ESSAYS
ON THE MEANING OF
ESSAY 1 : AN EXAMINATION OF THE HOUSE OF GOD
At least two-thirds of our miseries spring from human
stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and
stupidity: idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or
political ideas.
- Aldous
Huxley (1894 – 1963)
The aim of these three
essays on the meaning of life is to explore our existence for any special meaning
and ultimate purpose, with the intention to approach as nearly as possible a
rational answer to the ultimate question: are all living things just a phenomenon
of blind physics – our life spontaneous, accidental and essentially meaningless
– or does our existence have special meaning and are our lives ultimately purposeful?
By “special meaning” I refer to meaning beyond our personal meanings, and by “ultimate
purpose” I mean purpose beyond our obvious day-to-day animal purposes.
The first two essays will examine
the two institutions who claim to house the answers to the existence, or
otherwise, of special meaning and ultimate purpose – the House of God and the
House of Disbelief. The third essay will explore for Truth without the walls of
“H” Houses.
PROSELYTIZING ZEAL
But before setting out, in
this first essay, on a voyage into the storm-tossed waters of religion I think it
is important to nail one’s colours to the mast – because the whiff of
I had a conventional, but
low-key, Christian upbringing at an Anglican boys-school. What little orthodox
Christian faith that was successfully instilled in me at school was demolished
at
Do I subscribe to any ideology
or any philosophical school of thought? Everybody who gets out of bed in the
morning is a philosopher, but I like to think that I am not a card-carrying
member of any ideology: theism, atheism, agnosticism, scientism, materialism,
Buddhism, New Ageism – or any other “ism” there may be. My experience of life
has led me to believe that a “D” Divine could possibly exist, but I find theism’s
gods primitive and incredible. I find atheism’s arguments against religions’
“g” gods sound but its conclusion that there is therefore no “G” God, unsound.
I find science’s attempts to explain all of human behaviour in terms of physics
and evolutionary theory to be ideological and incomplete. Agnosticism doesn’t
suit me because while I don’t claim to know the nature of God I do believe that
there is something worthy of the name. Buddhism and other New Age
philosophico/religious movements seem to have some Truths but no convincing Theory
of Everything.
A CHRISTIAN-PANTHEIST?
Deism has some appeal, and pantheism
also seems logical because the original energy which became the material universe
at the Big Bang must be the Divine – or of the Divine, at the very least. Also I
admire Jesus and try to follow his precepts towards my fellows as often as I
can. So, at the start of these essays, if you insist on a label you could call
me a Christian-Pantheist? But I like to think I have an open mind and reserve
the right to change my philosophical position at any time – especially as we,
hopefully, discover some Truths during the course of this exploration on the
meaning of life.
So off we go.
THE CHRISTIAN HOUSE OF GOD
I am examining the Christian
House of God because it is the House of God with which I am most familiar. But,
I suspect, much of what is discussed here will be applicable to all Houses of
God founded on a Book – a “B” Book because supposedly written and/or inspired
by God and therefore inviolable, unchangeable.
Some will have some
reservations about critically examining the House of God.
ISN’T IT PRESUMPTUOUS TO
CRITICALLY EXAMINE GOD?
This essay critically examines
the House of God – religion – not God. Many equate religion with God, but this
essay essentially asks us to consider whether any higher agency worthy of the
title “God” had a hand in designing the House of God and, further, whether any
“G” God really resides within?
BUT THE HOUSE OF GOD DOES
GOOD
Over the centuries the House
of God has offered fellowship to its members, charity to the needy, hospitals
to the sick, a civilising influence to the wild tribes of Europe (like the
Vikings), aid to poor countries, a community hub, ceremonies to mark our rites
of passage, and succour in times of personal crisis. It has also set standards
of moral behaviour valuable to civil society.
DECLINING ATTENDENCES
However, the above valuable roles
played by the House of God are diminishing as its membership crashes – most of
these socially crucial roles now largely taken over by secular institutions like
neighbourhood centres, secular charities,
service clubs, state hospitals, and government agencies. Figures from the 2006
National Church Life Survey show that Roman Catholic numbers were down 13%;
Anglican down 2%; Uniting down 13%; Lutheran down 8% – and, further, very few of
the people still identifying themselves as Christian actually attend church on
any significant basis. Some say the young are becoming more religious, but a
study by Monash University, Australian Catholic University and the Christian
Research Association in 2006 found that just 19% of Generation Y who identify
themselves as Christian (48%) were actively involved in a church, attending
services at least once a month – making an attending total of just 9% of that
generation overall. That attendances have been falling for years is evidenced
by the number of churches that have been shut, abandoned or turned into homes
and restaurants. Weddings are increasingly being celebrated in secular parkland
ceremonies, funerals in funeral parlours, and christenings at backyard barbeques.
RELIGION IS MEANINGLESSNESS’
GREATEST ALLY
I also presume to examine
the House of God because it appears to have become meaninglessness’ greatest
ally – its incredible meaning of life turning people away from the very idea of
life having any special meaning and/or ultimate purpose. Our rational age of
enlightenment has shown religion’s model for the meaning of life (a one-off test
of our soul’s suitability for salvation or hell) to be irrational, incredible. The
House of God holds that there is no mystery when it comes to Truth – my way or
the highway – it’s all in the Book. Most have chosen the highway.
THEISM GENERATES ATHEISM
As education (especially
scientific) spread through society more quickly after the nineteenth century, more
people became aware that religion’s Truths were just “t” truths – and religion’s
God, just another “g” god. Religions’ god (a brutal male figure from ancient
tribal imaginings) became, in fact, beyond inadequate – the generator of
atheism. An exposure to religion in the family of birth has generated some of
our most influential atheists – Michael Shermer (atheist, director of the Skeptics Society, editor of
Skeptic magazine, author of, “Why
People Believe Weird Things” and other books) is from a fundamentalist family;
Phillip Adams’ (atheist, sceptic, columnist, radio commentator, author) father
was a religious minister; Bertrand Russell (author of the atheist hymnal – “Why
I am not a Christian”) had a stern religious
upbringing in the hands of a strictly religious aunt; Sigmund Freud came from a
very religious family. Many influential atheists have spread the gospel
according to meaninglessness as a reaction to the incredibility of religion
learned in the bosom of the family.
FUNDAMENTALISM
I also presume to examine
the House of God because fundamentalism is on the rise within its walls. From
the above 2004 survey Assemblies of God are up 20%, and Christian City Churches
up 42%. Even in orthodox Churches like the Anglican Church, evangelicals (who
believe in and preach the literal truth and inerrancy of the Bible) are gaining
power. In an enlightened age, an increasing number of people within the walls
of the House of God, are retreating to literal, fundamental, evangelical, scientifically
ignorant beliefs (like the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Ark, and that the world is merely
6000 years old).
HOLOCAUST SCENARIOS
But fundamentalism is beyond
ignorant, it is extremely dangerous. We all know about Muslim suicide bombers
and their “B” Book-inspired murders of innocent men, women, and children – but
how many know that the biggest selling series of books in the “Christian” world
at this moment is the “Left Behind” series of novels (La Haye & Jenkins). Inspired
by the Bible, these novels revel in the torments inflicted upon non-believers when
“The blood continued to rise. Millions of
birds flocked into the area and feasted on the remains…and the winepress was
trampled outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the
horse’s bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs.”
“Glorious Appearing: The End of Days” pp.
250, 260.
It is not only Christians
who yearn for a bloody holocaust, the continuing invasion of Palestinian lands
in the East Bank region is being driven by Jewish fundamentalists who believe
their god will come and rule over the Earth after a holocaust, end-of-times scenario
– to be brought on once they re-settle the ancient boundaries of Biblical
Israel.
Fundamentalists of all
stripes – Jewish, Muslim, and Christian – not only cherish the notion that God
will come to reign on Earth following a holocaust where millions suffer, but many
think that this is a scenario which they can – even must – help bring about! As
fundamentalist numbers go up in percentage terms, and the percentage of thinking
parishioners go down, the House of God’s congregation around the world is being
reduced to a rump of scared, weird, little guys – driven by hate and fear – rather
than love.
Am I being too harsh? Consider
Peter Jensen, Archbishop of
“This dispute is not really about
homosexuality. It’s about authority and who runs the church. To most of the
rest of us, God runs the church through the Bible.”
And this in the same
newspaper about the importance of role of the wrath of his god in Christianity:
“One of the gravest weaknesses of
contemporary Christianity … is the little attention paid to the wrath of God.”
“The Age” (Newspaper –
THE BLOODY HISTORY OF
RELIGION
Many, if not most, of humanity’s
wars and appalling cruelty had direct religious causes – for example: the many
European wars; the Inquisition; the Crusades, or they had religious imprimaturs:
the brutal invasion of Britain by William the Norman pretender was supported
and sanctioned (necessary barbarities pre-forgiven) by the Christian House of
God in return for 10% of the land. Or they had at least some religious
antecedents – for example: the Jewish Holocaust was based on Bible-inspired
hatreds. There have also been many murderous inter-denominational religious
wars, for example, the Catholic-Huguenots battles in
The House of God’s growing
political power is another reason why it needs examination.
THE POLITICAL POWER OF THE
HOUSE OF GOD
In
RELIGION IS DARWINIAN, NOT
SPIRITUAL
Another reason why I presume
to examine the House of God is because our religions are barriers to our
much-needed spiritual evolution – rather than the drivers they should be. This
is because the House of God is Darwinian rather than spiritual: concerned with
power; with bodily survival for eternity; with the avoidance of Divine punishment;
with inflicting punishment on disbelievers. The House of God does not seek
spiritual Truths but tries to protect old Biblical truths – from whence cometh
its strength. All religions work on the old carrot and stick method – a method that
has been used by successful dictatorships since human society began.
Religions, rather than being
the drivers of our spiritual evolution, are the biggest block in the road. As I
mentioned earlier, religious people appear to see life as some vast game which
can be won by gaining the greatest number of converts – and any means are
permissible to achieve this “holy” end – witness the seemingly endless number
of paedophilia cases which are hushed up so as to not weaken your Church, your
“team”; and the murderous ends religious terrorists will go to, to make their
team “win”.
HOW ABOUT THE GOOD PEOPLE IN
THE HOUSE OF GOD?
All is not bad in the House
of God, there are some people within who are seeking the Truth and genuine
spiritual understanding and growth – rather than trying to convert people to
their truths for their own power, and the greater power of their religion. Bishop
In total, all of the above
are why I presume to examine the House of God.
But some will be asking another
question altogether:
WHY BOTHER – WHY DOES THERE
HAVE TO BE A GOD?
There doesn’t have to be a
God, there either just is, or there isn’t – and it remains one of philosophy’s
most important questions. “Important”, not because there is some pathetic god
out there who needs our praise and worship, or some fearsome, brutal god that
we need to inveigle for our own protection, but because in the seeking of a “G”
God we may come to closer to any Truths of the human condition? There doesn’t “have
to be a God”, but in the search we may find our selves.
So, let’s see.
Again
I state that this essay is specifically an examination of the Christian House
of God because it is the one with which I am most familiar, but I suspect that
what I find here will apply to most religions in many substantial respects –
especially religions of the “B” Book.
So what makes a House? An
“H” House, like an “h” house, has purpose, design, and fabric. What are the
purpose, design, and fabric of the Christian House of God?
PURPOSE
The original purpose of the
What happened to it?
It was attacked from all sides at home by the vested interests of the
officers of the existing religion. When it moved into the wider
The
DESIGN
The
FABRIC
Some of the fabric of the
House of God is beautiful – for example, its architecture; art; literature; music.
And some of it is admirable – for example, its comforting walls of Christian
fellowship; its sheltering roof of Christian charity. But, unfortunately, a
crucial part of the fabric of the House of God seems to be deeply flawed – the foundations.
The House of God is founded
upon the Bible. The Bible is a capital “B” Book because it is “Holy” – written by
(or at the very least, inspired by) God :
“the Bible is
authoritative because of its divine authorship … items of theological belief
must have either explicit or implicit support [from the Bible] or be dismissed.”
- “Systematic Theology – A Pentecostal Perspective”,
P. 42 (Ed. Stanley Horton)
The Bible offers certainty in uncertain times – all is black and white –
written by God. But such certainty is only available to those who can suspend their
rationality – an essential task in the eyes of fundamentalists:
“Reason is a
good servant of the revelation of God [the Bible], but it is not a good master over that revelation. … human reason that
denies divine revelation has always come under the influence of sin and
So, the Bible is to be digested in its entirety – “sin…
“I do believe
the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God and to
contain all things necessary to salvation.”
- Quoted from, “The Sins of Scripture”,
It is no exaggeration to
call the Bible the foundations of the House of God.
At this point, we must examine
the Bible to see if it is “the word of God” or, at the very least, inspired by
God?
THE HOLY BIBLE
I will be using the New International, the New Revised Standard, and the
THE OLD TESTAMENT
Some, supposedly more sophisticated,
members of the House of God don’t put much weight on the Old Testament anymore (writing
verbose apologetics for it – which boil down to saying it is metaphorical and/or
allegorical for deeper spiritual meanings). But we have to examine it in this
exercise because the kneebone of more modern Christian doctrines of the House
of God are connected to the thighbone of ancient Old Testament myths and stories.
For example, the doctrines of salvation and original sin are based on the
Garden of Eden myths of
The Old Testament is the
writings of the Hebrews – an ancient grouping of Semitic tribes in the area we
now call the
“Somehow,
writings as disparate as laws, popular stories, dynastic annals, proverbs,
laments, love stories and psalms came to be regarded as scripture.”
(P. xiii Oxford History of
the Bible)
But is the Divinity of the
Old Testament an assertion to serve vested interest, or do the words resemble the
word of any God? A necessary quality of “G” God is omniscience, so any of “H”
His words should be always correct, irrefutably wise – the infallible, “D”
Divine, “T” Truth?
Let’s see.
THE PENTATEUCH/TORAH
The first five Books in the Old Testament: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus;
Numbers; Deuteronomy; are also known as the Pentateuch. They form the Torah – the
“law”, “teaching”, “way” of the Jewish people. They contain creation myths,
early history, and outline the laws which form the basis of a covenant between the
Jewish people and their god.
GENESIS
The first of these Books, Genesis, contains an explanation for how
everything came to exist. According to Genesis, everything in the universe was
created by God in six days, who then needed a rest on the seventh. God created
light and dark, night and day, sky and earth, the seas and the fishes, the dry
land and the vegetation, the sun by day and the stars at night, the birds and
the bees, cattle and creeping things.
Then God created humankind to have dominion over all: “in the image of
God he created them; male and female he created them.” (1:27) and sent them
forth to multiply – to “fill the earth and subdue it”. Earth was placed at the
centre of the Universe – the sun and planets revolved around it.
For beauty and inventiveness, Genesis is definitely on a par with all other
creation myths – like the Australian Aborigine’s “Rainbow Serpent”, for
example.
TWO DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS OF THE CREATION
The Bible, the word of God, then proceeds to give another account of the
creation. In the first version men and women were made at the same time by God
on the sixth day, but the second version says woman was made after man – when
God realised man needed a companion (made out of one of his ribs, plucked from
him when he was asleep!) So page 1 and already we have “the word of God”
disagreeing with itself? Which version is true, and which is false?
OR ARE BOTH ACCOUNTS WRONG?
Thanks to the discoveries of science we know that both versions of the
beginning in Genesis are wrong. Galileo challenged the Bible’s Earth-centric account
with his findings from the developing sciences of astronomy and cosmology – he was
repaid with imprisonment by the
So, if even the
But mistakes in the Bible don’t stop with its cosmology.
INCORRECT BIOLOGY
As well as cosmological misinformation, Genesis is all at sea with its
biology. It tells us the sea-creatures and birds were created on day five, and
the animals of the Earth (including man and woman) and plants – on day six. Again
science tells us this is not the truth. Biology has discovered that life evolved
over many millions of years into the multifarious forms we now take. Yes – “we”
– it can be demonstrated empirically that humans are related to plants and
animals through our shared
HOW CAN THE WORD OF GOD BE WRONG?
Those who believe the Bible to be the word of God have to ask themselves
how could God get it so wrong? If it is seen as not literally the word of God,
but just inspired by God, why inspire mistakes? The biggest problem (and the
reason why the
THE FUNDAMENTALIST APPROACH
Fundamentalists nip this sort of dangerous problem in the bud by convincing
themselves that the universe is only just over 6000 years old (calculated by Archbishop
James Ussher in 1650 added up all the genealogical “begattings” in Genesis and
coming up with the figure of the world’s beginning – 23rd October
4004 B.C.!) Now you can forgive Ussher
because science was in its infancy then, but what can we say of the ignorance
of people today who still believe that this is the real age of the Universe? And
it is not a matter of fundamentalists “t” truths versus scientific “t” truths –
we know that biology is correct because it works – we prove it right by successfully
using the products of its “T” Truths every day. Even fundamentalists use the
products of biology’s Truths in their foods and medicines. You can’t deny
science on the one hand yet use it – constantly and successfully – on the other.
Beyond reasonable doubt the author of the Bible’s creation stories was
ignorant of cosmological and biological Truths. The creation stories are just
that – “stories” – myths, “t” truths written by pre-scientific man, not the “T”
Truth written by God.
SHOULD BE READ AS METAPHOR AND ALLEGORY?
But supposedly sophisticated residents of the House of God read these
parts of the Bible as charming metaphor and allegory. However, as discussed, key
doctrine of the “modern” House of God rests on a level of belief of the Garden
of Eden story – original sin (allegorised by Adam and Eve defying god and consuming
fruit from the tree of knowledge) is the cornerstone of Paul’s (the father of
the modern Christian House of God) beliefs and doctrines about Jesus dying to
wash away our sins. Salvation – our redemption back into
KNOWLEDGE VS. FAITH
The Serpent’s tree story is also allegory for something else. The tree was
called “the tree of knowledge” and
NOAH’S
Next in Genesis we have Noah’s
“The Lord saw
that the wickedness of humans was great on the earth, and every inclination of
the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)
So God decided to drown the lot – including all the animals – keeping two
of every species to start again with (and Noah’s family). If you add up the
biblical cubits the
No need to go on and on, indeed, why mention it at all because no one
with a brain believes this stuff any more, right? Well I had a scary
conversation with four young fundamentalists who had just graduated from a
secular university who believe all the Bible to be true. By way of
explaining how
THE COVENANT WITH (ABRAM)
Genesis is also a statement about monotheism. In a time and place of the
world where there were many gods, Genesis plants the idea that there is only
one god – a “G” God. In return for their monotheism, the Hebrew god forms a
covenant with them and gives them a homeland,
“Now the Lord
said to Abram, ‘Go from your country [
This covenant forms the Jewish title deeds to the
The
But wait, there’s more to Genesis – we have also the story of
EXODUS
Exodus is the next Book of the Old Testament. Here we move to
“He consecrated
the people and they washed their clothes. And he said to the people, ‘Prepare
for the third day; do not go near a woman.’ “ (Exodus 19:14-15)
Dirty things these women! And not only dirty, but if
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Moses gets the Ten Commandments from his god on
“Then there is
the very salient question of what the commandments do not say. Is it too modern to notice that there
is nothing about the protection of children from cruelty, nothing about rape,
nothing about slavery, and nothing about genocide.
“God is Not
Great”, P. 100
While the pages of Hitchens’ book are somewhat spittle-flecked (being
often as fundamentalist as the religions he criticises) he does have a good
point. Further, the Old Testament god not only fails to proscribe certain evil
things but approves of them so long as they are done by his chosen tribe to
outsiders. Would the one, true God of all the Universe be so parochial – just a
god of the twelve tribes – every other person suitable for slavery and ethnic cleansing?
SLAVE-TRADE RULES – OK?
“When a man
sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as male slaves do. If she
does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let
her be redeemed.” (21:7,8)
Not only having slaves is OK, but beating them is alright too – but
there are Divine limits:
“ ‘When a slaveowner strikes a male or female
slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished.
But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the
slave is the owner’s property.’ ”(21:20-21)
So, straight from the mouth of God, we get: slavery is OK – and it is OK
to beat them savagely with a rod – not so savagely that they die straight away,
mind you – although if they die after two days it’s fine. What type of person
would regard this as the word of God? Whose “T” Truth is this book?
INSTITUTIONALISING REVENGE
Moses also gets social and religious laws and ordinances from this brutal
“g” god which cement revenge into place (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth), laws which determine sexual relations, altars, festivals, blood
sacrifices, tabernacles, Sabbaths – and this strange little bit:
“ ‘If a bull
gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat
will not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible.’ ”
(21:28)
Can you imagine the senseless and prolonged cruelty involved in stoning
a bull to death?
