May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a minister and theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate with some really intelligent and learned masters, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. Well, that and Secular Humanism ("The Science"), which was created by the same group, both two sides of the same coin designed to make us feel dependent on external sources ("The Lord your God", "Jesus Christ", "Allah" (another name for the Canaanite diety El), or "The Scientific Experts" take your pick). In the case of the Abrahams, they leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (or Allah and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in portable format.

Clif could very well be right that we see aliens openly in our midst within the next few years creating shockwaves throughout Christendom, Judaism, and Islam.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in defiance of The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a minister and theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate with some really intelligent and learned masters, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. Well, that and Secular Humanism ("The Science"), which was created by the same group, both two sides of the same coin designed to make us feel dependent on external sources ("The Lord your God", "Jesus Christ", "Allah" (another name for the Canaanite diety El), or "The Scientific Experts" take your pick). In the case of the Abrahams, they leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (or Allah and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in portable format.

Clif could very well be right that we see aliens openly in our midst within the next few years creating shockwaves throughout Christendom, Judaism, and Islam.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a minister and theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate with some really intelligent and learned masters, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. Well, that and Secular Humanism ("The Science"), which was created by the same group, both two sides of the same coin designed to make us feel dependent on external sources ("The Lord your God", "Jesus Christ", "Allah" (another name for the Canaanite diety El), or "The Scientific Experts" take your pick). In the case of the Abrahams, they leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in portable format.

Clif could very well be right that we see aliens openly in our midst within the next few years creating shockwaves throughout Christendom, Judaism, and Islam.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a minister and theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate with some really intelligent and learned masters, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. Well, that and Secular Humanism ("The Science"), which was created by the same group, both two sides of the same coin designed to make us feel dependent on external sources ("God" or "The Scientific Experts" respectively). In the case of the Abrahams, they leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in portable format.

Clif could very well be right that we see aliens openly in our midst within the next few years creating shockwaves throughout Christendom, Judaism, and Islam.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a minister and theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate with some really intelligent and learned masters, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. Well, that and Secular Humanism ("The Science"), which was created by the same group, both two sides of the same coin designed to make us feel dependent on external sources ("God" or "The Scientific Experts" respectively). They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in portable format.

Clif could very well be right that we see aliens openly in our midst within the next few years creating shockwaves throughout Christendom, Judaism, and Islam.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a minister and theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate with some really intelligent and learned masters, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. Well, that and Secular Humanism ("The Science"), which was created by the same group, both two sides of the same coin designed to make us feel dependent. They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in portable format.

Clif could very well be right that we see aliens openly in our midst within the next few years creating shockwaves throughout Christendom, Judaism, and Islam.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a minister and theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate with some really intelligent and learned masters, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in portable format.

Clif could very well be right that we see aliens openly in our midst within the next few years creating shockwaves throughout Christendom, Judaism, and Islam.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a minister and theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate with some really intelligent and learned people, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in portable format.

Clif could very well be right that we see aliens openly in our midst within the next few years creating shockwaves throughout Christendom, Judaism, and Islam.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a minister and theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in portable format.

Clif could very well be right that we see aliens openly in our midst within the next few years creating shockwaves throughout Christendom, Judaism, and Islam.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in portable format.

Clif could very well be right that we see aliens openly in our midst within the next few years creating shockwaves throughout Christendom, Judaism, and Islam.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in portable format.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine which can never be truly achieved, according to the dogma, until after death, assuming of course that we worship Yahweh in life (and/or Yeshua, depending on sect). All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in a jar.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.)). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine. All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in a jar.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion and/or cosmology except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine. All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in a jar.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about or, if I vaguely knew, didn't think were relevant when I was younger. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine. All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in a jar.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, or at least those who attempt to be scholarly so I can stomach their rhetoric, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about at the time. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine. All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in a jar.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to the world's beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about at the time. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine. All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in a jar.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.

May I inquire as to your worldview and religious beliefs?

I was raised a Christian by a theologian (my father). I spent most of the first two to three decades of my life debating Christian and ontological theology, and attempting to rectify scientific evidence with my father and his colleagues. While the debates never ended, I stopped identifying as "Christian" after I was about 15. Using the process of reasoned debate, I noticed the arguments always devolved to relying on "faith" coupled with an obvious desire to adhere to dogma rather than use reason. Indeed, almost all of Christian dogma (as we understand it today) relies completely on several uses of circular logic.

