power as being outside of and beyond the world, as in its ideas of heaven, and the heavenlies. Science claims Ultimate Power in that which can be seen, touched and smelled, as within creation. But in creation as beyond the world.....science has now seen, touched and smelled space. Religion's ideas on space are dated to pre-science. Science has indeed, broadened considerably our beliefs on the heavenlies, which simply means beyond the earth. To science these 'heavenly' words are obsolete. Religion becomes confusing when its reality is thought to be outside the world and as, today, the 'world' becomes creation and includes universe and cosmos, religion with its narrower view of creation becomes very dated and not acceptable to thinkers of a larger scope and larger vision. Besides limited and unlimited views of space, religion and science indeed claim the same turf and compete for the same Ultimate Goal. Another difference between the systems is that one system works through unquestionable obedience called Faith and the other through an empowered sense of self called Reason. Science, as religion, wants to become Creator, but interestingly, can only achieve this by eliminating religion's god which it is in the process of doing. God can only be God through acknowledgement. A god can only become God through worship. The One God can only be The One God through universal acknowledgement, hence the need to have one's God acknowledged by all as supreme Power,.. like in sports, the winner of the pennant or the seasonal trophy...the undefeated God! Science creates its own God and accepts Reason as God over all other ways of knowing. As science proves total dependence on itself, as is more obvious every day, all other Gods will fade away until the God of Reason reigns supreme and there will be no need or desire for the God of Faith, the God of Religion. Science has created and accepted its own God and by making humanity and nature dependent on its God reaches the Ultimate Goal as God is One, there can be no other. Basically, science becomes God, until and if science fails by bring us to the edge of destruction as it seems to be doing. What will happen then? Will humanity, once again, call on the God of Faith?

Post #159 "Ultimate Power V"

What would happen, if or when, science answers all the questions it seeks as to the natural world, or more inclusively, to the cosmos? Does this goal of answering all the ultimate questions, that includes the knowledge and ability to create life as we know it, and beyond that, to the knowledge and ability to create other unknown life forms, finally settle the controversy? If this goal were achieved, would this not then be the end of science as E. Gates suggests in comments on the assumptions of science at the end of the twentieth century? It seems that toward the end of the twentieth century some pundits were claiming that the answer to the question, 'what is the universe made of?' has been found with the basic understanding of the basic nature of matter. They were of course, wrong. However, the indication that discovering the substance of the universe would unlock the secrets to creating all forms of life, including human life, would certainly justify feeling that all the questions are resolved, consequently, that the end of science was in sight. (from Einstein's telescope p6)

Much of the shift away from religion has already been accomplished. Where now the Ultimate power is divided between two Gods of Creation, science's triumph of discovering the secret of life would allow science to claim, through possession of its God, its God's Power, the creative Power of life of its God of Creation. If science achieves its goals, science and religion would meld and become one, the new Religion of Science. After all, we know that only One God can exist for God is One.

Are we not seeing signs of this in today's technological, mechanical age? Daily new technologies are being imposed into our lives. Is not science and technology becoming indispensable in every circumstance of today's world and mentality? Is science not being considered essential and consequently, in many aspects being acknowledged through universal dependence and wonder, and desire as the means of achieving Perfection, as the means to becoming The Creator? Is not science and technology being looked to for all the answers to life's difficulties? Is not science and technology being hailed and upheld as the promise of a new and better world?

Pst #158 "Ultimate Power IV"

Science, through Reason, would also claim, as religion claims, that its God is the God of Creation. Science's quest is to proclaim itself the Master of Creation through the mastery of and over
creation. The Master of Creation is the God of Creation. Again, no wonder there is a non-solvable controversy between religion and science and between religion and religion and also between science and science, when both religion and science raise up a God who claims to be THE GOD, the God and the Master of Creation. Religion, through possession of its God's Power through the faculty of Faith and science through the Power of its God through the faculty known as Reason, known as intellect, known as humanity. Each system determines that its God is Absolute, in other words, each claims its God is One....meaning that each will not accept any intrusion into their system of belief, their system of worship. For religion, no other God can exist beside its God! Of course, neither religion or science can allow another God to exist besides its own.