Bear in mind these quotes are supposedly the actual words of “G” God –
not allegories or metaphors for something else. These commandments and laws
form the basis of Torah – the underpinnings of the covenant between the Jews
and their god.
KILLING YOUR BROTHER, FRIEND, AND NEIGHBOUR IS OK
And while Moses was away receiving all these commandments and ordinances,
the Hebrew tribes waiting behind made themselves a golden calf to worship. God
was so jealous that the Hebrews were worshipping another god that he got
“This is
what the Lord, the God of
Let’s see if we have this right –
A CONTRADICTORY GOD
God not only urges the Levi tribe to kill their fellow Hebrews, but then
makes the murderers “blessed” because of their ability to commit pitiless
atrocities against their brothers, friends and neighbours. But Exodus later
says this god is merciful, gracious, and forgiving?:
“a God merciful
and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and
transgression and sin..” (34: 6-7)
So, the Bible describes its god as “merciful and slow to anger”, while
showing him to be merciless and quick to anger – supposedly a god “abounding in
steadfast love and faithfulness” but, as shown by the above episode, ready to
brutally slaughter his chosen people at the drop of a hat – for a minor
misdemeanour. This is not “G” God, but a human, inconstant, capricious, jealous
“g” god – jealous of a golden statue?
THE BIBLE ESTABLISHES THE IDEAS OF FATWA
This is the establishment of the idea of a Fatwa – killing is OK, if in
the name of a jealous god. Later this god will also authorise Jihads against
other tribes encouraging the killing of men women and children to take their
land. Now that’s just got to be “G” God – hasn’t it? To jealousy and
inconstancy we have to add brutal and violent, or is this just another “g” god
invented by man in his own image – a fearful god constructed by the officers of
a religion to keep the flock in order – much like all the other gods ever
invented by man?
This pitiless “g” god also goes on to decree:
21:4 It is permissible to keep wife and children
of servants (because it is just the same as the natural increase of cattle).
21:17 Children
who curse father or mother shall be put to death.
22:18 We should kill witches – “Do not allow a
sorceress to live” (paving the way for
Is this your “Lord thy God – or just the murderous, vengeful “g” god of
some desert tribes?
Let’s look further.
LEVITICUS
Laws and rules on such things as offerings, sacrifices, priests, clean
and unclean food, skin diseases, mildew, unlawful sex, capital punishment. We
learn here God will like us more if we kill animals and burn them on an altar
as sacrifices to him.
Animal sacrifices – what sort of primitive tribal god are we dealing
with here?
The sort that regards menstruating women as unclean:
“A woman who
becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for
seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.”
Dirty things these women – especially if they give birth to another
woman!
“If she gives
birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean.” (12:2&5)
The word of God? Got to be if it’s in the Bible!?
And more from the Hebrew god on the slave trade:
“Your male and
female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy
slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and
members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your
property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make
them slaves for life.” (25:44-46).
Don’t know what all the fuss about slavery is – God says it’s OK!?
And what’s this bit about votive offerings to God – human sacrifice?
“Nothing that a
person owns that has been devoted to destruction for the Lord, be it human
or animal, or inherited landholding, may be redeemed…no human beings who
have been devoted to destruction can be ransomed; they shall be put to death.”
(27:28-29)
NUMBERS
More wanderings and god-sanctioned murder and destruction.
More sexism: (5:11-31) – A man can test (?!) a wife just because he suspects
she may have been with another man. But the other man does not get tested. Nor
a husband if the wife suspects him.
Again we have a fearsome and jealous god:
“The Lord your
God you shall fear…because the Lord your God… is a jealous God. The anger of
the Lord your God would be kindled against you and he would destroy you from
the face of the earth. ” (6:13-15)
And violent: (15:32) – Sabbath-breaker stoned to death with god’s
approval.
And the ethnic cleansing starts (21:3):
“The Lord
listened to
And violent and jealous at once. After some Israelites bowed to the god
Baal:
“The Lord said to Moses, Take all the chiefs of the
people and impale them in the sun before the Lord…” (25:4)
And approving of infanticide, abduction, and rape:
[Of the Midanites] “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man.” (31:15)
Moslem terrorists at least have to wait for heaven to get their virgins!
If this is not ethnic cleansing what is it? No wonder fundamentalists are
scared witless of such a god. You have got to ask yourself, is the Biblical god
your God? Does the Bible reveal anything about God, or just about the people
whose god this is?
Maybe a real God will reveal himself soon? Let’s try the next Book:
DEUTERONOMY
God instructs more slaying of men, women and children. More laws, about
some about clean and unclean food. Joshua succeeds Moses, who dies within sight
of Promised Land.
More divinely sanctioned war crimes and ethnic cleansing – all men,
women and children of Heshbon (2:34) and
Divine laws about breaking the neck of a heifer belonging to the nearest
village to atone for any unsolved murder in the area: (21:3).
And its OK to murder a rebellious son (was there ever any other sort?).
“If a man has a
stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother … his
father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the
gate of the town. They shall say to the elders, ‘This son of ours is stubborn
and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is profligate and a drunkard.’ Then all
the men of the town will stone him to death.” (21:18-21)
How about this bit – anyone wounded in the genitals could not worship
God :
“No one who has
been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord.”
(23:1)
THE TRUTH OR A TRUTH?
Deuteronomy is the last book of the Torah – the written laws and rules
which form the basis of the supposed covenant between the Hebrew tribes and
their god. But are these the words of “G” God or the words of “m” man? Are they
Divine Truths or words invented by religious officers to maintain their power
over the people – words to keep the people believing that god is fearsome and
awful, words to persuade the masses that the religious officers have this god under
control – by knowing how he wants to be worshipped and sacrificed to?
WHAT
What sort of god have we found in the Bible so far? We have found a
parochial god – who made a covenant with just one, chosen group of tribes, the
rest of humanity suitable for ethnic cleansing and enslavement. A brutal god –
who endorsed the killing and rape of women and children. A primitive god – who
wanted animals sacrificed to him. A sexist god – who held women to be unclean.
A jealous god – who would slaughter even his own chosen people if they made a
golden calf to worship. A vengeful god – who would cast people into hell
forever in vengeance. A mindless god – who would drown the entire animal and
human population of the world.
Is this god “D” Divine, or human? Is this the real “G” God, or a “g” god
– constructed by some males ambitious for power – the medicine men of some
pre-scientific, semi-nomadic tribesmen. A brutal god to fear – a god to keep
the flock from straying? An awful god out of a tough land during a brutal time.
SHOULD WE ADOPT A LITERAL APPROACH TO THE BIBLE?
“Sophisticated” believers, think it ridiculous to take the Old Testament
literally. But it is worth remembering that the writers of the New Testament Gospels
did – they believed the Scriptures to be the word of God – maybe even Jesus did
– and maybe not? We may get closer to a personal answer to this question later
when we examine Jesus the New Testament.
For me, the god that the Bible has portrayed to this point is very human
– falling well short of any real “D” Divine. So far, the Bible’s words have revealed
nothing about God, but plenty about the people who wrote them – and plenty
about the people who believe in them.
So let’s move on and examine the rest of the Old Testament.
JOSHUA
After wandering about in the desert for 40 years the Hebrew tribes cross
the
“They devoted
the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it –
men and women, young and old, cattle sheep and donkeys.” (6:21)
What “devotion”! That would must have pleased the “Lord” – every man,
woman, child and donkey – that’s got to be “D” Divine work, surely? But they
had only started, they “devoted” plenty more ethnic cleansing to the Lord :
8:25 – The women of Ai
murdered.
10:12 – God showed his pleasure by stopping the sun
from going down for a day so that Joshua could see to slaughter his enemies at
Gibeon (or what was left of them after God had slaughtered most of them himself
with hailstones).
10:28 – Everyone in Makkedah, Libnah,
By now “the Lord” would be wading in gore, but he goes for a nice
finishing touch at 11:9 when the horses are ham-strung. Now all you
animal-lovers, do you have any idea what panic and pain those horses suffered,
and for how long, after being left lying on the ground ham-strung? (Something
about: “Inasmuch as you do it unto one of these, the least of my creatures, you
do it unto me” – comes to mind).
Seen your god yet? Maybe in the next Book?
JUDGES
More fighting, slaughtering, thumb- and toe-lopping of the Canaanites and
others by the Israelites – God’s chosen people. God keeps his part of the
covenant with the Israelites, giving their enemies up to them for slaughter.
But Joshua dies, and eventually all his generation.
Joshua’s generation knew what their god had done for his chosen people,
but the next generation, in their ignorance began to worship other gods – like
Baal – and “the anger of the Lord was kindled against them”. There was much
fighting with the neighbours with victory and slaughter passing to and fro –
eventually the Midianites prevailed over the Israelites and God said it was
because they had “given reverence to the god of the Amorites”. Gideon emerges
as a mighty warrior and routs the countless Midianites with only 300 men (but with
god on his side). Gideon eventually dies and the Israelites relapse into their
unfaithful ways once more – worshipping other gods. So, in retribution we get more
Divine pay-back by in the form of domination by their enemies – the Philistines
this time.
You’d think they’d learn?
Then along comes Sampson – who is victorious against the Philistines (with
god on his side). Then Delilah cuts off his hair (the source of his strength)
and the Philistines gouge his eyes out – but Samson brings down the house with
a final command performance of his strength.
And on it goes, ending with a charming tale of an internal conflict
within the Israelite tribes which is settled by killing man, woman, and child
of a town called Jabesh-gilead. The virgins of Jabesh-gilead were harvested and
given to the men of the
All up, it is a long warning to the Israelites not to abandon, or cross,
their god – the take-home message is that winning against the odds is possible
if god is on your side, but woe betide you if you cast shy glances at the gods
of others – the priests could lose their jobs that way.
RUTH
A gentle story of Oprah (so, that’s where she got the name from?), Ruth,
Naomi, and Boaz – and the birth of Obed in
1 SAMUEL
“The Almighty says … ‘Now go, attack the
Amalekites … Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and
infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (15:2-3).
More slaughter – “men, women, children, infants, cattle, sheep, camels,
and donkeys” – just got love that “Almighty”? And on, and on, we go – wading
through gore:
2 SAMUEL
Here we hamstring some more horses for the Lord (8:4).
We learn also that polygamy is fine with God – this to King David from
the very mouth of God: “I gave you your
master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom” (12:8). Abraham,
Jacob, and Solomon were all polygamists with God’s approval. Of course, women
were not allowed to have more than one husband.
We engage in more battles and bloodbaths. We meet
We find out that the Israelites’ god was fickle in his support for his
chosen people – the angels saved the Hebrews from the Assyrians but they could
not save them from Nebuchadnezzar who carts the whole box and dice off to
JUDGES; KINGS; CHRONICLES
Judges, Kings, Chronicles dance their way across the bloody Old
Testament stage with more divinely sanctioned murder, rape and pillage.
And we learn that
The historical figures of Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes appear. The Jewish
people get liberated from the Babylonians by the Persians and rebuild the
Then we come to Job’s test of faith – through his encounter with the problem
of evil.
JOB
In Job, the shape that the problem of evil takes is in the form of the
perennial conundrum: why do bad things happen to good people (and good things
to bad people) if there is an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God (whose
benevolence to yourself you have bought through worship)? When faced with this
conundrum many loose faith in the idea of God, and/or any belief in special
meaning in life. This is a problem of religion’s own making – by selling
humanity the idea of a God who will interfere in day-to-day life, on request,
in return for exclusive belief, correct worship and sufficient praise –
religion is setting itself up for a dump when this god does not deliver on cue.
This particular “Problem of Evil” has recruited more followers for the
House of Disbelief than any other of life’s difficulties – Darwin, himself,
lost his own previously strong religious beliefs after his young daughter died
(he originally believed that, in natural selection, he had found “God’s
method”). I examine the House of Disbelief in the next essay.
Back to Job – who actually admits that he was not naturally good but,
like a lot of religious people, only “good” out of fear:
“I dreaded
destruction from God and for fear of his splendour I could not do such things” (31:23).
The Bible here opens two interesting questions:
1.
Are religious
people only seemingly good – more truly, fearful?
2.
What is real
goodness?
Surely, a person who does not believe in God, but still does good, is the
only one whose goodness can be truly known? If life is a test (of your soul) as
religion says it is – doesn’t religion only serve to get in the road of the
test and should be abandoned?
The House of God usually answers that their god cannot be fooled because
he knows the secrets of your soul. Well, why go through the whole charade of
life then – if God just knows whether you are worthy of heaven or hell? In the
New Testament Paul considers the idea of true goodness – but concludes faith (believing
incredible doctrine out of fear) is better than good deeds. Better for who –
us, how others experience life, or the House of God’s power? We examine
Job succeeds only in enraging his god with his doubts and complaints.
This god then threatens him with Behemoth and Leviathan (God doesn’t seem to
know that they were mythical beasts) and scares the shit out of him. So Job
apologised, then praised his god again – thereby getting his enemies reduced by
god, his fortunes restored, and lived a long and fruitful life.
So, what have we learned from Job?
The Book of Job is yet more human contrivance, designed by the religious
fathers to answer one of the most commonly expressed doubts about god – the
problem of evil – as expressed in the “why do bad things happen to good
people?” question. The officers of religion fall back on the usual tactic of
power-brokers – punishment or reward, carrot or the stick – if you believe in
my god you will get rewarded, doubt him and you will suffer.
This becomes a constant refrain in the Old Testament – there is a lot
more suffering by the chosen people of god to be explained away by the officers
of the House of God yet – as we will see a bit later when they are dragged off
into captivity.
But now, we arrive at the next section of the Old Testament, which turns
the praise of a needy god into an art form.
PSALMS
The themes of the Psalms cover deliverance from enemies, thanksgiving,
praise, flattery, longing, denunciation, vengeance, comfort, judgement,
punishment, woe, elation at an eventual (imagined) victory. They are the
supplications to their god of a people living in a hard land at a brutal time –
a people constantly at the mercy of their stronger neighbours.
Psalms are largely prayers in the form of poems and songs. They pray for
deliverance from enemies and from the travails of life, they offer worship as
inducement to their needy god and shower him with praise in expectation.
Sometimes they are songs of joy and thanksgiving, but most often anger,
despair, sadness, guilt and doubt. They are the prayers of a supposedly elect
people who were frequently defeated by their enemies. Some of the psalms and
songs were written during the time of Babylonian captivity – the supplications
of the defeated and powerless to call God’s wrath down upon their enemies.
These Psalms are still used daily in the Christian House of God. So, what
does all this praise and worship have to say about the House of God’s image of
the nature of God? In a nutshell, the House of God must think that God is a
human – a male, specifically – vain for our praise, needy for our worship, sadistic
for our fear. A man/god, stupid enough to think that all this needy outpouring
is genuine love. Looks more like Stockholm syndrome to me? The bottom line is: does
the House of God’s Book approach any true God here, or just construct another
god?
I remember asking my religious studies teacher at primary school why we
existed, and his answer was: “To worship God.” Even my 11 year-old mind could
work out that this was not even close to the meaning of life. Would an
omniscient Divine believe our self-interested flattery; could an omnipotent God
be so desperately needy of praise that he actually created us to meet these
pathetic needs?
THE GOSPELS LIFT SOME WORDS FROM PSALMS
Some say the Old Testament is verified by the life, words, and actions
of Jesus – and vice versa. For example, at Psalm 22 we find the very words that
Mark and Matthew ascribe to Jesus on the cross, and the very actions of his executioners:
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
…a band of evil men has encircled me,
they
have pierced my hands and feet
…They
divide my garments among them
and
cast lots for my clothing.”
Psalm
22: (1-18)
Does this psalm truly predict the fate of
Although the Psalms appear to be basically one long exercise in
inveigling God, there is some beauty:
“By the rivers of
when we remembered
There
on the poplars
we hung our harps …
And the usual Old Testament revenge, blood, guts and hate:
“O Daughter of
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us –
he
who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.”
(Psalm 137: 8-9)
A good one for the kiddies at Sunday School perhaps?
And now for some wisdom?
PROVERBS
There is wisdom in the maxims that make up Proverbs:
“Happy are those who find wisdom,
And
those who get understanding,
For
her income is better than silver,
And
her revenue is better than gold.” (3:13-14)
If we followed the wise maxims of
“Make no friends with those given to anger,
And
do not associate with hotheads,
Or you may
learn their ways
And entangle
yourself in a snare.” (22:24-25)
But you still have to sort the oats from the goats as to what is wise
and what is the usual proselytising through fear. Fear is even lauded as the
beginning of knowledge and wisdom:
“The fear of
the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (1:7)
In my experience, the funk that fear produces is generally the end of
knowledge and wisdom. Fear of a brutal god is why fundamentalists believe in
Adam and Eve; that the world is only 6000 years old; in Noah and his impossible
ECCLESIASTES
Ancient existentialism – meaninglessness rules OK? :
“ ‘Meaningless! Meaningless!’
says
the Teacher.
‘
Utterly meaningless!
Everything
is meaningless.’ ” (1:2)
But wait, there is more – wisdom is meaningless, pleasure is
meaningless, toil is meaningless, the bad sometimes prosper and the good
sometimes suffer. Any good aspect of life – such as wealth, position,
professional success, and pleasure – are futile because we must die in the end.
I guess we all have days like that, but luckily very few of us get into
print.
The author of Ecclesiastes finds meaning in fearing his primitive god:
“Life has no
meaning but to Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty
of man.” (12:13-14)
Capital “F” Fear of God – sort of sums up the Old Testament.
But Ecclesiastes manages to find some beautiful words about the human
condition – words which still strike a chord with us today :
There is a time for everything,
and
a season for every activity under heaven:
a
time to be born and a time to die,
a
time to plant and a time to uproot,
a
time to kill and a time to heal,
a
time to tear down and a time to build,
a
time to weep and a time to laugh …
(3:1-4)
Turn, turn, turn.
SONG OF SONGS
We now get pop songs about love and sex :
“Awake, north
wind,
and
come, south wind!
Blow
on my garden,
that
its fragrance may spread abroad.
Let
my lover come into this garden
And
taste its choice fruits.
(4:16)
Now we come to the prophets.
The Prophets of the Old Testament were people supposedly favoured by God
to receive revelations, visions, even his very word. What “T” Truths do the
prophets hold for us – what evidence for us to consider concerning the
existence of a “G” God, and what information about “His” nature?
ISAIAH
Apparently God is sexist:
“The Lord will
wash away the filth of the women of
And:
“The Lord said:
Because the
daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks glancing
wantonly with their eyes, mincing along as they go, tinkling with their feet;
the Lord will afflict with scabs the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the
Lord will lay bare their secret parts.”
(3-16,17)
How could this sexism be the word of God, or inspired by God? What sort
of person could write this, and what sort could believe it to be the word of
God?
Apologists would say that this isn’t sexist – just the product of a patriarchal
society and the general culture of the
Isaiah was writing at a time of great instability in the Promised Land.
The Assyrians, Egyptians, and Babylonians dominated the region –
When the neighbours definitively demonstrated their superiority by
sacking
Isaiah spends many verses describing how
“For the Lord will comfort
he
will comfort all her waste places,
and will
make her wilderness like
her desert like the garden of the
Lord…” (51:3)
“Put on your
beautiful garments,
O Jerusalem, the holy city;
for the
uncircumcised and the unclean
shall enter you no more.” (52:1)
Isaiah was astray, deserts stay deserts, and the uncircumcised were to
enter and despoil
But I love this lovely vision:
“The
the
leopard shall lie down with the
kid,
the
calf and the lion and the fatling
together,
and a little child shall lead them.” (11:6)
Bring it on. I’d love to be able to pat a leopard, they are so beautiful.
Jeremiah is a prophet who hears the “word of the Lord” and prophesises it
long and loud to the people of
“I myself will
fight against you with outstretched hand and mighty arm, in anger, in fury, and
mighty wrath.” (21:5)
This is
Yahweh was also capricious – after using
HISTORY VS MYTH
That
Is
Jeremiah was good at prophesising in the clear and present danger the
Jews were in, but not so good at the future.