Relying on faith, and using circular logic doesn't make a thing untrue. It does however make discussions using reason and logic less fruitful than would be desirable.

I spent my third decade delving into all the various religions the world had to offer (that I knew about at the time). I never really adopted any ideology, though I briefly identified as "agnostic Buddhist", but I think "identified" is the wrong term. I was sure that I couldn't answer any of the big questions beyond a reasonable doubt, and I liked the exploration of connectedness in the Buddhist philosophies, and how well it meshed with my explorations into physics (my first formal education which occurred during the same decade).

I still do appreciate the Buddhist philosophies, though I think Buddhist dogma is, like all others, full of some intentional fuckery. At the time when I noticed the hypocrisy I didn't think it was "intentional," but rather, accepted their explanation that it was just an adherence to "tradition." Now, after my awakening and beginning to explore other related topics into "how the world really works behind the scenes", I can see the patterns of fuckery inherent in all religions. I now know what to look for in the people that have made the "major contributions" to our beliefs, and they all belong to the same group of people. My research suggests that all formal religions are controlled opposition. All created to make different boxes, forcing people to group up inside them, keeping them from the truth, keeping them from recognizing the similarities, focusing on the differences, and keeping them divided.

As for my "beliefs", I no longer have beliefs per se. The only thing I "identify" as is a researcher. I work through investigations until I can't find any more evidence (which is a non-permanent state). I certainly do have biases however, and those may come across as beliefs, but my beliefs are perpetually mutable based on available evidence, so it's more of a system of "belief de jour" that get's me though "de jour."

What are your favorite references on this topic?

My investigation is literally all over the place. I get something in my teeth and I look at what everyone has to say on it. I look at scholars who attempt to be unbiased (which is impossible). I look at what the True Believers have to say (preferably also scholars, but it depends). I look at what those who have opposite biases have to say. I don't necessarily go looking for "opposing views." I just go looking for views, information, statements of fact, primary evidence, interpretations, etc., and I find opposing views inevitably. I listen to what everyone has to say. I just don't believe what anyone has to say.

I now look at all religions. Most of which I didn't know about at the time. I look at archeological and genetic evidence. I look at interpretations and translations of original works. I try to find multiple of these, so I can understand why certain translations turn out how they do and why there are controversies. I don't read ancient Hebrew (or any ancient scripts), but I have picked up a few words here and there, and when reading translations I like to look at the original to see which word people contest in translation when I find controversy. I will probably learn more over time. I have considered learning some ancient languages. I think it's a natural extension of my research. I will get to it eventually.

As for Jesus, I think he was trying to tell us what pretty much every religion except the present day Abrahamic religions are telling us, which is, we are All pieces of the Divine, split-aparts from Source. There is both a "separateness" and a "togetherness" to all things. We are both individual, and we are God (I prefer the word Source, because the term "God" means different things to different people, even if they don't realize it (Yahweh e.g.). Everyone all over the place in the other religions, both ancient and modern that aren't Abrahamic (modern versions) say the same thing. We are all just the Source experiencing itself. Individuality is a "truth in scope." That we are all One is another "truth in scope," just different scopes.

I don't know if that is true, but there is a ton of supporting evidence for it in all areas of science, philosophy, archeology, and almost all the worlds religions. As stated, only the modern day Abrahamic religions push our separateness from Source. They leave us high and dry, reliant on an external source for a true appreciation of the Divine. All of those religions push relying on the respective Priest Classes for "proper training" and "the right path." Without them, we can't make it. Of course it is sold differently, it says "rely on the Bible," but that's really just lip service. Even if stated in earnest, the Bible, as presented, is really just the Priest Class in a jar.

I do think that aliens might be at play, though what exactly an "alien" is in this context, I'm not sure. The "physical world" is a misnomer. There is nothing "physical" in our physics, at least not as we understand the term "physical." Thus there may very well be unseen worlds, unseen "dimensions," or unappreciated manifestations of the Fundamental that we are completely oblivious of because quite frankly, we don't look there. Where we do look though, does support the possibility of "gods" ruling us through some serious fuckery, and they might be behind the whole world. If so, I think Yahweh may very well be the king of fuckery, perhaps even the "adversary" (Satan), in opposition to The Source of All Things.