The controversy, then, is an opposition to the same identity and a claim to the same identity. This is not an opposing rivalry  of opposites but a sibling type of rivalry for who will win the inheritance, for who will inherit the kingdom. Whose God will reign? There can only be one winner and that winner will have Ultimate Power or, better yet, Ultimate Power will determine the winner. Again quoting E. Gates, "The quest to understand what things are made of -which also helps us determine where we fit into the grand scheme of things, reads rather familiar and insinuates that science, as religion, strives for power over life and death. Science strives for power over life and death by seeking to, firstly, extend life indefinitely, secondly, to create life within its test tubes, through using mathematical formulas, and electronic gadgetry, and thirdly and most importantly, to conquer mortal death, thereby creating its own infinity....that is, infinity within creation. Science thereby transfers creation from image into reality----becoming God!

Science strives through experimentation, research, and personal advancement, for power over life and death. Technology has certainly concentrated its efforts on the enhancement and preservation of youth. Science wants to know what the earth is made of so that it can find the means to create life. Not only plant and animal life but ultimately human life. And not only human life but beyond human life to new and futuristic unknown forms of life..... the creation of a new creation. Science studies and experiments with basic elements, with plant and animal life, with powerful drugs and instruments, with machines, with electronic devices and manipulations, with uncharted areas of outer space, with human life and development, and on and on, that it can through Reason and Intellect replace religion's hold and religion's God through the issues of life and death. Science's God of Creation is competing with religion's God of Creation. Competing is the means to accomplishing the goals and is what the controversy is all about. Competing determines whose God is the most Powerful because Power is what is worshipped . The act of creation is the worship of Power. Th question raises its ugly head..... just whose power will win out?

Post #157 "Ultimate Power III"

LOOKING FOR A NEW ANSWER

Just what is the question science seeks to understand and then provide the answer to? Physicist Evalyn Gates says that as we enter the twenty-first century, the most urgent and compelling question facing scientists is, "what is the universe made of?" She continues, "Toward the end of the twentieth century there was some thought that the answer had been achieved, that would have then spelled the end of science. It seems we were very wrong. The question has now been completely rewritten." (from Einstein's Telescope" p. 6) One could wonder whether science asked the right question or whether science is still asking the right question or questions. Where does science's question of 'what is the universe made of?' fit into the basic fundamental questions and, consequently, the quest of humanity?

It doesn't seem that science's question of 'what is the universe made of?' would lead to helping humanity determine where to fit into the grand scheme of things. It seems that science's question bypasses the basic quest for identification and purpose. Is science avoiding or pretending to not be avoiding, these basic questions? Is science pretending to have absolutely no resemblance to that which it vehemently opposes and has opposed for 400 years? Does science not recognize the need for the defining and clarification of identity and purpose?

So then, what is science's real purpose? What is essentially behind science's question of what  the universe is made of and its consequent quest? Is science wanting to know for a reason closer to religion's quest for power over life and death. Does science, as religion, want to be the determinate over who lives and who dies? Does science, as religion, want to be the means of and the means to created Life? If Faith in the God of Creation is the Ultimate Power for religion, then what is the Ultimate Power for science? Reason, of course, is the Ultimate Power for science. Then it would follow that Reason, as the Ultimate Power for science, is for science, its God. Reason is a human faculty, hence science outwardly proclaims what religion obscures and hides, that there lies deep within humanity the desire to become God. And what faculty of God makes God, God? Immortality, of course. Conquering mortal immortality brings about Godship. Immortality is the Ultimate  Power and this is the goal of religion and science.