“The days are
surely coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous
Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice
and righteousness in the land. In his days
Some see this as a reference to Jesus (it was one of the reasons some of
the Gospels tried to trace Jesus to David) but the prophecy was wrong – what
was actually “surely coming” to the “righteous Branch” after release from
Babylon was ever-present domination by the Persians, Assyrians, Egyptians, and the
eventual conquest by the Greeks of Alexander, then the Romans. Further into the
future was a Diaspora and centuries, millennia even, of persecution – humiliation
after humiliation for the Chosen of Yahweh – how many times did Yahweh have to
teach his poor people a lesson?
LAMENTATIONS
Well named. This is a description of
It is grim stuff, ending with a sad little prayer to their god for
restoration.
“Why have you forgotten us completely?
Why have you forsaken us these many days?
Restore
us to yourself, O Lord, that we may be restored;
renew our days of old –
unless
you have utterly rejected us,
and are angry with us beyond measure.”
(5:20-22)
Your heart goes out to them, how could you not have pity on these
people? If I was their omnipotent god, I would have restored them.
All up, it didn’t seem to ultimately do the Hebrew tribes much good
being Yahweh’s chosen people. While the Old Testament told us earlier that Yahweh
did aid his people in the slaughter of the innocents who originally occupied
the land of milk and honey – man, woman, child, and donkey – he couldn’t protect
them when they came up against real opposition like the Assyrians, Babylonians,
Persians, Greeks, and Romans. The priests of Yahweh, of course, insisted that
it was more a case of “wouldn’t”, rather than “couldn’t – and even had visions
of how you could be, at one and the same time, at the mercy and whim of your
neighbours but still retain your superior status as the chosen people of the
one, true God.
The rationale for this is laid out in Ezekiel:
EZEKIEL
It was easy to be a prophet in the pre-scientific days of yore – all it
took was the claim of a “revelation” – a personal visit from God. Such
revelations usually came at a time of crisis. In Ezekiel’s case he was suffering
the twin crises of personal exile and his peoples’ loss of faith in Yahweh (and,
most likely, their loss of faith in himself – a priest of that god). To me it
appears that Ezekiel had something of a nervous breakdown – the Old Testament
says he exhibited strange behaviours – lying on one side for 390 days and then
the other for 40; he was struck dumb; he walked around Tel Aviv (Babylon) with
packed bags – and he was hit by what seems to be acute anxiety – in the
described trembling, and restlessness.
Nervous breakdown or not, Ezekiel was suddenly hit by existential
angst –thoughts that maybe his god was impotent rather than omnipotent, maybe the
Jewish god had abandoned his people – or worse: maybe God didn’t exist; maybe
life had no special meaning – must have flashed through his head? Whatever
happened with Ezekiel, definitely the Jewish people had suffered a huge blow to
their status as chosen people of the one true God, and you could be sure that
Ezekiel would have lost status in the eyes of the people – now a priest of a
failed god – maybe a fake? Maybe the people of
Ezekiel began to report elaborate and bizarre visions and messages sent
to him by his god – these took all the heat off Yahweh and put the blame of
defeat onto those who had not worshipped Yahweh properly, and/or who had turned
to the gods of their more successful neighbours.
“Therefore thus
says the Lord God: Because you are more turbulent than the nations that are all
around you, and have not followed my statutes and kept my ordinances, but have
acted according to the ordinances of the nations that are all around you;
therefore thus says the Lord God: I, I myself am coming against you; I will
execute judgements among you in the sight of the nations. And because of your
abominations, I will do to you what I have never yet done, and the like of
which I will never do again. Surely, parents shall eat their children in your
midst, and children shall eat your parents; I will execute judgements on you,
and any who survive I will scatter to every wind. “ (5:7-10)
Nothing like a good bracing dose of the fear of a brutal god to keep the
flock in line! The leaders of the House of God today are still using these
tactics to retain their power, just as Ezekiel did. But, again, for the
purposes of our examination of the foundations of the House of God, is this god
– “G” God – are these “His” words, or just Ezekiel’s “g” god and his own words?
Ezekiel tried to restore the status of his people through his visions, even
though, as captives, they were the bottom of the heap in
“The first
circle surrounding the city was the home of the king and priests, the sacred
personnel. The next zone, for the tribes of
“The
Great Transformation”, (Pp175-6)
There has never been a more persecuted people than the Jews. Is it
anti-Semitic to imagine that quite some of the hatred directed at them over the
years has been as a result of their unilateral declaration of superiority and primacy
in the eyes of God – and their insistence of separation from the “unclean”,
non-chosen goyim? I know I was offended when I first encountered it. The Jewish,
Old Testament doctrines of separation and favour in the eyes of God were
softened later during the Rabbinic period of their religion and under Talmudic
teachings – which stressed more the unity of humanity and that you did not
worship God properly unless you practised the Golden Rule to everybody and
honoured your fellow humans, whoever they were.
The Book of Job, with its lesson of the temptation of a good man to test
his faith, was most likely written during the Babylonian captivity. The Old
Testament was not set in cement as the word of God yet and some Biblical
scholars have traced Leviticus and Numbers – with their interminable accounts
of convoluted dietary requirements and bloody sacrifices – to the captivity in
Babylon, as well as the re-writing and editing of a great deal of the Old
Testament.
But, however they managed
to keep themselves superior in defeat, there still boiled within their breasts
thoughts of good old revenge – the previously quoted Psalm 137:8-9 (“Happy shall they be who take your little
ones and dash them against the rock!”) – being a good example. Good ol’
Yahweh, you’ve just got to love that god, haven’t you?
And, to top it off, some more sexist ravings. Ezekiel quoting the very
words of God:
“Again the word
of the Lord came to me: ‘Son of man, when the people of
Are those the words of your God?
DANIEL
Daniel offers more of the same. The mighty Yahweh has only allowed his
people to be beaten in order to teach them a lesson:
“All
In the Book of Daniel we get stories of surviving fiery furnaces and
lion’s dens. We also get a story that tries to cover up the priests’
embarrassment of being recued by goyim, non-followers of Yahweh. Their angle is
that it was not the Zoroastrian Persians who rescued the Israelites, but it was
actually Yahweh who made it happen – he “gave” the Babylonians unto the Medes
and Persians:
“God has
numbered the days of your kingdom [Babylonian] and brought it to an end…your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes
and Persians.” (5:26 & 28)
Daniel also prophesises an end of times scenario – the beginnings of the
“Rapture” dreams much beloved of fundamentalists to this day:
“There shall be
a time of anguish, such has never occurred since nations first came into
existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is
found written in the book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth
shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting
contempt.” (12:1-2)
A great example of religions’ carrot and stick method – what’s it to be
guys – everlasting life or everlasting shame and contempt – the carrot or the
stick? Am I too cynical in saying that this seems a contrivance of the priests
to retain their status and their power over the people – even though they are
the officers of a beaten god?
Or is this the Truth – the word of God? It’s your free choice – and,
like all your choices, it will define you – rather than God.
HOSEA
It is interesting to list some of the chapter headings of Hosea in my
copy of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. They pretty much summarise the
message of all the prophets:
2:
4: God
Accuses
5: Impending
Judgement on
6: A Call to
Repentance
8:
9: Punishment
for
10:
11: God’s Compassion Despite Israel’s Ingratitude
13: Relentless Judgement on
14: A Plea for Repentance
Same, same – same old carrot:
“I will love
them freely, for my anger has turned from them. I will be like the dew to
– same old stick:
“
Hear the word of the Lord?
MORE PROPHETS OF DOOM
The remaining prophets are: Joel; Amos; Obadiah; Jonah (and the whale);
Micah; Nahum; Habakkuk; Zephaniah; Haggai; Zechariah.
These prophets were largely a gloomy lot – writing in times of great
insecurity and hardship following defeat, destruction of their god’s
Freedom and revenge over their enemies awaits – but only if they return
to their god and devote themselves properly to their still-existing special
covenant with him. The prophets that the priests selected to be included in the
“S” Scriptures were those who had the most florid tales of the wrath of their brutal
god and how it will be unleashed on enemies and unfaithful, alike.
A STRAYING FLOCK IS BAD FOR BUSINESS
The straying of the flock is the worst thing that can happen to the
business that is religion – a business that depends entirely on the power which
resides within the hearts and minds of men. The executives of that business,
the church officers – many of them prophets – have the greatest vested interest.
Religions may start with some inspiration and/or revelation, but usually devolve
into a story of the struggle of the vested interest of the priest classes to
maintain their personal power, status and prestige – based on their knowledge
of, and influence over, a god. The history of the Judeo-Christian religion is no
different.
We will see soon what happened when Jesus stepped onto the scene of this
perpetual power struggle.
The last Book in the Protestant version of the Bible is more of the same:
MALACHI
Quoting the Lord Almighty :
“ ‘Surely the
day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer
will be stubble, and that day that is coming which will set them on fire,’ says
the Lord Almighty. ‘Not a root or branch will be left to them. But for you who
revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing on its wings.
And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall. Then you will
trample down the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the
day when I do these things,’ says the Lord Almighty.” (4:1-3)
And so here endeth the lesson – carrot and stick to the end – Yahweh will
eventually be triumphant and his chosen people leaping like released calves.
But the Old Testament only halts here for some – others believe God
wrote more yet.
THE APOCRYPHAL/DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS
These books number 18 in total – from Tobit, to 4 Maccabees – none of
which are recognised as the word of God by Protestants. The 12 Books from Tobit
to 2 Maccabees are included in Roman Catholic, Greek and Russian Orthodox
Bibles. The 4 Books from 1 Esdras to 3 Maccabees are included in the Greek and
Russian Orthodox Bibles (and in the appendix to the Latin Vulgate). 2 Esdras is
included only in the Slavonic Bible (and the Vulgate appendix). 4 Maccabees
only appears in the appendix to the Greek Bible. So those who agree that God
wrote the Bible disagree over how much of it God actually wrote!
I’m technically a Protestant so I can dodge reading the Apocrypha. Phew!
But wait – there’s more!
THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
What Christians call the Old Testament represents the accepted scriptures
of the Jewish religion – the Hebrew canon – writings recognised as
authoritative and divinely inspired. This from
”Before the
canons were finalised, several of the works in The Lost Bible would probably have been widely accepted as authoritative
... With the closing of the canons, other writings inevitably became “lost”
from the Bibles of Judaism and the mainstream Church.”
“The Lost Bible”,
These writings include:
This same selection process happened, as we shall see, in the
compilation of the New Testament too. The point here, for our examination of
the Bible – the foundations of the House of God – is that man not only wrote
the Old Testament, but selected it as well – from a considerable body of
“inspired” writings. We are being asked to believe that the selection process
was inspired as well.
CONCLUSION: THE OLD TESTAMENT
Is there anything in our
examination of the Old Testament so far that would enable us to hold the Bible as
a special “B” Book – inspired and/or written by God – the “T” Truth? Do the
claims made for the Bible stand up, specifically:
1.) Is the Old Testament the
word of “G” God;
2.) Is the god of the Old
Testament the one true “G” God?
1.)
IS THE OLD TESTAMENT THE WORD OF GOD?
Well, let’s see, would an omniscient,
infallible God write incorrect science, fictitious history, and inveigling
praise and worship to himself?
INCORRECT SCIENCE
The Bible contains cosmology and biology. According to the Old Testament
everything was supposedly created by God in 6 days. On the first day God
created: the heavens and the earth; on the second day: the sky; on the third
day: dry land and vegetation; on the fourth day: light in the sky and the
seasons; on the fifth day: the fish in the seas and the birds of the skies; on
the sixth day: all the creatures of the land – including humankind, man and
woman, in his own image – and he gave humanity dominion over all the other
creatures; on the seventh day this god rested, admiring what he had brought
into being. This is the first version, the Bible moves into a second
contradictory version which gives women an inferior position as a “helper” to
man (made from a rib of the first man).
Is this the infallible word of an omniscient “G” God or the attempt of
an ancient, pre-scientific people to explain how the world came to exist?
Taking the last point first: why would God write two contradictory versions
of “the beginning” – the second putting women in an inferior place? We are on
the first page of the Bible and it is already looking suspiciously like the
word of patriarchal man – rather than any God. But the main point to be
considered is: modern science has proven the Bible’s cosmology and biology to
be wrong – beyond reasonable doubt. We know science in the shape of physics, astronomy,
cosmology, geology, and biology have discovered the “T” Truths of our physical
world because we use them successfully every day – even fundamentalists and
evangelicals. (If we think about it, mathematics is more truly the word of God because
it is the language in which the universe was written – and, that the universe is
written in a language which allows an understanding of it by us speaks more
eloquently of the existence of a “G” God than the incorrect imaginings of
pre-scientific, semi-nomadic tribes). I will examine such mysteries of humanity
in Essay 3 – here it is enough to observe that if the Old Testament contains
incorrect cosmology and biology, it cannot be the word of anyone who is
omniscient, infallible, or in any way “G” Godlike.
INCORRECT HISTORY
Jewish archaeologists have found Old Testament history to be largely
inaccurate. Israel Finkelstein (director of the Nadler Institute of Archaeology
at Tel Aviv University) and Neil Asher Silberman (director of historical
interpretation for the Ename Centre of Public Archaeology in Belgium and writer
of several books, including : “Christianity,
Judaism, and the War for the Dead Sea Scrolls” and: “Digging for God and Country”) have this to say about recent
archaeology conducted by them in the holy lands:
“Its finds have revolutionised the study of early
- Finkelstein and
Silberman, (“The Bible Unearthed”. P.3)
“The familiar
stories about David and Solomon, based on a few early folk traditions, are the
result of extensive reworking and editorial expansion during the four centuries
that followed David and Solomon’s reigns…they contain little reliable history.”
- Finkelstein
and Silberman, (ibid. P.17)
And this:
“Much of what
is commonly taken for granted as accurate history – the stories of the
patriarchs, the Exodus, the conquest of Canaan, and even the saga of the
glorious united monarchy of David and Solomon – are, rather, the creative
expressions of a powerful religious reform movement that flourished in the
kingdom of Judah in the Late Iron Age.”
-
Finkelstein & Silberman (ibid. P.
23)
Other Jewish archaeologists agree – Z’ev Herzog, professor of
archaeology in Tel Aviv, has this to say on the matter:
“…key parts of
the Bible – the foundation stone of Western civilisation – the underpinnings of
today’s Israeli state – are, in historical terms , bunk.”
- Quoted in The Spectator,
November,1999.
The Spectator summarises Herzog thus: “David and Solomon [were] ‘at most’ the leaders of a small tribal
fiefdom, and [Herzog] claims that the Jews did not embrace monotheism with
Moses on Mt. Sinai” – an episode he says probably never happened – “but did so,
hundreds of years later, when their monarchy was in decline.”
Old Testament history had very human, religious and political agenda
when it was written. It does not resemble a “D” Divine record of Truths in any
way – its purpose seemingly to serve as the title deeds to the
INVEIGLING SONGS, POEMS,
As well as incorrect science and untrue history, the Old Testament
contains inveigling songs, poems and prayers. Some of them are beautiful and
moving, and sometimes they are spiritual, but most often they are Darwinian –
having power and survival as their motive. Power over a needy and jealous deity
through meeting these needs and jealousies – survival day-to-day and into
eternity – all achievable by giving him praise, worship, and sacrifice. Would
God write these poems to himself? No, obviously they are the work of men trying
to ingratiate themselves to a god.
So, to answer the first question, is the Old Testament the word of God?
For me it is beyond reasonable doubt the work of man. Is it inspired by God? I
can only say, not any agency I could call “G” God.
2.) IS THE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT THE
In the Old Testament the god presented to us, Yahweh, was a god made in
man’s image: male and sexist. This god was not only a man, but a poor type of
man – savage: approving the ethnic cleansing of man, woman, child, and donkey; callous:
approving not only slavery, but treating slaves as if they were cattle; vicious:
approving the stoning of rebellious sons; cantankerous: quick to anger and slow
to forgive; parochial: having one chosen people; capricious: helping the enemy
to beat his own, then crushing that enemy; vindictive: allowing the enslavement
of his own chosen people; jealous: of the gods of the neighbouring people. So,
have we found “G” God in the Old Testament?
Where is the god of love? There is one, but you would need a strong
torch and a cut lunch to find him – and, if found, there is often a spike in
his tail:
“a God…abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
keeping
steadfast love for the thousandth generation,
forgiving
iniquity and transgression and sin,
yet
by no means clearing the guilty,
but
visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children
and
the children’s children,
to
the third and fourth generation.”
Exodus
(34:6, 7).
In other words, god loves you – but stuff up and he knows where you
live, and where your kids (and their kids, and their kids) go to school! Finding
God must always be a personal quest but, for me, so far in the Bible we have
only found a very human “g” god – one not only made in human image, but the
very worst sort of human. Yahweh was a hard and brutal god – of a hard land, in
a brutal time.
DID THE OLD TESTAMENT AUTHORS CLAIM TO BE WRITING DOWN GOD’S WORD?
What was the motivation for writing the Old Testament, what did the
original authors of the Old Testament think they were doing? Did they think
they were taking down the word of God – or was this a claim made later by
others?
As we have seen, the Old Testament is firstly one people’s story of the
creation of the world and of that people’s special place in it. Then it is a story
of their struggle to survive in a hostile world full of enemies – mainly
through trying to control their tribes’ god. Nowhere is there a claim by its authors
that they were writing the word of God. Nor was it treated as such – there were
some written texts of the Torah (like Deuteronomy) but it was a long time
before they became “S” Scripture. Subject to constant discussion and change, it
was carried firstly for many years in the oral tradition before it was written
down and assembled as Scripture.
”Although these
texts were revered, they had not yet become ‘scripture’. People felt free to
alter older writings and there was no canon of prescribed sacred books.”
-
“On the Bible”,
WHO WROTE THE OLD TESTAMENT?
Several people were
involved, it has many writing styles – obviously the compilation of the
writings of many men (none by woman – quickly apparent from reading it) made
over a long period of time. A compilation that, according to the Oxford History of the Bible, “somehow came to be regarded as
scripture.” Biblical scholars have defined much dynamism, much changing, much
embellishment and editing in the Old Testament:
“Israelites
developed their saga, changed it, embroidered it, added to it, reinterpreted
it, and made it speak to the particular circumstances of the time…During the
fifth and fourth centuries [B.C.] the
Bible was compiled by editors.”
The Great
Transformation,
The Old Testament scriptures did not descend from the heavens on the
wings of a snow-white dove but were written by man, constantly changed to suit
WAS THE JEWISH GOD A FAILURE?
The Jewish tribes have contributed to humanity scientists, musicians,
artists, educators, doctors, and other talented people over the centuries – out
of proportion to their numbers – but the god that their pre-scientific
ancestors created for them was a failure. In all of history, there has never
been a more persecuted people than the Jews – enslaved by the Egyptians,
dominated by the Assyrians, defeated and packed off into exile by the
Babylonians, rescued only by the intervention of the “goyim” Persians,
subjugated by
After all that, outside “the land of milk and honey” the Jews suffered
numerous more persecutions and pogroms over the centuries in the various
countries into which they had settled – culminating in the Nazi Holocaust – surely
the most heinous crime ever inflicted on any people. Through all this, the officers
of the Jewish religion maintained that their god was the “one true God” and
only allowed these terrible things to happen to his chosen people because they didn’t
get their religion right – the only reason possible because the Jewish god was
omnipotent. Their special covenant with their god had been broken by the people
not following the numerous Torah laws properly, or worse, they had strayed to
the more powerful gods of their more successful neighbours. In this way, the priests
and rabbis kept their jobs and status, and the people took all the blame – and
in this way, guilt became an integral part of the Jewish condition. The Jewish
god, Yahweh, is also the god of the Christian House of God, and guilt and sin
have also been expertly used by the officers of that religion to keep their
flock under control.
FINDING A
Have we proven or disproven the existence of a real God after reading
the Old Testament? I believe we have only found a “g” god – but I also believe
that this fact has not disproven the existence of any real “G” God. But if we are
going to rationally believe in a God we need to find a more likely to be Divine
one so that we won’t have an “Ezekiel Moment” – one where our beliefs and bearings
are suddenly lost when we are thrust up against reality by a crisis.
We have quite a bit more of our examination of the Christian Bible to go
yet, let’s see if we can still find a credible God in the book which forms the
foundations of the House of God? A God we can rationally believe in, one that
doesn’t need blind faith, one that rings with our soul and brain – the
two factors in the human equation.
Our examination of the House of God now comes to the New Testament. Many
modern Christians say that the ancient scriptures were just metaphors and
analogies for deeper Truths – to be revealed in
“Seek and ye shall find” – let’s
seek and see what we shall find?
