This web site is based on Christ being the source of Christianity, not Paul or other religious authorities. Christ had super-human communication abilities and knowledge. He didn't need someone else to speak for him.

Christ described the foundation of moral truth, and humans are supposed to build upon that foundation by applying basic knowledge to the lessons of life.

Material life was created for the purpose of overcoming sin. This means stabilized realities create evidence which can be used to increase understanding and develop truth about morality.

There is very little evidence of Christ in modern Christianity. The slight reference to him is a misrepresentation. It attempts to portray a totally subjective purpose for Christ, such as a "personal savior." Christ described a different purpose. He said his entire purpose in appearing was to "testify to the truth" (John 18:37). The truth which he testified to is the subject of morality. He taught how to get saved by overcoming sin.

There used to be traces of any-and-all truth in Christianity. It was an ocean of alternatives, and you could find just about anything you wanted to find in it. It is now being homogenized. You get one haircut only. The haircut is called fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism means there are a few gimmicks used to rationalize a particular view of Christianity. The primary gimmick is called inerrancy. The Bible is supposedly inerrant. But only a very small part of the Bible is used by fundamentalists. Their contradiction to everything else is ignored.

Since nothing fundamentalists (or any other humans) do can be inerrant, and no one can agree upon the meaning of many elements of the Bible, inerrancy really means the fundamentalist view cannot be questioned. Dogmatists in any area, not just religion, substitute their view for that of some higher authority as a means of warding off criticism and accountability. Quoting does the same thing. The person being quoted cannot be questioned. Usually, the quote is irrelevant, it just reinforces the claims of the person making them.

But inerrancy is put to a more critical purpose than usual by fundamentalist Christians. It is used to lock in Paul's version of theology. Otherwise, there is no logic to having a self-deprecating human trump the words of Christ. With the claim of inerrancy, the words of Paul never have to be compared to the words of Christ. Paul's words can stand on their own, while Christ's words are ignored.

Apart from Paul, the only other part of the Bible fundamentalists have much interest in is Genesis. There is not a logic to their concern with genesis. Who could care about such trivialities, with modern science providing real evidence? Not the fundamentalists. They can be proven wrong and keep repeating the same errors over and over, because their concern is not to determine what actually occurred in the past, their concern is to use Genesis as a training and testing ground for inerrancy. Followers are trained to accept absurdities without question, in an area where there are no relevant concerns at stake. Then the absurdities of Paul are presented with no questions allowed.

Notice the difference. When creationism is being promoted, a quasi logic is developed, and it goes so far as to claim scientists are being proven wrong. But in promoting Paul, no logic or argument is allowed. Every word of Paul's is promoted as too sacred to be questioned. No logic is ever applied to Paul's theology.

What sort of logic could be applied to the claim that God was so pleased to have Christ murdered that he forgave the sins of everyone who is supposed to get saved? Christ's murder is referred to as payment of a debt. If someone found it impossible to make payments on their house or car, would murdering the banker's son be a suitable payment? That's the amount of logic that is allowed in Paul's theology.

Christ taught a "path to life" (Mat 7:14). It is summarized by the golden rule, which says, do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Mat 7:12). Inherent in the golden rule are the basic laws of justice. We can apply modern knowledge to the laws of justice forever after. Christ could only provide the foundation of the subject, and that foundation must be built upon to create and sustain life.

My background is that I studied microbiology specializing in yeast physiology. After getting a masters degree in 1970, mental pain forced me into isolation on the family farm in South Dakota. I then began researching the morel mushroom and writing moral philosophy. Mental pain is not the same as depression or schizophrenia. It is caused by memories containing pain being too close to the surface and contacted by external distractions.

I've always been inclined toward philosophizing, in terms of abstract analysis. So I also take up science criticism focusing on subjects which others are not adequately criticizing. Not much basic criticism is allowed in science, which leaves a major need for science criticism by persons who are free to do so. Consider global warming as an example. Originally, most scientists said humans are the not the cause. Gradually, the propagandists became more and more dogmatic and convinced the public that humans are the cause. Now, scientists dare not say otherwise, or they could lose their jobs.