Post #156 "Ultimate Power II"

Now to science's quest. Science, as religion, is also concerned with Ultimate Power and that is why there is a power struggle. So how does science's quest for creating power compare to religion's authority and ownership over power...over the Ultimate power of its God? If science's quest differed there should be no controversy as there would be no threat. No one's territory would be threatened. There is, however, an enormous controversy which suggests that religion and science are basically defining and claiming the same turf and competing for the same goal....a struggle for Ultimate Power. As religion claims ownership to the Ultimate power of its God, science's challenge is not to ownership of religion's Power....religion's God, but to a redefining of Ultimate Power, a redefining of who or what is God. Science is challenging religion's God....for a new kind of Ultimate Power. The main kick to religion from science is that science is challenging not only religion's claim to Ultimate Power but to the very existence of religion's God. Do the elemental questions of 'Who are We?', 'Where Have We Come From?', and 'What is Our Purpose?', define for science, as for religion, its purpose and quest? As science must continue its opposition and disagreement with Faith and Tradition, it must appear to be presenting itself as the opposition to, or contrary to, religion. Would science even allow itself to address the same basic questions of existence? It would seemingly be unthinkable and unspeakable, as the formation of science was based on doubt and on questioning or on whatever was perceived to be in opposition to religion with its faith based teachings and tradition.

Science questions everything until a bed-rock of fact is reached. Religion does not appreciate being challenged, questioned, or being asked to be a bed-rock of fact. Religion resents being asked to prove itself. This intellectual approach of science is certainly contrary to the faith-based methods of religion. The birth of science, based on Reason, based on the human intellect, was in particular a rebellion to authority, and in particular to the very established authority of religion. Where religion has no questions that cannot be answered through Faith, science, on the other hand, has many unanswered questions about the natural world.

Cosmologist and physicist, Evalyn Gates, in her book Einstein's Telescope, pp1-5, notes that the world of science has been tipped upside down when bigger and better telescopes revealed a world that did not act at all the way it was supposed to act. Gates says that "in a sense, science has fallen through a rabbit hole, and the world in which we find ourselves is far more preposterous that any Carrollian adventure." (p.4) Gates continues, "Before we can look for answers, we first have to understand the the question." But does science think to consider the questions humanity most needs answers to, those basic questions to existence, or does it seek to form its own questions, thereby confusing the issue of what is Real and basic to existence.

Post #155 "Ultimate Power I"

The issues of existence come down to the basic issue--life; the creation of life, the  sustaining of life, and the control of life. The issue of life must also include the antithesis of life--death. Religion 'assumes' credit for and power over life and so also, consequently, over death. Where religion assumes credit, science 'strives' to assume credit for and 'strives; to assume power over life and death, as science, as previously noted, does not yet have all the answers. Its all a power fight, really...religion and science. Its all based on how to 'Know'....the Knowledge of Faith or the Knowledge of Reason. Faith and Reason are not compatible. Who will win the ultimate victory? It is a power struggle between religion and science and also within religion and science Once the winner,  has found the ultimate key, the struggle will continue as to which person will be given credit for the discovery. That key will be the key to Immortality. Religion claims ultimate power, that is, the power of the Ultimate-the God of Creation. By-the-way, religion considers that Ultimate God to be under its control, meaning that if religion controls God, religion controls and hold ultimate power. A serious study of religion shows exactly that....a power struggle, using outside power, the power of its 'outside of creation' God for ultimate authority and ultimate control. Religion owns God, or so it thinks and acts.The identification of religion's God as Creator and Master, on earth and in heaven, gives meaning to religion's claim to the ultimate power of its God, as religion sees itself as God's earthly presence. As the earthly presence of its God, religion assumes and presents itself as the determinate of spiritual life and spiritual death.