*********************************
THE NEW TESTAMENT
Jesus was either illiterate, chose not to write, or none of his writings
survive. Because of this we have to rely on the memory and honesty of others to
know the “T” Truth of Jesus. “Memory” because the Gospels claiming to tell of Jesus’
words and deeds were carried for many years in the oral tradition before being
written down by people who hadn’t met him. “Honesty” because when they were finally written down between 40-90 years
after Jesus’ death (between the oldest and most recent Gospels) there were competing
factions among the followers of Jesus – each with different ideas about him –
most of whom wrote or sponsored the writing of a gospel.
MORE
There were more than four gospels written about
NOBODY KNOWS WHO WROTE THE ACCEPTED GOSPELS
Although all the accepted Gospels have names, nobody actually knows who
really wrote them. This from the Jesus Seminar – a group of leading Bible
scholars dedicated to finding the Truth about Jesus:
“All the
gospels originally circulated anonymously. Authoritative names were later
assigned to them by unknown figures in the early church. In most cases, the
names are guesses or perhaps the result of pious wishes.”
(The Five Gospels – The search for the authentic
words of
Fundamentalists and Evangelicals like to believe that they were written
by Jesus’ disciples – absolute “apostolic authority” – but what had apostolic
authority was solely on the say-so of the early Church fathers – and others who
might have a vested interest in the creation of a settled House of God (like
Emperor Constantine). Ever since Jesus’ words passed out of the verbal
tradition and into writing there was, much dispute about what he truly said (like
the Marcion, Arian and Gnostic controversies), and the Bible was only settled after:
“doctrinal
disagreement” [about] “which text was
ancient and authoritative, how it was to be interpreted, and which expressions
of belief were ‘in harmony’ with particular apostolic writings, were intimately
bound together, and, inevitably, were entangled with power politics among
Christian bishops and their royal patrons.”
Margaret Davies (in “The
THE NEW TESTAMENT IS THE ONLY SUBSTANTIAL RECORD WE HAVE
But because Jesus made only a blip on the radar of secular history (just
a few lines by the Roman historian Tacitus, and a few by the Jewish historian
Josephus) the New Testament forms the only significant source material we have for
the words and deeds of the man called Jesus of Nazareth – arguably the most
influential person in human history. Therefore, to get closer to this important
man – and any “T” Truths about the meaning of life and/or about any “D” Divine he
might have had for us – we have to examine the New Testament.
Firstly the Gospels. The dates I use are those agreed to by the majority
of independent (i.e. not proselytising for a religion) biblical scholars:
Although the Gospel of Matthew is the first Gospel to appear in the New
Testament it was not the first written. According to consensus biblical
scholarship, the Gospel of Matthew was written about 15 years after
Matthew begins with a table of Jesus’ descent through 42 generations
from Abraham to his father Joseph – which list of ancestors is different to the
table of descent listed in the third Gospel (Luke 3:23-38). So from the very beginning
we have disagreement between the Gospels – and we ask ourselves for the first
time how this can happen if both are “the word of God”? But an even more
bothersome question here is: why is
Page one, and the New Testament of the Bible – the definitive word of
God – has contradicted itself twice?
LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR MESSIAH DOCTRINE?
To understand why Matthew may have concocted Jesus’ ancestors in this
way, we have to consider the fact that to have any chance of recruiting the
Jewish people to the Jesus movement after Jesus’ execution, Jesus had to be firmly
located within (authorised by) the Jewish Scriptures – preferably as the
Messiah – the long-awaited champion of the Jews who was going to lead them in conquering
their enemies. To do this,
WHERE WAS
Another fact essential for Jesus to be accepted as the Jewish Messiah
was that he had to be born in Bethlehem according to the Jewish Scriptures
(Micah 5:2). But
Maybe the reason the Gospel of Matthew was written was to tie
OUT OF
Again, it is fairly obvious that
Deeper into his gospel, in another attempt to fulfil Old Testament
Messianic prophecy, Matthew (following Mark this time) recounts the story of
Jesus riding into Jerusalem on an ass. As Matthew tells the story, Jesus (being
aware of this prophecy) simply fulfilled it by following it:
“Jesus sent two
disciples, saying to them, ‘Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you
will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them
to me’…This took place to fulfil what was spoken through the prophet: ‘See,
your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a
donkey’.” (Matthew 21:2-5)
Matthew’s reference to Jesus as the “king” also comes from Jewish
Scripture (Zechariah, 9:9). According to Matthew, the crowds in
DID
Although
“ ‘You must not
think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring
peace but a sword. After all I have come to pit a man against his father, a
daughter against her mother … a person’s enemies are members of the same
household.’ ” (
These militant, unforgiving words that
ONLY SENT FOR THE JEWS?
Was this, again, embellishment to proselytise
“Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ Or ‘What will we
drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these
things...” (6:31-32).
And, to a Gentile woman who had asked
“I was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of
“It is not fair
to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
(15:26)
Did Jesus really think he was only here for his fellow Jews, and that Gentiles
were the equivalent of “dogs”? Either Matthew is making this up, or Jesus is
not the man the Gentile Christian Church fathers wished he was? Either way, the
Bible is not good foundational material for the Gentile Christian House of God.
“ ‘Do not
suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I did not come to
abolish but to complete’ ” (5:17)
Biblical scholar Barrie Wilson (Professor of Humanities and Religious
Studies,
“This is a
crucial passage for understanding Matthew’s Jesus [who] did not believe in the abolition of Torah.
This passage was aimed squarely at the heart of Paul’s teaching, which had
denied the validity of Jewish law”.
The Gospel of Matthew (like all the Gospels), whilst appearing in the
Bible before
Anyhow, for whatever reason,
“‘if he sneers at him [his brother] he will have to answer for it in the fires
of hell’ ” (5:22).
And :
“ ‘If a man
looks at a woman with a lustful eye, he has already committed adultery with her
in his heart’ ”(5:28)
Are these the real words of Jesus – a man who did not shun prostitutes
and who, in another Gospel, tells the bandit hanging on a cross beside him at
WHOLE TOWNS CAST INTO HELL
Not only does
“ ‘on the day
of judgement it will be more bearable for the
BUT A GLIMPSE OF A NEW, RADICAL MESSAGE
And yet, and yet – within all Matthew’s Old Testament hell and
damnation, amongst all the rabid proselytizing – we are allowed sometimes a
glimpse of a new radical message, a message that swims against the usual Old Testament
current – a voice that is not only radical but distinct, unique and daring. A
voice with a new understanding of what it could mean to be human – ideas that
challenge us to defy the old, vicious teachings of the Scriptures:
“ You have
heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and, tooth for tooth’ [Exodus 21:24
& Lev. 24:20 & Deut. 19:21]. But
I tell you, ‘Do not set yourself against the man who wrongs you. If a man slaps
you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left.” (Matthew 5:39).
And again:
“You have
heard it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy’. But I tell you: Love
your enemies and pray for your persecutors … your heavenly Father who makes his
sun rise on good and bad alike, and sends the rain on the honest and the
dishonest. If you love only those who love you what reward can you expect?…if
you greet only your brothers what is there extraordinary about that?’ ”
(5:44-48)
Surely, some of the greatest words in the Bible?
A RAISING OF CONSCIOUSNESS?
Here, Matthew’s Jesus, instead of trying to proselytise people through the
fear of the violence of the Old Testament god, switches to an appeal for
consciousness raising – appealing to people to raise above Darwinian, genetic
self-interest (“...if you great only your brothers what is extraordinary about
that?”) towards universal love for all (“...love your enemies and pray for your
persecutors”) – away from altruism just for your kin and group towards universal
altruism:
“In everything
do to others as you would have them do to you...” (7:12)
NEW IDEAS
Now these are ideas new to this part of the world – ideas more likely to
be
“You have heard
it said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not
resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the
other also.” (5:38)
And:
“You have heard
that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I
say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (5:43)
To contradict the Scriptures was a serious offence, and would have been
one of the main reasons why he was killed by those whose power and status lay
in its authority – its officers, the high priests.
But, all up, Matthew leaves us confused about the real Jesus – is he an
unforgiving Old Testament warrior, come with a sword to set families against
themselves and damn whole villages to hell for not listening to his disciples –
or is the real Jesus radically preaching with a new voice which not only advocates
forgiving – but loving – our enemies? “Confused” because before we hear the
above new voice of love, forgiveness, and doing unto others –
THE OLD CARROT
This is, of course, the old carrot and stick method so beloved of the
all-too-human officers of all Houses of God – dangle the carrot of God’s love,
but wield the stick of God’s anger. If Jesus’ true message, his light in a dark
age, was about loving, forgiving,
and doing – unto all, not just your family and group members – it gets hidden
under a bushel of same old, same old.
THE
So, who was the real
MORE DISAGREEMENTS WITHIN THE WORD OF GOD
On matters of less consequence
And either
“ ‘Jonah was in
the sea-monster’s belly for three days and three nights, and in the same way
the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the bowels of the
earth.’ ” (12:40).
Every account of Jesus’ burial (even Matthew’s) has Jesus 2 nights in
“the bowels of the earth” (we won’t quibble about the three days because he was
interred for parts of three). Only small, but another point of fact – if
And there are some mysterious bits which intrigue?
“ ‘Ever since
the coming of
Violent men taking over heaven? How did they get in to Heaven when
entire towns and cities are being thrown into hell just for not listening to
disciples? Maybe this is a shot at
GOD’S WORD IS WRONG?
In
“ ‘I tell you
this; there are some standing here who will not taste death before they have
seen the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.’
” (16:28)
And:
“ ‘I tell you
this; the present generation will live to see it all.’ ” (24:34)
We find this mistake throughout the Gospels – a “mistake” because this
predicted event of the coming of God has obviously not taken place. Any mistake
in the Bible, whether truly said by
THE IMMINENT COMING OF GOD WAS A GOOD SELLING POINT
But, you can see why the Gospels stressed the imminent coming of God –
the eternal life in paradise for believers it was to usher in, was a popular selling
point, which enabled the new Christian religion to eventually dominate the
Mediterranean world and beyond.
STRANGE
“Next morning
on his way to the city he felt hungry; and seeing a fig tree at the roadside he
went up to it, but found nothing on it but leaves. He said to the tree, ‘You
shall never bear fruit any more!’; and the tree withered away at once.”
(21:18-20).
Would the loving Jesus that we are allowed to we meet in other places
make one of his last acts on Earth a wilful act against an innocent tree – an
act more akin to the petulance of the son of Zeus rather than the son of God?
ANOTHER RADICAL IDEA
And yet, shortly after that act of great petulance and ignorance, we
have great understanding, compassion and wisdom:
“Inasmuch as ye
have done it unto one of the least of these my bretheren, ye have done it unto
me. (25:40 – King James Version).
In this last passage,
THE JUDGEMENT OF JESUS
In the scenes of Jesus’ trial before Pontius Pilate, Matthew has the
crowd call for Jesus’ execution. Pilate could find no case against Jesus, but after
washing his hands of the matter, he hands Jesus over to avoid trouble. Matthew
then has the crowd say:
“Then the
people as a whole answered, ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’ “
(27:25)
This is a very anti-Semitic piece of writing – one that has been at the
root of much Christian persecution of the Jews over the centuries. Did Matthew
really write this? Matthew is of the Jewish “Jesus Movement” faction, rather
than Paul’s more Gentile-oriented “Christ Movement” – he is not likely to
condemn his own people? Maybe this an addition, an example of later religious
editing of the “word of God” by non-Jewish anti-Semites?
Again, the Bible is not looking like the word of any “G” God?
THE DEATH OF JESUS
In his Passion narrative, Matthew has a unique and amazing story of
premature bodily resurrection for some – a startling event not recounted in the
other Gospels:
“There was an
earthquake, the rocks split and the graves opened, and many people arose from
sleep; and coming out of their graves after his resurrection they entered the
Hardly a small, inconsequential happening! I should think it would have been
sufficient to convert
Matthew’s accounts of the important happenings at
THE TRUTH?
So, how are we to know what actually happened – the “T” Truth? The New
Testament so far is contradictory, inconsistent – hardly what you would expect
of the inerrant word of God. This confusion in the Bible of the new and old
messages is what has enabled Christianity to find authority for anything –
slaughtering entire cities (Crusades), burning people at the stake,
Inquisitions, interdenominational wars etc., etc.
The New Testament, so far, looks more like the very human, errant word
of man and, once again, we have to decide which parts are true – for our selves
– the entirety, being contradictory, cannot be the “T” Truth. With its
contradictions, confusions and hidden agendas the New Testament creates questions,
rather than answers them. The officers of the House of God have ready answers for
the mistakes and contradictions in the Bible, but these have tended, over the
centuries, to have been dictated by theological colleges – who have a vested
interest in maintaining the power of the church and/or denomination which owns
them. They are interested in protecting the “t” truths which underwrite their
religion’s status and control of the population – rather than searching for “T”
Truth. If it is Truth you want, then you must search for it yourself. And for
your self – as with our examination of the Old Testament, the
But has the hint of a special man, in
MARK (Circa 70 A.D.)
Mark’s story opens with quotations from the Old Testament figures
Malachi and Isaiah, implying that these Old Testament prophets were foretelling
Jesus – “the Lord” – and/or foretelling John the Baptist, who was to prepare “in
the wilderness” for the coming of God:
“See, I am
sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek
will suddenly come to his temple.” (Malachi 3:1)
“In the wilderness prepare the way of
the Lord…
Then
the glory of the Lord shall be revealed,
And
all people shall see it together.” (Isaiah
40:3 & 5)
But Malachi’s Biblical god did not suddenly “come to his temple” – instead
it was torn down – and Isaiah’s “glory of the Lord” remains to be revealed “for
all people” to see. Both Old Testament prophets go on from the passages quoted to
instil the usual dose of fear into their restive flocks – and to blame them for
their present troubles and God’s non-appearance so far. This is the usual trick
of the officers of the House of God – blaming the congregation for the non-delivery
of prophecies – rather than admitting the officers (and/or their Book) got it
wrong.
AUTHORISING
This opening of
Mark quickly moves on to the story of Jesus’ baptism – the heavens
tearing apart, the white dove descending, God declaring Jesus his son with whom
he was well-pleased. Then Mark tells of the forty days temptation by Satan in
the wilderness. But
“In those days
Jesus came from
NO ATTEMPT TO AUTHORISE LATER DOCTRINE
Nor does
TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE TO COMPETE WITH ROMAN & GREEK GODS
Trinitarian doctrine seems to have occurred later as
DIFFERENT FACTS
If God wrote, or inspired, the Bible you could expect the Gospels to
agree on facts – after all, “He” wrote the other Gospels as well?
THE IMMINENT COMING OF GOD?
But all three Gospellers do agree on Jesus’ mistaken belief about the imminent
coming of God – within the generation of his present audience. Mark tells it
thus:
“ ‘I tell you
this: there are some of those standing here who will not taste death before
they have seen the kingdom of God already come into power.’ ” (9:1)
And:
“I tell you
this: the present generation will live to see it all.’ ” (13:30).
So, the Gospels can agree on Jesus’ mistakes!? The question is begged,
not for the first or last time – who made the mistake – Jesus; the Gospeller; or
God, who supposedly wrote/inspired the Gospel? Whatever the answer, the Bible is
left as unreliable because that generation did not “live to see it all” – we still
await the “
JESUS’
Mark agrees with Matthew that Jesus felt he was only on a mission to his
own people, the children of God. According to the Bible, Jesus even likened
non-Jews to dogs:
“The woman was
a Greek, born in Syrian
So, according to the word of God,
‘Yes, Lord,’
she replied, ‘but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.’
Then he told
her, ‘For such a reply, you may go, the demon has left your daughter.’ ” (
“For such a reply” – not because he loved Gentiles equally. If that
woman had argued with Jesus about his assessment of Gentiles as dogs, would Mark’s
Jesus have still cured her daughter? Whatever the answer to that one, it makes
you wonder why evangelical, Gentile Christians hang so tightly to the Bible as
“God’s word” after it says
MIRACLES
Mark recounts many miracles performed by Jesus – he fed multitudes of
thousands with a few loaves and fishes on two occasions; raised people from the
dead; cast out demons from a human into pigs – which then drowned – again, so
much for God caring equally for even the least of his creatures; walked on
water – and many more nature-defying miracles.
But Jesus went without honour in his own home-town of
“When his
family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for people were saying, ‘He has
gone out of his mind’.” (3:21)
In places other than his home town, we are told,
A BIT OF OLD TESTAMENT FEAR
“for it was not
the season for figs.” (11:14)
Would your “one true Son of God” curse a tree to death for it being without
fruit – out of season? Either the Bible is wrong or
WISDOM
But
“Listen to me,
all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside of a person that by going
in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile…whatever goes into
a person from outside cannot defile since it enters, not the heart but the
stomach…It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within,
from the human heart, that evil intentions come…” (7:14-15 & 18-21).
When questioned why he dwelt with sinners:
“Those who are
well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have not come to
call the righteous but sinners.” (2:17).
When questioned about why
“The Sabbath
was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath.” (2:27).
About how to achieve success from prayer
“I tell you
then, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it and it
will be yours.” (11:24 –).
About the evil that is often required to amass wealth.
“For what will
it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their soul?” (8:36)
& “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for
someone who is rich to enter the
When asked if the Jews should pay taxes to
“They brought a
coin to him and he said, ‘Whose head is this?’ They answered, ‘The emperor’s’.
A PRETERNATURAL WISDOM?
There is a wisdom here which shines out – a wisdom brighter than
LOVE
And we are allowed to see something of a man of love:
“…love your
neighbour as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these. ”
(12:30-32)
THE CRUCIFIXION
Mark and Matthew’s stories of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection are
different to Luke’s – the other synoptic Gospel. Mark and Matthew have Jesus
cry out in his anger and his pain:
“My God, my
God, why have you forsaken me!” (Mark 15:34; Matt 27:46).
These final words of Jesus are very angry and human – and seem to
indicate some dismay as it finally dawned on him he was about to die – after
all, he expected the coming of God imminently. But they are taken from the Old
Testament (Psalm 22:1) and the earlier Gospels of Matthew and
Now for
LUKE (Circa 90 -120 A.D.)
DIFFERENT
DIFFERENT BIRTH STORIES
Luke and Matthew also tell different stories of the actual birth.
DIFFERENT GENEALOGIES
While Luke and Matthew both push Messianic doctrine, they have wildly
different version of the “facts” of the matter. Luke has a different genealogy
of Joseph than Matthew. Luke traces Joseph’s descent from King David through
forty-one generations (whereas Matthew can only find twenty-eight from David).
Very few of the names overlap and then Luke manages to trace Joseph all the way
back to Adam! But, again, the whole exercise is totally futile – according to
the two Gospellers carrying the story,
DIFFERENT STORIES
Luke has other stories that are unique – such as the townsfolk of
DIFFERENT LESSONS
The lesson from the action in
“Therefore, I
tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown
great love. But the one of whom little is forgiven, loves little. [Luke 7:47]
As we will soon see, John has the story different again – and the lesson
different as well. The question which comes, time and again when reading the
contradictory Gospels is: if the “truth will set you free”, what exactly is it?
Whose “t” truth –
WE WILL NOT FIND GOD
Again, we are not likely to find the Truth of God or
MANY DIFFERING AGENDA AND MOTIVES IN GOSPEL WRITING
And these are the “synoptic” Gospellers – supposedly telling the same
story. Therefore the conclusion that they had differing agenda which led them
to embellish (or invent)
Doctrine devising grew into an industry as the originally small
WHY SO MANY GOSPELS?
AN EVOLVING
At this stage, all considered, the Gospels do not appear Divine, bearing
instead all the hallmarks of the work of men, writing at different times during
a dangerous, dynamic, and changing era (e.g. around and after the zealot’s war
with Rome and the destruction of the Temple – circa 70A.D.). The Gospellers
were influenced by the evolving controversies of the day and the Gospels trace
an evolutionary story as the followers of
SOME AGREEMENTS
There were some broad agreements between Gospellers. For example, Jesus’
teachings about loving your enemies; turning the other cheek; treating others
as you would like them to treat you:
“But I say unto
you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those
who curse you, pray for those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If
anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who
takes away your coat, do not withhold even your shirt…Do to others as you would
have them do to you.” (Luke 6:27-31)
Maybe, because the Gospellers do manage to agree on these radical ideas
(radical in a brutal, revengeful, “eye for an eye” world) they are the real
teachings of
MAYBE JESUS HAD SOME “t” truths OF HIS OWN?
But, while the bearer of evident “T” Truths,
“ ‘And I tell
you this: there are some of those standing here who will not taste death before
they have seen the
“ ‘Yet be sure of this: The
It did not happen within the lifetime of any of “those standing here”,
and you could be sure that by the time the Gospel of Luke was written (about 20
years after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem) the non-occurrence of
the coming of God would have been thrown back into the faces of the Jesus
movement many times by their opponents. But
“ Once, having
been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied,
‘The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will
people say, “Here it is” or, “There it is”, because the kingdom of God is
within you.” (17:20-21)
So the coming of God will not be visible even to “careful observation”? It
certainly would not have been very observable to the innocent people being burned
at the stake, tortured in Inquisitions, murdered in Crusades and
inter-denominational wars over the centuries which followed. All of these
things were done during the “
THE REAL
“ ‘Woe to you
Korazin! Woe to you
These words, supposedly, from the same man who urged forgiveness for the
men who were hammering nails into his body? Are these truly
SOME “T” TRUTHS
But
“Give and it will be given to you…” (Luke 6:38)
“For each tree is known by its fruit...” (6:44)
“One’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions…(12:15)
“Give unto Caesar…” (20:24)
UNIQUE LUCAN PARABLES
Luke tells many unique tales and parables of Jesus – like the Prodigal Son,
and the Good Samaritan. As mentioned,
“ ‘Someone gave a great dinner and invited many. At the time for the
dinner he sent for his slave to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come; for
everything is ready now.’ But they all alike began to make excuses…Then the
owner of the house became angry and said to his slave, ‘Go out at once into the
streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind,
and the lame…so that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those who
were invited will taste my dinner’.” (14:16-24)
In this unique story by
ANOTHER 72 DISCIPLES?
MIRACLES
Luke tells us stories about Jesus’ ability to change the natural laws of
the universe – some reported in the other Gospels, and some unique to Luke. Like
other Gospels, Luke’s Jesus turns five loaves and two fishes into a massive
amount of food (enough to feed 5000, with twelve baskets left over); and cures lepers,
the paralytic, the withered, and the demonic.
MASS SLAUGHTER OF SWINE
“ ‘Are not five
sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God’s
sight.’ ” (Luke 12:6)
Again, why would God, who cares for even the smallest of his creatures
(inasmuch as ye do it unto one of these the smallest of my creatures, ye do it
unto me) drown a herd of swine in the sea for no other purpose than to execute a
flamboyant gesture? Is this your God – or just you?
JESUS’ TRIAL AND CRUCIFIXION
“ ‘Father,
forgive them; they do not know what they are doing.’ ” (23:34)
These words are magnificent words – if true – that a man could extend forgiveness
even to those who are torturing him to death is an ultimate example for the
rest of us to follow. But, probably,
MORE DIVINING OF
Luke also records Jesus’ final words on the cross differently from the
very human, despairing words recorded in the earlier Gospels, Matthew and Mark Rather
than have Jesus crying out in his anger and his pain: “My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me?” –
“ ‘ Father,
into thy hands I commit my spirit.’ ”
(23:46)
A much more Divine death than the angry, human end of the
earlier-written Gospels. Again the New Testament contradicts itself and it looks
for all the world like more
Why?
He agreed to it because humanity, by brutally killing
SAVED BY KILLING
Personally, I would have thought that killing a person as magnificent as
DID
But did
THE RESURRECTION
But there is a more striking point of difference in
FAITH IS MORE IMPORTANT
We are beginning to see why faith is more important to the House of God than
finding Truth. The very idea of “God’s Truth” is torn to pieces because the
Bible has so many different versions of it – best to overlook all the confusion
and just have faith. But “best” for whom – humanity, or for the maintenance of
the power of the officers of the House of God?
But we are on an expedition for Truth, not faith.
Now we look for Truth in the Gospel of John.
In John’s version of God’s word, Jesus’ ministry lasts one year – from one
Passover festival to the next. John never has Jesus tell a parable or cast out
demons, but his Jesus does still have power over the natural laws of the
universe – performing the usual Gospel miracles like changing water into wine;
feeding 5000 with 5 loaves and 2 fishes; walking on water; raising people from
the dead (Lazarus after 4 days).
But, rather than the litany of cures we see in some of the earlier
Gospels, John’s is more like one long sermon in which he proselytises heavily
for the Christifying of Jesus – moving him away from the original Jewish Jesus
of Mark and Matthew towards doctrines which were to become the pillars of the Christian
“H” House of God – like the divinity of Jesus and the atonement of our sins
through Jesus’ murder by the high priests.
TRINITY
In his 12 month ministry, John’s Jesus repeatedly pushes the idea of his
Divinity and the Trinity – stating clearly that he is God’s only Son (3:16);
that he and God are one (10:30); and that he will return as a special “Advocate”
(14:16) after his death – the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost – the Trinity.
SALVATION
Instead of getting the Jews ready for the imminent coming of God, as in
the earlier Gospels,
“ ‘I come not
to judge the world, but to save the world…’ “ (12:47).
And, the only way to Salvation is through himself:
”For God so
loved the world that he gave his only Son that everyone who believes in him may
not perish but have eternal life.” (3:16)
The Jewish
“ ‘I am the bread of life… (6:48)
‘I am the light… (8:12)
‘I am not of this world… (8:21)
‘I am the good shepherd… (10:11)
‘I am the resurrection and the life… (11:25)
‘I am the way… (14:6)
In the words of Professor Barrie Wilson:
“they too [i.e.
the Gospels, as well as
“How
The Christification, or “D” Divination of
UNIQUE STORIES
John, like Luke, has some unique stories of Jesus. For example, the
story of water into wine at a wedding; raising
“When his
family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, ‘He’s
out of his mind’. “ – (Mark 3:21).
Unlike the earlier Gospels,
“ ‘
And:
“How can the
Christ come from
And:
“Look into it, and you will find that a prophet
does not come out of
THE DIVINING OF JESUS
John (like Luke) concentrates on making Jesus out to be more Divine than
human, changing some of the very human words given to Jesus in Matthew and
Mark’s Gospels – into something a bit more god-like. For example, at Gethsemane
John has
“ ‘Put your
sword back in its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given
me?’” (John 18:11).
The earlier Gospels portray a human
“’My father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me.’ “ (Matt.,
26:39)
“he threw
himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass
from him.” (Mark 14:35).
John also changes Jesus’ final words on the cross. Unlike the human,
angry accusation (“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”) recorded in
Matthew and Mark, Luke has much more Divine final words for Jesus:
“ ‘It is finished’.
Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” (19:30)
Embellishment?
THE NEED FOR A TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE
Divine/human gods and human/divine emperors (
DIFFERENT TRIAL
As well as different versions of
TRYING TO EXPLAIN AWAY
MORE DIFFERENT STORIES
John’s story differs from the other Gospels in other particulars as well.
“ ‘Have you
believed because you have seen me! Blessed are those who have not seen and yet
have come to believe.’ “ (
The story of Jesus instructing the disciples where to set their nets for
a bumper haul is different in John – occurring after Jesus’ death and
resurrection (21:4-7), whereas in Luke it is very early in Jesus’ relationship
with his disciples (Luke 5:6-7). John, uniquely, then has Jesus cook breakfast
for his disciples.
FAITH-ALTERING DIFFERENCES
These, again, are not differences of opinion or interpretation but
differences of fact – some minor, but some potentially faith-altering points of
difference – especially in the cross, tomb and resurrection stories. Even
“ ‘I have not
come to judge the world, but to save the world’ ”
(
“ ‘I give you a
new commandment, that you love one another.’ “(13:34)
And wisdom:
“ ‘Let anyone
among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ “ (8:7)
“ ‘and you will
know the truth, and the truth will make you free’ ” (8:32)
“Have I not said ye are Gods?” (10:34)
And some anger”
“ ‘Whoever does
not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers; such branches are
gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.’“ (15:6)
A MYSTERIOUS FAVOURITE
John, also uniquely (and intriguingly), introduces a mysterious
“favourite” of Jesus (13:23; 21:20-23). Even as he is hanging on the cross,
“ When
The favourite is not only unique to John, but an extraordinary, story – leaving
Jesus with an almost homosexual flavour because of the easy physical
familiarity he has with his “favourite”:
“ One of the
disciples – the one whom
The other disciples noticed this special, loving relationship:
“Peter looked
round, and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following – the one who at supper
had leaned back close to him to ask the question, ‘Lord, who is it that will
betray you?’ When he caught sight of him, Peter asked, ‘Lord, what will happen
to him?’
So what’s going on? Sounds to me like complete embellishment on the part
of John because, directly after the above – at the very end of his Gospel – he
implies Jesus’ favourite is himself:
“ ‘If I want
him to remain alive until I return, what is it to you?
This is the
disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them…” (John 21:23-24)
Here again we have Jesus’ mistaken belief, related in the other Gospels
as well, that he would be returning within the lifetimes of the present
generations – he expects his favourite to remain “alive until I return”.
Either John or Jesus made a mistake – or his favourite is still moping around
the
More discrepancies of facts between the Gospels – the inerrant word of
God.
Here endeth the Gospels. Is there a glimmer of “T” Truth buried beneath
their bushels of “t” truths? Lets consider the Gospels as a whole.
CONSIDERING THE GOSPELS AS A WHOLE
In the Gospels is the story of a most remarkable man – Jesus of
Nazareth. But what is the “T” Truth about
For anyone interested in finding the Truth, the task is to separate the
FACTIONS
The main factions seem to have been: the Jewish/Jerusalem faction,
centred in Jerusalem and led by Jesus’ brother, James – who targeted their
fellow Jews; and Paul’s faction travelling widely through the eastern
Mediterranean – and targeting those of Greek/Jewish or Gentile backgrounds.
THE GOSPELS DO NOT CORROBORATE EACH OTHER
In other words, the four Gospels do not represent four corroborative,
independent sources about the Truth of Jesus. Factional “t” truths heavily
embellished the “T” Truth about
“We should not
imagine that gospels represent independent sources. They are the creations of
independent communities. Just as the Christ Movement [Paul’s] created their own, the Jesus Movement [led
by James, Jesus brother], and Gnostics fashioned
theirs… later Christians supplement Paul’s letters with various gospels that
were being written by the Christifying segment of the early church. These
include gospels like Luke and John…The Jesus Movement people and Ebionites [the
sect that this Movement evolved into] used
a version of the Gospel of Matthew. But they shunned the virgin birth story and
rejected Paul’s letters and such Christified gospels as Luke and John.
Similarly the Gnostics preferred their own material including the Gospel of
“How
Jesus Became Christian”,
This point of view was born out by our examination of the individual
Gospels – there is much contradiction between the Gospels about facts, and
about
CONTROVERSIES FLOWING FROM THE DIVERGENT GOSPELS
But not before the many disagreements – flowing from the different accounts
of the “Truth” in the Gospels – were settled. Some of the biggest controversies
were the Arian, Gnostic, and Marcion controversies. However, even after these
early controversies were largely settled, for centuries the contradictions within the Gospels continued
to “authorise” factions within the Christian House of God – leading to many different
denominations – which often warred mightily and bloodily in the competition for
numbers.
In searching for the Truth in the House of God, it is important to
remember that
“The gospel
writings did not create the church. Rather these influential documents are the
church’s creation…”
WINNING THE ARGUMENT RATHER
Considering the Gospels as a whole, it is clear that the motivation for
writing the Gospels was only a little bit about accurately recording the true
But there is more New Testament to read – we now come to the Bible story
of what happened after the death of
**************************
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES (Circa 90-120 AD)
Acts is the story of
WHO WROTE ACTS?
This book of the Bible is thought by most scholars to have been written
by the same author as the Gospel of Luke. Both open by being addressed to a
character called Theophilus, but within Acts there is a transition from
referring to Paul’s entourage as “they” to “we” the two times that a character
called Timothy enters the story (16:1-6 & 20:5). Acts also disagrees with
Luke on a couple of issues, for example, about the length of time Jesus spends
with the disciples after his resurrection – 40 days (Acts, 1:3) cf. Luke’s 1-2
days. Luke also has the disciples leaving
The “Word of God” in Acts also disagrees with the “Word of God” in the
Gospels about the fate of Judas. In Acts, Judas falls and his guts spill out on
the “plot of land [bought] with the price of his villainy.” (1:18),
in the Gospels Judas hangs himself. Divine, or Divinely-inspired, the Bible yet
again disagrees with itself.
PRACTISED WHAT THEY PREACHED
Jesus’ remaining eleven disciples replace Judas with Matthias and
continue on converting their fellow Jews. Peter took a leading role and did
many miracles. In Acts, the early Christians practiced as well as preached Jesus’
teachings – they were humanity’s first (and probably our only genuine) communists
– sharing everything:
“All who
believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their
possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.”
(Acts 2:44 – and 4:32-35)
DANGEROUS WORK
The early followers of Jesus tried gamely to proselytise their fellow
Jews, but it was dangerous work in the face of the vested interest of the Sadducee
chief priests, who saw their power challenged by the followers of Jesus – just
as Jesus himself had challenged them. And, just as Jesus had lost his life by
challenging Sadducee vested interest, so did his apostles – Stephen, was stoned
to death (7:59) and James gets his head chopped off (12:2). Jesus’ apostles are
regularly imprisoned and flogged.
But, according to Acts, resisting Christian conversion could be
dangerous too – as Herod demonstrated when he was struck down by an angel of
the Lord and “was eaten up with worms and
died.” (12:23), and Ananias and his wife drop dead just for not giving the
Church all their money (5:1-6 & 7-10) – that should have increased the
takings from the next Sunday’s collection plate?
So the Bible remains the usual tangle of fact and fantasy.
SAUL/PAUL
Acts tells us that a man named Saul was a member of the party who stoned
Stephen to death. This Saul was an enthusiastic persecutor of Jesus’ followers,
but after stoning Stephen, and en route to
“ …the Lord
said…he [
Saul became commissioned in the Holy Spirit at
BRANCHED OUT TO GENTILES
But Peter still has an important role, and a vital change in direction
happens for the Jesus movement when Peter has a vision of a sail-cloth filled
with various different animals lowered from heaven (10:15-16). He took this to
mean that all people were acceptable to God, and that Jews could now mix with
unclean and uncircumcised types in order to convert them (10:28). According to
the Gospels Jesus saw his mission as only to the Jews – but now Acts sees
things more broadly:-
“This means
that God has granted life-giving repentance to the Gentiles also.” (Acts,11:18).
This vision was, literally, a God-send for the Jesus sect – enabling it
to transform from being a minor sect of Judaism into the world religion it
eventually became. The Gentiles were a much softer audience than the violent
Jewish zealots and orthodox Jews overseen by the Sadducees – and there was more
of them – a whole world full!
MIRACLES
Peter and Paul also have control over the natural world, and do several
miracles. Peter heals many people and brings Tabitha back to life (9:40); Paul
heals diseases and expels bad spirits merely by touching a handkerchief or
apron (19:11). Talking in tongues was all the go amongst the early Christians (Acts,
2:4-12) – they saw it as a sign that they were in the “last days” (2:16). Fundamental
Christians are still talking in tongues but the last days have dragged out to over
2,000 years and counting.
Paul continues to preach to the Jews in the network of Jewish synagogues
throughout the eastern Mediterranean area, often stirring up trouble and ending
in jail. Stories of miracles and escaping from jails with Divine help abound.
But Paul, when not well received, turns readily to the Gentiles for converts:
“Since you
reject it and judge yourselves to be unworthy of eternal life, we are now
turning to the Gentiles.” (13:46)
“Therefore I
want you to know that God’s salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they
will listen.” ( Acts 28:28).
But
SENT TO
Paul is able to avoid local judgement, and immediate execution, because
he is a Roman citizen. Paul is sent as a prisoner in chains via a hazardous
boat trip to
“ ‘…with regard
to this sect we know that everywhere it is spoken against.’ ” (Acts 28:22)
Paul’s story ends in
IS ACTS TRUE?
How much “T” Truth is there in the Book of Acts? Professor Wilson is
dubious:
“…the Book of
Acts is invented history. We know that the Book of Acts represents an
unreliable source for information about Paul. Acts contradicts what we know of
Paul from his own writings.” (Op. cit. P. 145)
THE EPIPHANY?
But how much “T” Truth there is in Act’s tale of
ACTS REVEALS THE NEED FOR THE GOSPELS
In Acts what we do see, clearly, are that differences arose between
“You see
brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are
all zealous for the law [Torah]. They
have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles
to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or
observe the customs.” (Acts, 21:20-21).
We will read more of these differences in Paul’s letters. Eventually
these differences would grow, splitting
There must be “T” Truth in the Gospels, our task is to find it. Time to
examine the Letters of the New Testament.
******************************
LETTERS (Circa
50-64 AD)
PAUL TO THE ROMANS:
Paul starts his letter by trying to establish Jesus as of the blood of
David – essential if Jesus is to be accepted as the Messiah by the Jews: “on the human level he was born of David’s
stock” (1:3). Paul here is acknowledging that Joseph (who was supposedly
descended from David) conceived Jesus – but only “on the human level”. Bit of a
problem for Mary being a virgin then – visited only by an angel? The Trinity
doctrine needs a bit more work – which it got later – in spades.
RELIGION CLOUDS THE SECRETS OF OUR HEARTS
“When Gentiles
who do not possess the law [the Jewish law of Moses] carry out its precepts by the light of nature, then, although they have
no law, they are their own law, for they display the effect of the law
inscribed on their hearts. Their conscience is called as witness, and their own
thoughts argue the case on either side, against them or even for them, on the
day when God judges the secrets of human hearts … So my gospel declares. ”
(2:14-16)
If non-religious people are good, it must be because they are good – the doubt must always linger
that religious people (who fear God) are not revealing any “secret of human
hearts” – not being driven by their innate goodness but by fear? Life must be
about the “secrets of human hearts” if
you believe it is about judgement – surely God wants the real heart exposed for
judgement – not the false heart – only “good” through fear of God? (as Job, in
fact, admits to being in the Old Testament).
BUILDING SALVATIONIST DOCTRINE
“…but Christ
died for us while we were yet sinners, and that is God’s own proof of his love
towards us. And so, since we have now been justified by Christ’s sacrificial
death, we shall all the more certainly be saved through him from final
retribution.” (5:8-10)
In this way Paul tries to paint Jesus’ brutal execution as not a defeat
but somehow part of God’s plan – indeed, proof of God’s “love towards us”.
BUT WAS
I would be lying if I did not say that my human heart tells me that religion
killed
Nor was
WHAT DO WE HAVE TO BE SAVED FROM – ORIGINAL SIN?
Of course the question would have been asked of the fathers of the
Christian House of God – what exactly did good people have to be “saved” from? To
answer this
“for he was
delivered to death for our misdeeds, and raised to life to justify us.”
(4:25) … “
Our “while we were yet sinners” – the unavoidable, original stain of
being human. Brilliant – we are sinful just by being born – including the pure
of heart and even (as worked up by later House of God doctrinaires like St.
Augustine of Hippo) little babies. Therefore everybody needs the Church’s power
to avoid hell, everybody needs cleansing through baptism, to be born again – to
have our original sin washed away by the power of Jesus (claimed to be within
the control of the
“To speak of a Father God so enraged by human
evil that he requires propitiation for our sins that we cannot pay and thus
demands the death of the divine-human son as a guilt offering is a ludicrous
idea to our century. The sacrificial concept that focuses on the saving blood
of Jesus that somehow washes me clean, so popular in evangelical and
fundamentalist circles, is by and large repugnant to us today.”
Spong, “Why Christianity Must Change or
Die”, P.234
But Paul feels he is onto a good thing and hammers on about our
sinfulness:
“Jews and
Greeks alike are under the power of sin. This has scriptural warrant:
‘There
is no just man not one;
No
one who understands, no one who seeks God.
All
have swerved aside, all alike have become debased;
There is no one to show kindness; no, not one.’ ” (3:9-12)
THE NEW TESTAMENT IS NAILED TO THE OLD TESTAMENT
The New Testament can’t be removed from the Old Testament, as some
people within the House of God try – it is based on it. Paul relies on the bare
assertion of some ancient, inveigling praise-singer (Psalms 14:1) that we are
all “debased” and none of us “show kindness”.