To accomplish this purpose, religion has created grace and sin. Religion determines what is good and what is evil. In fact, one's own philosophy on good and evil becomes one's religion. Religion becomes one's source of power. This 'ultimate power' takes its effect through the threat of sin which means final and everlasting damnation. This 'ultimate power', based on grace and sin, is executed through creeds, laws, commandments, rituals, observances, and celebrations. Thus religion controls , besides life on earth, access to heaven and, seemingly, control of heaven itself. In summation, religion assumes power over temporal life and death through its Law, that is, over the eternal life of grace which is heaven and over the eternal death of sin which it calls hell. Religion demands allegiance through a Faith that may not be questioned or challenged. Religion demands obedience through promises of heavenly reward and threats of eternal hellfire. Religion has demanded, throughout history, total obedience and submission under penalty of the severe torture, deprivation, and merciless wars and slaughters. A logical question here would be; does religion provide answers to life's basic questions for the sake of expressing and interpreting that which is true or does religion provide answers and interpretations that bend or ignore Truth thereby serving its own purpose of self-contained, power based institutions?

Post #154 "Forming a World Conscience"

Is the perfect Life the Life of God? As one becomes God, does that one live the Perfect Life? Perfection is seen as the essence of God. Again, how is this attained? What offers a better way of becoming God than that which prolongs and perfects life. Does this means that which conquers mortal death? What better way of arriving at Perfection than conquering mortal death? What quality of God speaks more to Perfection than that of Immortality which includes freedom from all death, mortal death as well as spiritual death? Religion's plan of Immortality, however, does not seem to include freedom from mortal death. Then, what about science? Does science hold the key to Perfection, to Godliness? Does science hold the key to Immortality, to freedom from mortal death? It seems, then, that while religion looks to freedom from spiritual death, science, on the other hand, looks to freedom from mortal death. If there is freedom from mortal death, is freedom from spiritual death necessary? If science holds the key, then how does science, in regard to life and death, differ from religion? Is the difference only in terms of the definitions of spiritual and non-spiritual? Could the determining difference be how each system approaches and defines Knowledge? In this case, could Knowledge through Reason, rather than Knowledge through Faith, be a better plan?

Religion, in one form or another, has directed politically, culturally, and socially, much of the world's societies. Through this political, cultural, and societal control, religion provides answers to the basic life questions. Thus, religion has set and determined the basis for past and present morality. Religion has assumed authority over the basic issues of life, but as religion has assumed and been given, throughout history, total authority through its moral code of good and evil, it could be determined that religion can and should be held responsible for creating a world morality that thrives on war and destruction; a world morality that allows the powerful to feed on the innocent and vulnerable. Religion has established and nourished a power based, class conscious, and gender conscience, in other words, a victim/bully world. Religion has been the basis that has established and nourished world attitude, world structure, world systems, and world conscience.

Post #153 "Who Holds the Key?"

There lies deep within humanity the desire to become God. This desire touches all aspects and phases of created life.The desire to become God is behind all choices and determinations and is the very basis of human thought, dreams, and aspirations. It establishes life cycles, patterns, customs, alliances; the very structures of created life. The desire is the force of, and the actuality for, the perpetual search for Perfection. Humanity seeks to become God. Humanity seeks Perfection.

The restlessness and dissatisfaction that so characterizes the struggles of the ages of history is resultant as the goal often seems to be allusive and unattainable. This accelerating restlessness and dissatisfaction drives all aspects of human endeavor. A spirit of freneticism seems to permeate the air more and more with each passing age as if sensing that time is running out. How successful have we become in attaining our goal of Perfection? How successful have we become at attaining our desire of becoming God? Life today is not satisfied with living today but always looking ahead to some vague tomorrow. We always seem to be progressing or moving ahead rather than being present to what is now. Its like being at a beginning, but the kick is that the beginning has an ending. All creation is moving to its goal of becoming, of moving toward the achievement of Perfection, of fulfilling the desire to become God, to become the God of Creation.