Well, perhaps not entirely – he also relies on a myth about a
non-existent man in a non-existent place who committed an imaginary “sin” – of
eating from the Tree of Knowledge”:
“It was through
one man that sin entered the world, and through sin death.” (5:12) “…
The foundation stones of the House of God that Paul built are thus
totally illusory. Rather than the “Christian” House of God it should really be
called the
CARROT
“For I reckon
that the sufferings we now endure bear no comparison with the splendour, as yet
unrevealed, which is in store for us. For the created universe waits with eager
anticipation for God’s sons to be revealed.” (8:18)
The old carrot and stick formulae is used constantly and cunningly to
build the House of God. But love finally gets a mention in Paul’s epistle:
“Love in all
sincerity, loathing evil and clinging to the good. Let love for our brotherhood
breed warmth of mutual affection. Give pride of place to one another in esteem.”
(12:9-10)
But Paul doesn’t quite truly get Jesus’ idea of love. Paul prefers an
Old Testament flavour (Proverbs 25:21):
“But there is
another text: ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him
drink; by doing this you will heap live coals on his head.’ ” (12:20).
Do good to your enemy – it will piss him off – “heap live coals on his
head!? Compare this with Christ’s idea of actually
loving your enemy! Jesus was beyond Paul’s ability to grasp – a cut above the
ordinary cloth that Paul was plainly made of.
LOVE
But, occasionally
“Leave no claim
outstanding except that of mutual love. He who loves his neighbour has
satisfied every claim of the law. For the commandments, ‘Thou shalt not commit
adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet’, and
any other commandment there may be, are all summed up in one rule, ‘Love your
neighbour as yourself.’ Love cannot wrong a neighbour; therefore the whole law
is summed up in love.” (13:8-10)
A HOUSE OF LOVE?
Bravo
FIRST LETTER OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS
It didn’t take long for the followers of Jesus to devolve into factions
after his death:
“I appeal to
you my brothers in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ: agree among yourselves,
and avoid divisions. … I have been told, my brothers, by Chloe’s people that
there are quarrels among you.” (1:10&12). “Can you not see that while there is jealousy and strife among you, you
are living on the purely human level of your lower nature? When one says, ‘I am
Paul’s man’ and another, ‘I am for Apollos’, are you not all too human?”
(3:3-4)
Divisions were appearing in the House of God that Paul was building. They
remained a feature, becoming in time theological denominations – and responsible
for much bloodshed. There is no greater hate than that reserved for someone who
won’t agree with your religious beliefs. It’s marvellous what you can get out
of “thou shalt love one another”? But all that was in the future and the
religious fights at this stage were limited to less weighty concerns such as
circumcision.
Paul then indulges in an amazing bit of holier than thou:
“For my part,
if I am called to account by you or by any human court of judgement, it does
not matter to me in the least. Why, I do not even pass judgement on myself, for
I have nothing on my conscience.” (4:3-4)
What a wonderful thing a name change is – Paul has obviously forgotten
about all the floggings and stonings of Jesus’ followers he carried out, or
abetted, when his name was Saul?
ENTRENCHING SEXISM
“It is a good
thing for a man to have nothing to do with women.” (7:1).
And :
“while every
man has
Now that’s just got to be the “word of God”, hasn’t it? Paul knew no
better – he was brought up on the sexist Old Testament scriptures, written by
men. No modern, educated man would use Genesis to justify his sexism today,
surely? Unfortunately incorrect – many evangelical and orthodox Christians do
believe in the Old Testament – as the constant fracas about female priests and
Bishops in modern, mainstream Churches has shown.
Sexism was not just a passing phase for
“As in all
congregations of God’s people, women should not address the meeting. They have
no licence to speak … If there is something they want to know, they can ask
their own husbands at home. It is a shocking thing that a woman should address
the congregation.” (14:34&35)
“Shocking”? Paul, a pillar of the House of God, is both zealous and full
of errant nonsense – Jesus himself had close female associates. And it was only
the women who remained with him when he was executed – all the men had denied
him and/or fled. The inferiority of women is just more Pauline doctrine based
on Old Testament myths. What is the soundness of any subsequent House of God
based on such doctrine?
CELIBACY
“To the
unmarried and to widows I say this: it is a good thing if they stay as I am
myself; but if they cannot control themselves, they should marry.” (7:8-9)
And :
“The unmarried
man cares for the Lord’s business; his aim is to please the Lord. But the
married man cares for worldly things; his aim is to please his wife; and he has
a divided mind.” (7:32-34)
“What I mean,
my friends, is this. The time we live in will not last long.” (7:29)
Two thousand years later we must ask who was wrong – Jesus, the Bible editors,
Paul – or all three? Bit of a dilemma for those who believe the Bible is the
word of God, or inspired by “Him”? We still await God’s kingdom on Earth.
HUMAN SEXUALITY – A VEIN OF
We then see in this letter
“Do you not
know that your bodies are limbs and organs of Christ? Shall I then take from
Christ his bodily parts and make them over to a harlot? … Shun fornication.
Every other sin that a man can commit is outside the body; but the fornicator
sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a shrine of the
indwelling holy spirit …You do not belong to yourself; you were bought at a
price. Then honour God in your body.” (6:15&18-20).
Paul alleges he was celibate, and sewed the seeds of much human
misunderstanding and misery from the pouch of his own obsession. But he admits
that we will just have to take his word for it :
“On the
question of celibacy, I have no instructions from the Lord, but I give my
judgement as one by God’s mercy is fit to be trusted.” (7:25).
LOVE
So
“Love is
patient; love is kind and envies no one. Love is never boastful, nor conceited,
nor rude; never selfish, not quick to take offence. Love keeps no score of
wrongs; nor does gloat over other men’s sins, but delights in the truth. There
is nothing love cannot face; there is no limit to its faith, its hope, and its
endurance.” (13:4-7).
Bravo
WISDOM
And
“Sown as an
animal body it is raised a spiritual body. If there is such a thing as an
animal body, there is also a spiritual body.” (15:44).
SURVIVAL OF THE ANIMAL BODY
But
“If Christ was not raised, then our gospel is
null and void. …For if the dead are
not raised, it follows that Christ was not raised; and if Christ was not
raised, your faith has nothing in it.”
(15:13&16-17)
“Your
faith has nothing in it”!? How about faith in the Truth of Jesus’ message about
the primacy of love (expressed so well by
THE
II CORINTHIANS
Here we get more convoluted doctrine:
“Christ was
innocent of sin, and yet for our sake God made him one with the sinfulness of
men, so that in him we might be made one with the goodness of God himself.”
(5:21)
And, for those of us who found
“And if indeed our gospel be found veiled, the only people who find it
so are those on the way to perdition.” (4:3)
Who is going to own up to confusion after that?
But
“Five times the
Jews have given me the thirty-nine strokes; three times I have been beaten with
rods; once I was stoned; three times I have been shipwrecked, and for
twenty-four hours I was adrift on the open sea.” (11:24-26)
Unless he was making it all up? That is the problem with the Bible, what
to believe? Some apologists for the Bible believe that the Books of the Bible
form independent sources – thus confirm each other, but they copy from one
another and all are driven by the motive to proselytise rather than to record. Acts
and
But he was also exceeding vain and self-promoting:
In no
respect did I fall short of these superlative apostles, even if I am a nobody.
The marks of a true apostle were there in the work I did among you, which
called for such constant fortitude, and was attended by signs, marvels, and
miracles.” (12:11-12)
SARCASTIC
So it seems that
“Is there
anything in which you were treated worse than the other congregations – except
this, that I never sponged upon you? How unfair of me! I crave forgiveness.”
(12:13)
BOASTFUL
“I am obliged
to boast. It does no good; but I shall go on to tell of visions and revelations
granted by the Lord.”
Visions of being:
“caught up as
far as the third heaven … caught up into paradise”.
And was granted special revelations – of:
“words so
secret that human lips may not repeat them.” (All 12:1-5)
So, was
GALATIANS
We see signs in this epistle that the Christian ministry was beginning
to turn to the Gentiles rather than concentrating on converting the Jews, who
were proving to be a hard (and dangerous) nut to crack. We also see more of the
bitchy in-fighting which was beginning to be a part of early Christianity – and
over such spiritually immaterial things as circumcision. This letter reveals some
of the tensions in the evolving Christian House of God.
“You who want
to be justified by the law [Torah law] have
cut yourselves off from
LOVE VS. TORAH
There seemed to be two main groups among the followers of Jesus – a Jewish,
Torah-observant movement observing the Old Testament laws (like food laws and circumcision),
and a more liberal, Gentile-welcoming movement – which, while still targeting
the Jews – was less bound by Torah requirements and more focussed on Jesus’
message of the primacy of love:
“ the only
thing that counts is faith working through love” and “For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment: ‘Love your
neighbour as yourself.’ ” (5:6&14-15).
But, while
“I wish those
who unsettle you would castrate themselves!” (5:12).
THE BEGINNINGS OF ANTI-SEMITISM
Something more sinister starts to emerge in Paul’s letters:
“all those
who want to make a fair outward and bodily show who are trying to force
circumcision upon you; their sole object is to escape persecution for the cross
of
Pardon? “Persecution for the cross
of
THE PROBLEMS OF INFIGHTING
Paul foresaw the problem of infighting between the emerging factions:
“But if you go
on fighting one another, tooth and nail, all you can expect is mutual
destruction.” (5:15)
But “fighting one another” was to be a feature of the “H” House that Paul
was building. And the fighting was to be over convoluted, incredible, doctrine
– doctrine like this:
“May I never
boast of anything except the cross of our
– “t” truths, not the “T” Truth.
The future of Christianity was destined to be bloody
because there to be were plenty more zealots like Paul in the House of God –
people who were prepared to hang, burn and torture people to protect
EPHESIANS
Although Jesus was only concerned with preaching to the Jews, Paul had
more luck with the Gentiles around the eastern Mediterranean world. Paul concocted
doctrine to suit the market:
“Gentiles and
Jews, he has made the two one, and in his own body of flesh and blood has
broken down the enmity. … This was his purpose, to reconcile the two in a
single body to God through the cross, on which he killed the enmity.”
(2:14&16)
So the enmity between Jews and Gentiles was finished because religion
had Jesus killed on a Roman cross? Incorrect, unfortunately – the worst enmity
was yet to come – centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust.
RELENTLESS SEXISM
And
“Wives, be
subject to your husbands as to the Lord; for the man is the head of the woman, just
as Christ also is the head of the church. Christ is, indeed, the Saviour of the
body; but just as the church is subject to Christ, so must women be to their
husbands in everything.” (5:22-24)
Again, we must ask, is this the word of God, or even inspired by
“him”?
PHILIPPIANS,
More about the
circumcision controversy.
COLOSSIANS
More about the foul
cravings of the body :
“Then put to
death those parts of you which belong to the earth – fornication, indecency,
lust, foul cravings …” (3:5)
More about women’s secondary role :
“Wives be
subject to your husbands ; that is your Christian duty.” (3:18)
More about giving the Divine imprimatur to slavery :
“Slaves, give
entire obedience to your earthly masters, not merely with an outward show of
service, to curry favour with men, but with single-mindedness, out of reverence
for the Lord.” (3:22)
No wonder
THESSALONIANS
Paul says he does not try
to “curry favour with men”, nor seek honour:
“ We do not
curry favour with men; we seek only the favour of God … We have never sought
honour from men, from you or from anyone else.” (1:4&6)
But he overlooks his own attempts to do just that in a previous letter
(2 Corinthians:12) where he tries to elevate himself to Apostle status by claiming
Divine visions and revelations. All religions are concerned with power and
status and
In this letter,
“first the
Christian dead will rise, then we who are left alive shall join them, caught up
in clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” (4:17).
“We who are left alive shall join
them.” –
TIMOTHY
In this letter, Paul firstly consigns Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan
for the heinous crime of blasphemy, then sets about putting those pesky women
back in their place (again) using a mistaken belief about the beginning of
humanity (Adam and Eve) as authority:
“A woman must
be a learner, listening quietly and with due submission. I do not permit a
woman to be a teacher, nor must woman domineer over man; she should be quiet. For
Adam was created first, and Eve afterwards; and it was not Adam who was
deceived; it was woman who, yielding to deception, fell into sin. Yet she will
be saved through motherhood – if only women continue in faith, love and
holiness, with a sober mind.” (2:11-15).
THE WORD OF GOD?
Men were the most important because we were created first – only to be
led astray by those easily-deceived women! Yep, sounds like the words of God
alright! No wonder most of the Christian churches are still rejecting women as
priests. But
And slavery is still OK:
“All who wear
the yoke of slavery must count their own masters worthy of all respect.”
(6:1)
Again, it is easy to see why the Romans chose Christianity as state
religion.
2
More of the same. Nothing that could pass for the inerrant word of God
except for this interesting bit :
“All the more
reason why you should pull them up sharply, so that they may come to a sane
belief, instead of lending their ears to Jewish myths and commandments of
merely human origin, the work of men who turn their backs upon the truth.”
(Titus 1:13-14)
“Jewish myths”? – rich from
somebody like
PAULINE LETTERS SUMMARY
These were convoluted doctrines that
THE
Paul laid the foundations for the House of God, the construction of
which was, to use Paul’s own caustic words from the above letter to Titus: “the work of men who turn their back upon the
truth” – men who “lend their ears to
Jewish myths and commandments of merely human origin.”
As the actual words of
DID EVEN
There is also the debate within the world of biblical scholarship as to which
letters were actually written by
“Most scholars
agree that the following epistles are authentically Pauline: Romans 1 and 2
Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. … The
majority of scholars now regard 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus as pseudonymous … but
they disagree about the possible authenticity of the other epistles attributed
to Paul in the New Testament.”
- From The
Because of the unreliability of the “word of God”, again, the question
remains: what did
“Look for what
Jesus himself taught instead of being satisfied with what has been taught about
him.”
- “The Authentic Gospel of Jesus”, p. 417
WHAT
I will hunt for what “
Now for the letters most likely not written by
HEBREWS
Regarded by the majority of scholars today as non-Pauline. The writer is
obviously of the Jewish religion and is writing to the Jewish members of the
early Christian movement. This letter is concerned firstly to establish
“For God never
said to any angel, ‘Thou art my Son; today I have begotten thee.’ ” (1:5)
And to explain how
“crowned now
with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that, by God’s gracious
will, in tasting death he should stand for us all.” (2:9)
Convoluted doctrine building by assertion – somehow Jesus represented us
all – by God’s gracious will – and is now crowned with glory because the
Sadducees killed him to maintain their power?
It is clear that the writer sees himself and his audience still very
much as Jews – God’s chosen people. The new religion of “Christianity” has not
yet been constructed:
“It is not
angels that he takes to himself but the sons of Abraham” (2:16) “the religion we profess” (3:1)
The writer ties
“Our Lord is sprung from
FOLLOWING THE OLD RULES BROUGHT NO
The author is brave enough to suggest that following the old rules
brought no joy to the Hebrews. As we saw in our examination of the Old
Testament, the Jews had been imprisoned by the Egyptians and Babylonians, subjugated
then by the Assyrians and Persians, invaded by Alexander’s Macedonian Greeks and,
subsequently, by the Romans. But
“The earlier
rules are cancelled as impotent and useless since the Law brought nothing to
perfection; and a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God”
(7:18-19)
CONSECRATED
The writer works up the doctrine that
“it is by the
will of God that we have been consecrated, through the offering of the body of
The author of this letter makes the same old mistake :
“ For ‘soon,
very soon’ in the words of Scripture, he who is to come will come; he will not
delay ” (10:38).
The writer dishes out the essential dose of fear :
“It is a
terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (10:31)
A terrible God indeed. One who would sanction the brutal killing of
animals :
“If even an
animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned.” (12:20)
Your God?
JAMES
Most scholars accept that this letter was written by James, the brother
of Jesus. After Jesus’ death, James became the head of the Jewish followers of
Jesus in
CLOSEST TO THE
If this epistle was truly written James, the brother of Jesus, then none
of the writers of the New Testament would know more about the real Jesus, his
real words and actions – with the usual provisos, of course, that translation
and copying are accurate and have not been subjected to religious editing by
the monks and scribes in various abbeys who did the translating and
transcribing?
Personally, I’ve got to say that James seems much like how I imagine the
real Jesus to be – he is Jewish, wise, stresses “doing” (of good works) over faith,
the importance of love, and spouts no doctrine. Nor does he make any Divine
claims – for example the “I ams” of
“Greetings to
the Twelve Tribes dispersed throughout the world.” (1:1)
Wise:
“be quick to
listen, slow to speak, and slow to be angry.” (1:19)
Charitable:
“Religion that
is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and
widows in their distress…” (1:27)
Espouses the primacy of love:
“the sovereign
law laid down in Scripture, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ ” (2:8).
Stresses the importance of doing, not just hearing:
“But be doers
of the word, and not merely hearers… be not hearers who forget, but doers who
act – they will be blessed in their doing.” (1:22-25)
Stresses the importance of doing over faith:
“So faith by
itself, if it has no works, is dead.” (2:17)
THE
THE RICH
“Next a word to
you who have great possessions: Weep and wail over the miserable fate
descending on you… You have lived on earth in wanton luxury, fattening yourselves
like cattle – and the day for slaughter has come.” (5:1&5)
Today’s modern evangelical movements try to work up a doctrine about
wealth being OK. I wonder how they talk around
Like
“be patient and
stout hearted, for the coming of the Lord is near.” (5:8)
NO DOCTRINES
Throughout James’ letter there is not a word of doctrine construction,
no claims about Jesus being the Messiah, the Trinity, dying for our salvation –
just preaching to his fellow Jews to love, and do good deeds – much as Jesus
did before others built an “H” House upon him. My feeling is that
TRULY THE WORDS
It seems to me that these words are truly from someone close to
1
“consecrated with the sprinkled blood of
“gave us new
birth into a living hope by the resurrection of
And the argument that faith is more important than anything (especially
knowledge). If it all seems a little far fetched just have faith :
“more precious
than perishable gold is faith which has stood the test.” (1:7)
But, like all the others,
“in this last
period of time” (1:20); “The end of
all things is upon us” (4:7); and: “The
time has come for the judgement to begin” (4:17).
Wrong demonstrably, so how much for the rest of his assertions? He was nowhere
near “the end” – religion had a long (and murderous) future – Jesus was not the
last to be killed by it. The time had not come for the “judgement to begin”, millions
were yet to be slaughtered in the name of God after
“and in the ark
a few persons, eight in all, were brought to safety through the water.”
(3:20).
In subscribing to the old creation myths,
2 PETER
More of the same except that
“Above all he
will punish those who follow their abominable lusts … These men are like brute
beasts, born in the course of nature to be caught and killed.”
(2:10&12).
According to
“But the Day of
the Lord will come; it will come, unexpected as a thief.” (3:10)
Continually apprehensive about the imminent coming of the Lord, and
guilty about the “abominable lusts” all us “brute beasts” have – in such a
state we are easy meat for a religion which can sell us “Salvation” from our
Original sin – but is it the Truth? Are religions concerned at all about
elevating our existence by finding Truths about the human condition, or just
about power over us?
1, 2 & 3 JOHN
In epistle 1 of John we see the beginning of the doctrine of confession
“If we confess
our sins, he is just, and may be trusted to forgive our sins and cleanse us
from every kind of wrong” (1:9)
But
“My children,
this is the last hour!” (2:18).
Not a very reliable lot, are they?
That this was the “last hour” was evidenced to John’s mind by the ever-growing
number of antichrists bobbing up. The antichrists were any members of the
Christian movement who were not following doctrine – anybody who does not agree
with your assertions is an antichrist – handy!
For John, some of us are children of the devil, and some God’s children:
“the man who
sins is a child of the devil,” (3:8) “A
child of God does not commit sin, because the divine seed remains in him; he
cannot be a sinner because he is God’s child.” (3:9)
But we are all born sinners according to the doctrine of Original Sin.
If we hold to Original Sin doctrine it means, according to John’s doctrine in
turn, that we not the children of God but the children of Satan?
“Everyone who
loves is a child of God and knows God, but the unloving know nothing of God.
For God is love” (4:8-9)
Imagine for a moment, a House founded solely on the last sentence: “For
God is love” – instead of the brutal butcher found throughout the Bible?
John also informs us:
“But if a man
says, ‘I love God’, while hating his brother, he is a liar.” (4:20)
Fair enough statement – the “T” Truth, even – you can’t say you love God
if you hate your brother. But who, exactly, is our “brother” – our fellow
humans?
“We know that
we are of God’s family, while the whole godless world lies in the power of the
evil one.” (5:19)
The rest are “pagans” :
“It was on
Christ’s work that they went out; and they would accept nothing from pagans.”
(3
The letters of John end with an allusion to the schisms one Diotrephes
was causing amongst the local congregation.
JUDE
“and appeal to you to join the struggle in
defence of the faith…It is in danger from certain persons who have wormed their
way in” (
Jude is concerned with the
licentiousness of the “certain persons”:
“They are a set of grumblers and malcontents.
They follow their lusts.” (Jude 4
&16).
Proof to
“In the final age there will be men who pour
scorn on religion, and follow their own godless lusts.” (Jude18)
“hate the very clothing that is contaminated
with sensuality.” (Jude 23)
Here endeth the Letters.
******************************
THE LETTERS
Because these essays are ultimately an exploration for “T” Truth, we
need to ask: what have we learned about Truth from the Letters?
The Letters are the correspondence of some of the early House of God’s
fathers and theoreticians to their scattered flock.
THE BEGINNINGS OF
In the doctrinal letters we see the beginning of the building of a
religion – the process of drowning of the Truths that Jesus brought (for
example: the primacy of love; forgiving even your enemies; doing unto others)
in the bathwater that is doctrine – the followers of Jesus, doctrine by
doctrine, block by block, turned their little movement into an “H” House. But,
as time passed, it seems as if this religion – formed in the name of
Is this fair to say?
To answer this, we need to hunt for “the real
THE HUNT FOR THE
At the beginning of this exploration of the New Testament I said that
He must have had some important things to say in those twelve months and
anybody searching for “T” Truth and special meaning in life should seek to find
out what it truly was.
“Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find.”
(The
Gospel of
So much has been written about
THE HISTORICAL
THE BIBLICAL JESUS
Because Jesus was either
illiterate or chose not to write, his words and deeds must come to us through
others. The “others” are the Gospel and Letters-writers.
CONTRADICTIONS WRITTEN BY GOD?
But some would say the Gospels are a special case,
being written by, or, at the very least, inspired by God. We have seen in our
examination so far of the New Testament (like the Old Testament) scant evidence
of Divine authorship. The Gospels differ over facts often: there are frequent
and obvious divergences and contradictions. Why would God inspire mistakes and
omissions? Why, once the initial Divine story of
WHY DON’T WE HAVE THE ORIGINAL VERSIONS?
We also don’t have the original versions of the
Gospels – so it also has to be asked – if God wrote or inspired the Bible, why
couldn’t he inspire people to keep the original version safe?
“It is one
thing to say the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we don’t have
the originals...If one wants to insist that God inspired the very words of
scripture, what would be the point if we don’t have the very words of
scripture?”
Bart D. Ehrman, “Misquoting
Jesus” (P.10-11)
No, the New Testament, like the Old, looks beyond
reasonable doubt to be the word of man. Luke actually announces that men wrote
the Gospels: “many have undertaken to set
down an orderly account”. And although “many” had written gospels he
decided that yet another account was needed: “so that you may know the truth” (Luke 1:1-4). So God, through
A JESUS TO SUIT ANY IDEA
In the Gospels you can find
a Jesus to support any argument – a Jesus who was only concerned for the people
of Israel – or a Jesus who cared about wider humanity; you can find a Jesus who
ranted about hell for the smallest misdemeanours – or a Jesus whose message of
forgiveness extended even to the soldiers hammering nails into him; you can
find a Jesus who condemned to hell whole towns for not receiving his disciples
preaching straight away – or a Jesus who said the criminal hanging on the cross
next to him would be with him in heaven; you can find a warrior Jesus who came
with a sword – or a peacemaker who advocated forgiving your enemies; a man of
tolerance who would rescue an adulteress from stoning – or a man of intolerance
who would wither a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season.
SOME SETTLE FOR THE
Faced with these
contradictions most logically deny
It may help us to penetrate
the forest of Biblical “t” truths we are faced with if we can identify the motives
driving the New Testament.
THE MOTIVES OF GOSPEL WRITING
After the first one, the subsequent Gospels (which after all, claim to
tell the same story) must have been written because others disagreed with it –
or thought it incomplete. We don’t know (or have) the first Gospel written, but
the first written which was selected for the Bible was
MANY WERE WRITTEN, BUT FEW WERE CALLED
There were many more gospels written than the four eventually selected
for the canonical New Testament – including one written closer in time to
COMPILING THE FIRST BIBLE
The
The
“Among the
disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognised by many, are extant the
so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter,
and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to
the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected
writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd,
and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of
Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said,
the Apocalypse of John, if it seems proper, which some, as I said, reject, but
which others class with the accepted books.”
“Ecclesiastical History.” (Book 3, chapter25)
Obviously there was much material to choose from and, in the end, it’s
not drawing too much of a longbow to imagine that those writings which
supported prevailing House of God doctrine would have been preferred. The main
point here is, the Bible was not only written by man, but compiled by man – from
a large body of writing about
BARRIERS TO THE TRUTH
So, we are beginning to realise the number of obstacles to knowing the
real
THE FILTERS BETWEEN US AND THE REAL
1. THE TIME FILTER
The first filter is the considerable length of time Jesus’ words and
actions were carried in peoples’ memories before they were committed to writing
by the Gospellers. Scholastic consensus has it that the gospels were written long
after Jesus was executed – approximately 40 years after in the case of the
earliest (Mark), to 60+ years for the latest (John & Luke). The passage of
time must always blur facts.
2. THE ANECDOTE FILTER
It must be remembered, the accepted Gospels are journalism – the writing
down of anecdotal accounts – and mostly by those who did not witness them.
Those of you who have had any experience of reading journalism of events you
have personally witnessed, will know how bad it is at getting down the truth of
events and words that are one day old – let alone decades later when the bulk
of first-hand adult witnesses have passed away. In biblical times, carrying
stories in what is called the “oral tradition” was common amongst illiterate
peoples, and although probably much better at it than we are now, this would
lead to some discrepancy from fact – even if total honesty was employed.
3. THE TRANSLATION FILTER
Another substantial filter in the process of the true words and actions arriving
in our hands is the need for translations between languages. Jesus’ words were spoken
in his Aramaic language. This was translated eventually into Greek (the
language of the earliest complete Gospels we have), then into whatever language
we are now reading – often through other languages on the way (like Latin, for
example). There have been many significantly differing editions of the Bible over
the years due solely to disputes over translation.
4. THE HAND COPYING FILTER
The hand-copying process – which, of course, was the norm before the
printing press was able to give us identical copies – was another agent of
change to the actual words of
“We don’t even
have copies of copies of the originals [Gospels], or even copies of copies of copies of the originals. What we have are
copies made later – much later. In most instances, they are copies made
centuries later. And these copies all
differ from one another in many thousands of places.”
- (Misquoting Jesus, P. 10)
5. THE RELIGIOUS EDITING FILTER
And there is the fact of later deliberate religious editing of the
Gospels. The scribes were almost always religious clerics, and members of
various factions – prone to theological editing because keen to spread a
particular point of view.
“Some of the
most familiar verses of the New Testament were not originally part of the text, but were added by later
scribes. These scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts
of the New Testament, but not in manuscripts of the earlier centuries. But
because some of the best-known English editions of the New Testament, such as
the King James Bible (the Authorised Version), were based not on early
manuscripts, but later ones, these verses became part of the Bible tradition in
English-speaking lands.”
(Ehrman,
ibid. Pp. 265-6)
Ehrman lists ten key Biblical verses which have been changed – and they
are often verses which are pivotal for key doctrines (like the Trinity and the
Eucharist). In 1707
6. THE GOSPELLERS’ MOTIVE FILTER
But the densest filter between
7. THE SELECTION PROCESS IN COMPILING THE NEW
TESTAMENT
Later, the final filter was installed between the
real Jesus and us – the final compilation process of choosing between the many
existing gospels for inclusion in the official Christian canon. Athanasius (4th
century bishop of Alexandria, Egypt) is credited with the first compilation of
the Books which make up the present Christian New Testament and selection was
supposedly on the basis of apostolic authority – but who exactly had “apostolic
authority” was debated. Motives associated with 4th century House of
God building were important in deciding this – the Gospel of Thomas was
rejected because it was a product of the Gnostic faction – declared heretical
because it pursued knowledge rather than stressing faith.
So, having identified several substantial filters between us and Jesus,
can we now remove them?
REMOVING THE FILTERS
Some filters associated with the passage of time, copying and/or editing
cannot be removed unless we find the first copies of the Gospels – or find new original
Gospels. How about removing the doctrinal filters associated with differing
factions? Let’s start by asking if, and which, of the doctrines spun about
I would say – none.
So, what are the main doctrines others spun around
MESSIANIC DOCTRINE
The Gospellers closest to Jesus in time (Mark, then Matthew) were
attempting to proselytise the Jewish population, and they developed the
doctrine that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, come to lead his people to victory against
their oppressors as was prophesised in Hebrew Scripture. The motive was simple,
there is no one more important in Jewish mythology than the Messiah – the
leader promised by the Old Testament. If Jesus could be sold as the Messiah he
would gain an immediate following among the Jews. Because Micah in the Old
Testament said the Messiah, when he came, would be born in Bethlehem, the Jesus
story in those Gospels targeting a Jewish audience had to have Jesus (who was
actually from Nazareth) born in Bethlehem. This from Bishop Spong:
“Well after Jesus’ death, when Messianic thinking
began to swirl around him, his memory was wrapped in these traditions. Jesus’
birthplace in
Spong, “Jesus for the
Non-Religious” (P. 20)
SALVATION DOCTRINE
This doctrine was developed by
We will discuss these other doctrines in a moment, but here – how did
salvation doctrine affect Jesus’ words and deeds in the Gospels? What happened
on the cross was subtly changed in the later Gospels to support the idea that Jesus
intentionally sacrificed himself for the purpose of our salvation. In the
earliest Gospels Jesus cried out on the cross in anger that God had forsaken
him (“My God, my God! Why hast thou forsaken me? – Mark 15:34 & Matt 27:46),
whereas the later Gospels had him just accepting his approaching death (“It is completed” – John 19:30; “Into your hands I commend my spirit –
Luke 23:46). The words quoted by the earlier, Jewish Gospellers (
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
The Trinity was another doctrine developed by the early Church Fathers
to compete in the wider Mediterranean world teeming with gods – who were
commonly part human, part Divine – even the Emperor was seen as such. To
compete in such a world, Jesus had to be “D” Divine – not just Divine but the only
begotten Son of God – conceived not of
man, but God (enter virgin-birth doctrine). When risen,
It’s impossible to know whether the real Jesus saw himself as the Trinity.
Personally, I think he would have been horrified at the idea – Jesus was
devout, and he prayed intensely and often to a power above his own – a “D”
Divinity. He was convinced this God was soon (within the lifetime of many of
those presently alive) to come and rule on Earth – he definitely did not think
that God’s coming had been fulfilled by his own birth. We can witness the development
of the idea of the Divinity of Jesus through
ORIGINAL SIN DOCTRINE
Salvation doctrine rests on the notion that all humanity needs “saving”.
But many people live good lives, with only inconsequential “sins”, so a sin, was
contrived by House of God theologians that could be applied to all humans – the
sin of being human – brilliant!. This became our “original” sin, of which we
are all equally culpable – we must all be sinful because we are all descendants
of the original humans,
A doctrine concocted from a concocted myth!
Because much of the House of God is built upon myths, it has always
stressed faith before knowledge – mythos over logos. The big fear of the House
of God over the centuries has always been that, if we choose to know the “T”
Truth rather than have blind faith in Church “t” truths (doctrine), then it
could be the beginning of the end for the House of God. One of the early Church
fathers (
RESURRECTION DOCTRINE
The bodily resurrection of Jesus is another doctrine of the House of God
– the doctrine key to its growth. As we saw in our examination of Paul’s
letters, he went so far as to say that without Jesus’ bodily resurrection,
“your faith has nothing in it.” The promise implied in the resurrection of
Jesus was the biggest selling point for the developing Christian House of God. The
promise of an eternal life in a better place, wowed the Mediterranean world back
when life was brutal and short – many converts were the lowest in society, even
slaves.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE MIRACLES
Faith healing was big in
DISSENTION TO DOCTRINE
These various doctrines we have considered were not unanimously
received, there were dissenters – especially to the Trinity doctrine. The chief
dissenters to the Trinity were called Arians (named after the 4th
century presbyter of
“…by summoning
the first universal Council of the Church, which was held between 20 May and 19
June 325 at Nicea (modern Iznik) with some 300 bishops taking part. The
proceedings were opened by the Emperor himself, and it was he who proposed the
insertion into the draft statement of belief of the key word homoousios – meaning consubstantial, ‘of one substance’
– to describe the relation of the Son to the Father. Its inclusion was almost
tantamount to a condemnation of Arianism, and such were the Emperor’s powers of
persuasion that by the close of the conference only seventeen of the assembled
bishops maintained their opposition – a number that the threat of exile and
possible excommunication subsequently reduced to two.”
- “The
Debate about the “co-substance” of Jesus and God did not end there
however, the Arians subsequently out-manoeuvred their opponents and baptised
The debate about the Trinity raged on but, like most doctrines of the
House of God, it was not susceptible to the powers of reason:
“The concept
is essentially mystical, not rational. As
- Quoted from “Barbarians”, Jones & Ereira
(P. 227)
So, if we make an effort
to be aware that doctrines tend to be about
THE REAL JESUS
We’ll start with the very basics.
Because Jesus gets the barest mention in secular history some sceptics have
made an argument that he even existed.
1. Jesus existed –
·
The various Jesus
movements must have been inspired by a real person – you don’t just invent a
character then go out and die brutal deaths for that invention – you don’t “die
for a lie”.
·
Jesus had another
voice – bigger in personality and wiser than the Gospellers who wrote about him
showed themselves to be by their writing.
·
You can’t invent
a message you can’t comprehend.
2. Jesus was human. The following stories from the
Gospels are unlikely to be inventions or embellishment because they do not help
the Gospellers’ mission of proselytising their fellows. Jesus had human fears, weaknesses,
and made the occasional mistake:
·
In the garden of
·
Jesus frequently
showed very human frustration at the slow wits and personal flaws of the
disciples and others around him.
·
Jesus could be
angry and violent – as when he attacked the money-changers and vendors in the
·
Jesus’ mother
and family thought he was absolutely human – they came to retrieve him because
he was causing them embarrassment and concern, they even feared he was insane
(Mark 3:21).
·
Jesus made
mistakes – he repeatedly stated that the coming of God was near – within the
lifetimes of some of those present.
3. Jesus was Jewish – very Jewish. Many members
of the Christian House of God forget this.
·
Jesus’ teachings
focussed on the important Jewish issues of the day.
·
His disciples
were Jewish.
·
His followers
thought of him as a Rabbi.
·
Jesus himself
stated that he had only come for his god’s chosen people – his fellow Jews.
·
He did not
regard Gentiles highly: “Do not even
Gentiles do the same? (Matthew 5:47) and “For it is the Gentiles who strive for these things.” [food, drink
and clothing] (Matthew 6:32). And in other places referred to them as dogs: “Let the children be fed first, for it is not
fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs” (Mark 7:27) –
and as swine: as in “casting pearl before swine”.
4. Jesus
was preternaturally wise. Jesus’ parables were very deep, his ripostes always
sharp. The following anecdotes stand out as true because they are beyond the
wisdom of the Gospellers (judged from the rest of their work). The first two
examples of his wisdom were even keener because they were delivered under
pressure in potentially very dangerous situations:
·
“Give unto
Caesar what belongs to Caesar” – when asked if Israelites should pay tax to
·
“Let he who is
without sin cast the first stone” – when the crowd was about to stone an
adulteress.
·
“It is not the
healthy who need a doctor, but the sick” – when asked why he mixed with tax
collectors and sinners.
·
“It is easier
for a camel to go through the eye of a needle fully laden than a rich man to
heaven”.
·
“What does it profit
a man to gain the whole world but forfeit his own soul?”
·
“You see the
sliver in your neighbour’s eye but not the plank in your own.”
·
“Enter by the
narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to
destruction, and many take it.”
·
“You will know
them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?”
·
“Then you will
know the truth and the truth will set you free.”
·
“Inasmuch as ye
have done it unto one of the least of these my bretheren, ye have done it unto
me.”
5. Jesus was radically different – he brought a
revolution in the idea that we should treat friends and foes the same –
different to the payback ethos, which unfortunately still dominates the
·
“You have heard it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour [Leviticus
19:18] and hate your enemy’. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray
for those who persecute you … for he [God] makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the
just and the unjust.” (Matt.5:43-48).
·
“You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ [Exodus
& Deuteronomy]. But I say to you, do
not resist one who is evil. But if any one strike you on the right cheek, turn
to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him
have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him
two miles.” (Matt. 5:38-42)
·
“So whatever you wish that men would do to
you, do so to them.” (Matt. 7:12) Here Jesus was ahead of the curve in his
version of the Golden Rule – the old scriptures only stated that you should not
do what you don’t want done to you. (Apocrypha-Tobit 4:15) – as
similarly do versions of the Golden Rule found in other civilisations. Wouldn’t
the world be a better place if we did good things rather than just refraining
from bad? As the Bhagavad-Gita has it : “Nobody
can become perfect by merely ceasing to act.”
·
Jesus said we
should genuinely love our enemies. Paul, on the other hand, was not very “Christian”
– preferring the Old Testament idea from Proverbs (25:21) that, by showing
kindness to our enemies, we will piss him off – “by doing this you will heap live coals on his head.” (Romans
12:20).
6.
7. Jesus was charismatic:
·
He always drew a
crowd in a time when there were plenty of preachers.
·
He drew
disciples who gave up their livelihoods to live a hard, hand-to-mouth existence
with him.
·
The memory of
him after his death drew devotees to the Jesus movement at great risk to
themselves.
·
His following
was built in only a few months (not much more than a year by all accounts) of
public ministry.
8. Jesus was not religious.
·
·
Jesus
countermanded the Scriptures: “You have
heard it said … but I say … “
·
·
Jesus had no
time for the pious and sanctimonious, he continually railed at the Pharisees
and Sadducees.
·
Jesus gave new
and different sermons to the people.
·
Jesus condemned
the religious practises in the
·
He spoke against
religious food laws: “Do you not see that
whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters not the
heart but the stomach and goes out into the sewer.” (Mark 7:18)
·
Religion killed
So, to sum up:
Ignoring the bathwater of
religion, in the New Testament it is possible to see a man whose message was
quite simple – a short list of what we should do, rather than a long list of
“shalt nots”. If we could but love, forgive, and do unto others – then the
These are as close to facts
about
THE RESURRECTION?
Two points we need to consider: 1.) did
To this I would answer “maybe” and “no” – respectively.
We only have the Gospels here, and, as is not uncommon – they record
different “facts” on the matter. For instance, the Gospels disagree about where
and how Jesus’ body was entombed; about Jesus’ various reappearances; about the
dead, but risen, Jesus eating a meal with his disciples; and about the
“Doubting Thomas” actually touching Jesus’ wounds to prove it was him. But
there are some points that may underwrite a rational belief in the resurrection
– as opposed to wishful thinking.
SOME POINTS FOR BELIEVING A RESURRECTION
One of the few aspects of the resurrection story that the Gospels agree
on is – the empty tomb was discovered by the women among
“…simply, if
you were making up a story about a resurrection and you wanted your fellow
first-century Jews to believe it, you would not include women as the initial
witnesses.”
He also quotes
“…were well
aware of customary attitudes to the testimony of women, but they simply
recorded the traditions they received, even though they would have carried
little weight in arguments with opponents.”
(ibid. P. 126)
COWARDS INTO MARTYRS
Another point to be considered is the fact that, after
It would have been a wise move by the authorities to remove and dispose
of
THE PARANORMAL
We are now entering the world of the paranormal, a field which makes “S”
Sceptics break out in hives. I explore the paranormal, among lots of other
phenomena, in Essay 3, and have to say that my study of the field has left me
with a completely open mind about it. Here, for this consideration of
**********************************
THE REVELATION OF JOHN
Here we really get down to the core nonsense of the Christian House of
God. Feverish, psychotic, rabid, eschatological imaginings designed to keep the
masses in fear of an awful god – and coming along to the House on Sundays. Fear
has been the cement in the building of the House of God through the centuries.
Even, supposedly educated, modern-day biblical evangelicals remain in thrall of
the evil “g” god of Revelation.