We need to know, 'Can anyone achieve Perfection? Can anyone become God? Is Godship limited to any one group ; as in race or culture, or denomination, or sex, or whatever? If God is One,there must be selection. So who is selected? Looks like the desire of becoming the Perfection, of becoming God, is causing a big mess! Surely this would cause great agitation, anxiety, and freneticism, as in violence and hatred and wars. The list would be endless. But who holds the answers? Who hold the strategy? Who holds the secrets? Where is the plan? Are there directions? A blueprint? A college degree perhaps, for Godship?

How do we satisfy our longing and desire? How do we begin the process? So, who holds the key? Who holds the key to Perfection/Godliness....hence to Immortality? Religion has always held the key. Religion's key, however, passes through mortal death. Humanity, today, thinks it can do better than that. We believe that we are close to bringing about the fulfillment of hopes and the promises of religion. Science seems determined to accepting the role of fulfilling the hopes and promises of religion. An interesting thought.....religion fulfilled in science?

Post #152 "The Lesser God"

How is this God of Creation doing? How do we feel about the archetype that we have created to represent us? How close are we to becoming that which we have chosen to become? How close have we become to being God? How do we feel about this God to whom we have created and given the credit for the creation of the heaven and the earth in six days and who we determined deemed the seventh day, a day set aside as belonging to this God's purpose? What of the change in our values through the levels of Time and Place? It seems we have created our God to be what we need God to be, no matter how inconsistent and conflicting that mold, that pattern of God has become. Of course, as Time divides into smaller and small fragments, the pattern also divides into smaller and smaller fragments, the imprint becoming more distorted and blurred with each passing generation, each passing day, each passing level of history. How does this process of division affect or influence our association or our non-association with the God of Creation? How much does this association or lack of association with Reality result from the impact of religion and science? A recent report by the American Religious Identification Survey claimed that the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent. It seems that the America, which could at one time be described as a Judeo-Christian religious culture is more aptly described now as a post-Christian culture.

This shift threatens the very purpose and cause of our American foundations. Europe has, for some time now, been identified as a secular culture. One could almost deduce that we are losing interest in that which was once considered the very essence of American foundations, and according to the christian bible, of creation itself. Is interest being lost or has the interest been reinterpreted or transferred to a new focus?

The more scientific a culture becomes, the more difficult it is for that culture to relate to that which is unseen. More and more as time moves on through all the levels of creation, credibility rests in the very tangible, the see-able, the touchable, the edible. Where does dreaming, which brought this all about to begin with, fit into the picture? Dreams are far from tangible. Surly, we still dream, image, and create. Our multi-media culture seems to present a state of perpetual, mechanical, dreaming and imaging. Many find themselves lost in the stories of life situations produced on screens of all sizes and shapes. All themed and built around all sorts of escape substances. It could be said that these situations produce an out-of-touch-with-reality condition. Where did it all begin? Where did we make the Choice? Where do we shift from one focus or give up on an ideal and create a new reality? Seems we are on a never-ending quest to rediscover Reality. But why do we not allow Reality to be Reality? Why do we insist on Reality being our own creation?

Post #151 "Becoming God"

From the beginning, since the desire to become God actualized and expressed itself in creation, creation became and becomes symbolic of the desire to become God. Creation actualizes that desire, however, not into the intended exchange of roles with Reality, as in transference, but into the creation of the distorted and inverted image of the Reality....creation, itself. Everything that follows in creation, consequently, also is symbolic, is the ritualized action of the basic desire of creation expressed particularly in the human intelligence. The biblical and mythological characters, Adam and Eve, reenact over and over again in their lives, as in our lives, the scene in the Garden which actually was a failure of their goal to achieve Knowledge, the Knowing, which would give them Power over God through which the transference of themselves into God would take place. Possessing the Knowledge of God is akin to owning, is akin to possessing God, thereby weakening God to a position of the feminine whereby the desired qualities of God could be consumed (as in eating an apple) by rendering God helpless to be replaced with one who now would possess God's qualities, thereby God's essence. Consummation takes place through the act of eating and through the sex act. Consummation is also ritually reenacted through creation.

Through the distortion of imagery, the process of division unfolded and the opposite effect occurred. The Power over God, the Power over immortality did not come about as planned. The transference did not take! Intelligence did not become Reality! What chaos, what frustration, what fear resulted! What fear results! These are the basic human emotions. Through the failure to transfer with Intelligence with Reality, we are people of chaos. We are people of frustration and above all, we are people of fear. Fear is our basic human emotion. Fear is the very fabric of creation for it well knows its end. As the biblical, mythical Adam and Eve, having no knowledge of the Reality they sought to replace, sought knowledge. Not just knowledge but KNOWLEDGE, the Knowledge of Reality. For whoever owns the Knowledge of the Reality, becomes the Reality.The outcome for Adam and Eve was not what they planned, they did not achieve their goal of assuming the Knowledge, of assuming the Essence of Reality. What they got was the image. The image that was created on the spot. They transferred into the inverted, distorted image of their desire. They did not get the Knowledge of Reality. Without the Knowledge of Reality, came instead, the knowledge of death. They did not touch, nick, or dent the Knowledge of the Reality, meaning they did not gain possession of that Realty, nor reduce it in any way to any position of weakness, to any position of the feminine, from which they could eat their fill. The "Apple" scene set the stage for the conquest of the Reality, the Reality which is the opposite of the image, the God of Creation, through eating the Apple of Knowledge. This is the pseudo-reality which is reenacted with every movement in every moment in creation.This is the movement of our lives throughout history; the staging and re staging of our struggle to gain the knowledge with which to become God. Actually, we have accomplished our goal to become God for we created our God. Our God is the God of Creation. But we only created the image. We created our archetype. Our knowledge is not of Reality and consequently, has no Power over Reality.

Post #150 "Perfection"

Here the situation of homosexuality can be understood in male hatred for the feminine, strength hating that it is attracted to, needs and depends on weakness. Hatred follows the realization that one has not yet attained the perfection demanded to become the God of Creation. The male can only truly love what he respects and that would be another male who most resembles the qualities he most needs to complete his own goal of perfection. But, of course, these qualities of the other are desired for ones self. In pedophilia the quality that is desired by the perpetrator is the youth and purity of the victim. In partnerships the coveted qualities of the partner would have to be transferred to the male partner as the prince, thus bringing him closer to God-perfection. The qualities of the other must be devoured in order for the transfer of the qualities to take place, necessitating the death of the lover turned victim in the never ending quest to be what one is not. The image does not easily defeat its reality that it may transfer positions. The reality must be defeated for the transference of qualities to the other. This is a constant struggle. Who will win? Who will be the reigning prince...the closest to perfection? Whoever stands in the way of the transference becomes the enemy. How can the Reality, which the image cannot even grasp or comprehend, be fought? If the Reality or the reality cannot be fought, any enemy will do.

All struggle stems from the original dilemma; the desire to become God. From the desire comes the Choice. The Choice becomes movement, becomes energy. This is the energy of division. This is the energy of the void of pre-creation. The energy of division divides creation upon itself where it ritually and constantly performs its choice. In the biblical Garden of Eden, the Choice to become God is acted out in the eating of the proverbial apple. The apple is eaten and Adam and Eve seemingly split company from the God of the Garden, the God of Creation. The story continues as a struggle for survival in a new and hostile territory. Adam as male, remains the symbolic strength. Eve. as female, is forced into the role of weakness with her body redesigning itself to the weakness of becoming receptacle and nurturer. Adam's strength is represented by his seed, his link to immortality, his claim to the transference into his destination, which has now become a struggle. In this sense of duality, Adam's strength is derived from Eve's weakness. Male is strong because of female's weakness. The feminine becomes the masculine's enabler.