In the pages scratched out by John in his cave we
have spirits, angels, trumpets, sealed books, scrolls, horsemen of the
Apocalypse – only 144,000 will be saved from hell (all Jews – 12,000 from each
tribe) – thunder, fire, lightening, plagues, scorpions, and wormwood for the
rest of us (for five months until we wished we were dead). Then a third of
mankind is to be killed by angels and a great red dragon appears with seven
heads and ten horns, a leopard-like body, bear’s feet and lion’s mouth – out of
which came blasphemy. This beast branded everyone who wanted to buy or sell
with its number 666 (the last three digits of my estate agent’s phone number –
I always suspected something). Those branded with the mark of the beast have to
drink the wine from the grapes of God’s wrath from out of the cup of his
vengeance and then be tormented in sulphurous flames for ever and ever.
If that don’t get you then you will probably be reaped with a sharp
sickle and squished in God’s winepress designed to vintage the grapes of wrath
(14:19), or struck with a plague and “foul
malignant sores” (16:2), or burn in flames, or plunge into darkness and
agony and gnaw your tongue (16:10)– or get slaughtered at Armageddon.
Phew!
I wonder if it’s too late to say I believe in original sin and
But it’s not all bad news because those who have died in God’s name get
resurrected for 1000 years living with Christ in the first resurrection. Then
all the dead get resurrected in the second resurrection and judged – those not
on the “roll of the living” (20:12)
to be flung into the eternal lake of fire. The “lucky” saved get eternity in a
brand new Jerusalem made out of gold, pearls, jasper, lapis lazuli, chalcedony,
emerald, sardonyx, beryl, topaz (and more besides) which is to descend from the
clouds.
Who exactly believes this flagrant tosh? Well Christian evangelicals and
fundamentalists of course. But they can’t have read it too closely. If I was
them I wouldn’t get my hopes up. The twelve gates to this new “paradise” are
each inscribed with the name of one of the 12 tribes of
“It had a great high wall, with twelve gates,
at which were twelve angels; and on the gates were inscribed the names of the
twelve tribes of
So, no gate for Gentiles –
and what do they imagine the “great high wall” is for? Revelations is
clear-eyed about Gentiles – seeing them as one of the miserable plagues:
“But have nothing to do with the outer court
of the temple; do not measure that; for it has been given over to the Gentiles,
and they will trample the
Anyhow, let’s face it,
who’d want to be there? The already mentioned original saved 144,000 were not
only all men, but
“men who did not defile themselves with women”
(14:4)!
There are apparently going
to be a lot of wankers or homosexuals in paradise! Maybe they should get the
Muslims to lend them a few dark-eyed houri?
“I
warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds
anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”
(22;18)
So,
here endeth the Bible – on a curse.
Amen?
It’s “amen” for the Bible,
but is it amen for us? We have reached the end of our examination of the Bible
and now we have to decide whether the House of God built upon it is a sound
place to dwell –
******************************
HOW STANDS THE HOUSE OF GOD?
At the beginning of this essay I said that the foundation of the Christian
House of God was the Bible. O
Any religion of a book is only as good as its book – so how good is the
Christian House of God’s book?
The
All up, not very sound material to build a secure “H” House on?
How about a “G” God?
THE BIBLICAL GOD
As for the Bible’s god, we found that it was not a “G” God, but an incredible,
primitive “g” god – an awful god, a fearsome god, a jealous god, a parochial
god (who will take a few of his chosen tribes into heaven and torture the rest for
eternity) – a human god. Nothing Divine, just something very human – and of the
worst sort: brutal; vengeful; capricious; ethnic cleansing; sexist – approving
the slaughter of children from the wrong tribe and turning a blind eye to slavery
and cruelty to animals.
OK, OK – but can’t people just believe in the New Testament?
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS ARE CO-DEPENDENT
The New Testament is not an independent document to the Old Testament –so
much of the credibility of the New depends upon the truth of the Old.
Fundamentalists would deny this because many of the Gospel stories were written
in a way that made it seem that Old Testament myths, stories, and prophecies
were being fulfilled by
“…if you pick
up any of the four Gospels and read them at random, it will not be long before
you learn that such and such an act or saying, attributed to Jesus, was done so
that an ancient prophecy should come true. (Speaking of the arrival of Jesus in
C.
Hitchens, “God is Not Great” (Pp. 109-110)
While Hitchens is one of the leading zealots in that other incredible fundamentalism
– the “H” House of Disbelief (which we will examine next) – he does hit the
mark here. The Bible is mainly a “work of crude carpentry” – new and old nailed
together – the credibility of the New Testament is definitely reliant on the
credibility of the Old.
THE WORD OF GOD?
Can anybody today who is not living in fear, anybody with a brain to
think and an eye to see, still support the dogma of Biblical infallibility – a
dogma based on supposed Divine authorship and/or inspiration? This from
“Was this claim for the Bible to be the ‘Word
of God’, no matter how it is interpreted, ever appropriate for this volume
which contains sixty-six books that were written over a period of perhaps
twelve hundred years? Can such a claim stand even the barest scrutiny? … Is
this claim not the primary source from which evil has flowed so freely from the
Christian church throughout history?”
- “The Sins of
Scripture”, P. 17
No, the truth is plain to see – the Bible and the “g” god within it is
obviously the creation of men. And I mean this literally – judging from all the
blatant sexism and misogyny, it was obviously men who wrote, translated,
copied, and selected the contents of Bible. It would be interesting to read a
Bible written by women (and to see the god they would find?)
The ancient claim about the Bible being the word of God was designed to
prevent examination, criticism, change – and, as Spong says, this claim has been
the “source from which evil has flowed so freely”. All religions of a “B” Book
run the same risk of claiming Divine sanction for evil – if there is a God,
surely this is the worst sin?
APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY?
The gospels selected to be the “G” Gospels of the New Testament were so
chosen because they were said to have apostolic authority. The underlying
assertion here is that the New Testament somehow had
So, written by man, embellished by man, selected by man – the “D” Divine
authorship seems unlikely. How does the House of God answer this?
APOLOGIA
Attempts to explain away the obvious incredibility of the Bible have
become an art form. Apologia and exegesis (defending, interpreting and
explaining biblical text) have been going on for a long time, and have involved
more gymnastics than the Olympics. The fathers of the Christian House of God
were champions – for example,
“argued that
Jesus was the incarnation of the Logos which had been active in the world throughout
history, inspiring Greeks and Hebrews alike … The Logos had taken many forms
before its definitive revelation in Jesus. It had spoken through Plato and
Socrates. When Moses thought he heard God speaking from the burning bush, he
had really been listening to the Logos.”
Logos or Mythos?
“with all the attention and reverence they
deserve, it is certain that, in the very act of reading and diligently studying
them, his mind and feelings will be touched by a divine breath and he will
recognise that the words he is reading are not the utterances of a man but the
language of God.”
A DIVINE BREATH?
How could “G” God utter the statement that women were unclean (many
places in the Old Testament); that women should be seen and not heard (Paul);
how could they sully men just by having contact with them and prevent them from
getting into heaven (Revelations)? How could God’s divine breath utter words
condoning beating a slave (albeit with a rod no bigger than your thumb and not
so savagely that he couldn’t get up after two days!); approve slavery at all
for that matter; the stoning of rebellious sons; the ethnic cleansing of men,
women, children and animals who were the previous, innocent, and proper owners
of “the promised land”? I’m afraid
“Divine
wisdom has arranged for certain stumbling blocks … by inserting in the midst a
number of impossibilities and incongruities, in order that the narrative might,
as it were, present a barrier to the reader and lead him to refuse to proceed
along the pathway of the ordinary meaning.” – Origen (ibid. 4.2.9)
Thus it was argued that Scripture was not available to literal
interpretations like mine – the Bible’s “impossibilities and incongruities”
passed off as part of God’s divine plan. “Ordinary meaning” is not appropriate,
Church officers are needed to interpret the Divine allegory, metaphors, and
analogy within. Sounds like “jobs for the boys” to me?
DIVINE JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY ACT
Once again, this is where all the trouble starts with the House of God –
its officers have been able to find Divine justification for any action through
“sophisticated” exegesis – no matter how evil. From such exegesis it has been
argued that the “Holy” Bible authorised such things as the Holocaust, the
Inquisitions, the Crusades, slavery, witch burning, inter-denominational
violence, sexism, homophobia, and numerous bloody wars.
CONTAINING EVIL
The House of God maintains that its officers are the only ones with a
true understanding of the word of God, an authority which was always jealously defended
with brutal vigour. People were tortured and burned at the stake for
questioning or threatening their power of sole interpretation –
MANY DISAGREEMENTS AMONG
THE PROTO-ORTHODOX
Before the Bible was agreed upon – and its Divine infallibility asserted
and murderously protected – there had been several disagreements among the
Church fathers about the Bible’s reliability. Not only about the contents of
the Bible, but about intertwining
“What Marcion
said made the Proto-Orthodox extremely uncomfortable, for it had the ring of
logic to it…Marcion rejected completely all the writings that Christians would
later dub the Old Testament. The Jewish scriptures were false writings, presenting
an inadequate portrait of God. They reflected the worship of the lower God.
Unlike early church leaders, he maintained that these scriptures were not to be
interpreted away through clever allegory or other fanciful means. They were to
be just discarded as incompatible with Christian revelation.”
Others disagreed with him.
Whereas Irenaeus (c.140 – 200 AD, bishop of
“The task of
the exegete was to [fit] the clues
together like the interlocking pieces of a vast puzzle. Irenaeus compared the scriptures
to a mosaic, composed of innumerable tiny stones which, once they had been
placed together correctly, formed the image of a handsome king.”
- Irenaeus “Against Heresies” 1:8-9. (Armstrong,
ibid. P. 105)
Later, Eusebius (260-340 AD, bishop of
“Every prophet,
every ancient writer, every revolution of the state, every law, every ceremony
of the old covenant points only to Christ, announces only him, represents only
him.”
“
BIBLICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY DEED YOU WISH
But mosaic are fluid, Iraneus’ “tiny stones” can be re-assembled to make
up any mosaic picture you want. Many foul deeds have been justified by the
officers of the House of God placing together the Bible’s tiny stones in such a
way to suit their purposes:
“Looking back and reading these texts after
2,000 years, we may regret certain of their features: we may regret their
anti-Judaism, the insistence in some of them on the subordination of women to
men, and the acceptance of the institution of slavery by some of them. Moreover
the process of defining the New Testament seems to have expressed desires to
exclude what some literate males disliked. Of even greater regret are the
terrible cruelties perpetrated over the centuries by Christians who have
appealed to these features for justification of their deeds.”
-
(Margaret Davies, Op. Cit, P. 57)
That “evil has flowed so freely
from the Christian church throughout history” is not just an opinion,
but an indisputable fact – evidenced by a short walk through history –
Crusades, religious wars, Inquisitions, burnings at the stake, cruel missionary
acts, and more. We have to ask, how can this be so – from an institution which
bears the name of a spiritual man who brought us the message that we should
love one another, forgive our enemies, and do unto others as we would have them
do unto ourselves? The “Christian” House of God must answer this question if it
is to survive as anything other than a refuge for Bible-believing evangelicals,
fundamentalist ratbags – and/or cynical holders of tickets in Pascal’s wager – all
of whom can be fairly said to be driven by Darwinian motives (like animal
bodily survival) rather than spiritual ones.
DARWINIAN?
Religions are natural, they exist in most societies on Earth – sparked
by the spiritual aspects of life (like beauty and the mystery of our very
existence) – but tend to devolve into something else with time. It is not hard
to see some sort of higher agency in nature – a supernatural – but this most
often becomes, in time, about trying to control that higher agency for one’s
own ends. Supposedly being able to exert power over any god that has been
constructed (usually in a human image) is a position of great status, whether
medicine man or priest. Status leads to power, and power almost invariably
leads to corruption. It was the corruption of the officers of his religion that
made
FAITH
Houses of God never have as a purpose knowledge – the exploration for
“T” Truth. Truths can be inconvenient – wild cards which fall where they will –
but the concocted “t” truths of a House of God are totally under its control. And
its truths (myths, histories, legends, doctrines, dogma) need to be defended
grimly, brutally even, in the face of advancing knowledge – justified by stressing
faith as more vital than knowledge in the final judgement of our soul for
heaven or hell in eternity – religions’ meaning of life.
THE CARROT
The method of successful religion construction and maintenance has always
been the carrot and stick. The carrot in the Judeo/Christian House of God is
eternity in heaven (hard to attain), and the stick is eternal hell (hard to
avoid). The officers of religion have the power to help us attain the difficult
and avoid the almost inevitable. Not an inconsiderable power.
WORSHIPPING ANOTHER GOD THE WORST SIN
House of God officers also have the power to decide which misdemeanours
will result in eternal hell. One of the worst sins according to the officers of
any House of God was going over to the other side – worshipping another god. There
were many competing gods in the Mediterranean world and the Bible contains many
a diatribe explaining how the ills which have befallen god’s chosen people were
the result of them going over to worship other local gods (who did seem to be a
lot more successful for their chosen
people). For the officers of a House of God a wandering flock is the most
dangerous thing – the beginning of the end for their own power and status (not
to mention their food and lodgings). Thus being unfaithful to the “one true
god” was made out to be the worst sin of all. But the surrounding nature
religions were always luring away the Hebrew tribes – Baal was a locally
competing god who made frequent inroads into the congregation of Yahweh.
One of the main reasons for this, was the inescapable fact that the Jews
were constantly being beaten up by their neighbours. The Bible records the officers
of the Jewish religion having to work constantly to keep their flock under
control because the Hebrew god the “chosen” people had been sold looked very
much like a pup. The Jews were constantly dominated, invaded, and imprisoned by
their neighbours (Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and
Romans) and the Hebrew god’s home on Earth, the
Many stayed true, but Yahweh never delivered.
CHRISTIANITY – A NEW AND INCLUSIVE RELIGION
The new religion that was developed around the memory of Jesus was more
successful. Same god in Yahweh, but some new doctrines. Although Christianity
suffered competition from established Mediterranean religions, and its share of
defeats and persecutions, it was inclusive rather than exclusive – its big
ticket item being eternal salvation was for any, and every, body – not just an
exclusive, chosen few. But faith in the doctrines its religious officers had
cobbled together to build a House had to be given in return. The appeal of a
better, eternal life in the hereafter was immensely attractive in a time when
life, for most, was hard, short and brutal – a little faith was not so hard.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
CHRISTIANITY AS STATE RELIGION
Eventually, well after the death of
Although he credited the Christian god with aiding him to win the civil
war which had been necessary to install him,
-
Dominic Crossan,
“Jesus, A Revolutionary Biology” P.
201
As early historian, Eusebius, describes it, the birth of the Christian
House of God as official state religion was not a spiritual moment – but entirely
profane:
Detachments
of the bodyguard and troops surrounded the entrance of the palace with drawn
swords, and through the midst of them the men of God proceeded without fear
into the innermost of the imperial apartments, in which some were the Emperor’s
companions at table, while others reclined on couches arranged on either side.
One might have thought that a picture of Christ’s kingdom was thus shadowed
forth, and a dream rather than reality.
-
“Life of
“Shadowed forth” – not a good start – and the ordinary people, amongst
whom
THE CHURCH NAMED AFTER A REBEL BECAME THE ESTABLISHMENT
After
Christianity, named after a rebel, thus became the Establishment – the House
of God of the “civilised” world.
THE
HOUSE OF GOD TRADED PEOPLE’S BODIES FOR THEIR SOULS
So much for the establishment of the disestablishment hero,
So, how does this House of God stand today?
THE MODERN HOUSE OF GOD
When we come to the present
day we find that the House of God laments, and is surprised by, our
godlessness. The Anglican Archbishop of
“spiritual
anorexics…soothed and made coherent by consumer products, celebrity news, and
never-ending quests for physical perfection.”
(P. Jensen P. 86, The Future of
Jesus)
SPIRITUALLY HUNGRY BUT THE
HOUSE OF GOD
Meanwhile, the present Christian
House of God is being slowly but surely abandoned by all but the very scared. However
much we may hunger for things spiritual it apparently has nothing of substance to
feed us.
Why?
THE HOUSE OF GOD IS
DARWINIAN, NOT SPIRITUAL
Is it because the House of
God is not spiritual, but Darwinian – exploiting our animal fears of death and hopes
for survival in return for the power which resides in our hearts and minds (and
the money residing in our wallets). But a congregation brought together by such
animal fears of death and hopes for survival, seeking a Darwinian reward of
physical survival through bodily resurrection, is not generated by the
spiritual impulse but by the profane.
I will argue in essay 3 (On
the Road to Truth) that life is as much a spiritual experience as it is an
animal one – as much about spiritual evolution as animal evolution. But the
point here, for this essay is that the House of God is not playing what
could/should be a potentially pivotal role in that opportunity. This is because
the House of God is not a truly spiritual establishment – the House of God as
it now stands is not on a quest for spiritual “T” Truth but more concerned
about a defence of its primitive “t” truths. The convoluted doctrine of
salvation, boiled down, is just Darwinian animal survival – Paul himself, the
main doctrinaire of the House of God, said that the Christian faith has “nothing in it if Christ is not risen” (1
Corinthians 15:13 & 16-17).
The main attraction drawing
people to inhabit the House of God is not the search for spiritual Truths but the
removal of existential angst. This from atheist
“God,
manufactured by mortals in their own quintessential image, exists only to make
daily life bearable despite the path everyone of us treads towards extinction.
As long as men are obliged to die, some of them, unable to endure the prospect,
will concoct fond illusions.”
The Atheist
Manifesto, P.13.
Whilst I am not an atheist (the fact that the “g” gods of our Houses of
God are invented does not prove that there is no “G” God – more of that in the
next two essays) I agree with Onfray here. His “god, manufactured by mortals”
is religions’ god – and its main role was, and is, mainly to enable us to
tolerate the existential fears which result from humanity’s unique knowledge of
our mortality. As stated, the House of God’s officers sell comfort from those
fears for power and status – rather than using their position to search for
Divine Truths.
LOVE?
But many, lay and clergy, profess that they have been driven to inhabit
the House of God because of their love for God – and many denizens of the House
of God do seem to love their brutal gods of the ancient tribes. Who has not
seen pictures of excessive joy, swooning from “love hits”, happy loving faces among
the “happy-clapping” devotees of certain fundamentalist and/or evangelical
circuses. But is this really love, or just a survival tactic?
STOCKHOLM SYNDROME?
Are they truly in love with their vicious, Hebrew, tribal god – or, rather,
victims of the Stockholm Syndrome? This well-researched and recognised syndrome is where powerless captives replace
the fear they have for their captors – with “love” – a survival technique to
get some power over their captors. Every body wants love – even captors – it is
the only basis for enduring human happiness (more of that in essay 3).
THE FUTURE?
At the beginning of this essay I quoted
SELF ESTEEM IS VESTED IN OUR GROUPS
Our religion is a group we belong to, and our groups are extensions of
our self. That is why we all like to see any group we belong to triumphant – our
personal esteem is vested in it. And how does a religion become “triumphant”?
Usually by converting the majority of people to its beliefs – your beliefs –
making your beliefs “right”. In this way, proselytising for numbers is taken
seriously – often murderously seriously – any foul deeds will be excused
because they are committed for God.
GROUP STATUS IMPORTANT TO SUPRESSED INDIVIDUALS
Personal esteem from group membership is especially important for people
who are politically suppressed and/or economically depressed and have precious
few personal avenues to feel good about their selves. This is why groups like
football teams are important to people – soccer riots are most common (and most
vicious) among those who have very few avenues for personal status other than
their team’s victories. The riots are not about any unhappiness with soccer itself,
but about who wins or loses it. Religion, like a sporting team, is more
important to politically and economically depressed people because it is one of
the very few avenues for personal status – try criticising the gods in India or
the Middle East – people not only get status from their religions’ victories
but develop huge enmities if it is slighted.
Because of this it is very easy for officers of religion (whose personal
vested interest is even greater) to stir up hatreds of other groups by
depicting them as threatening your religion. For example, consider the
seemingly interminable warfare between Protestants and Catholics in
But, in the game of numbers, what is actually right becomes secondary – faith
before knowledge – mythos over logos.
“Religion is
all about believing ones’ beliefs are right, not about having right beliefs.”
(“50 Voices
of Disbelief”, P. 47 –
PROSELYTISING ZEAL SWAMPED
We have seen in this examination of the House of God how the “proselytising
zeal” of various factions among
THE TRUTH?
I call the “T” Truth things that are true for everybody, all the time.
Things like Love; Forgiveness; Doing good unto others – these are evidentially “T”
Truths because they are evidentially true for everybody, all the time. A
plethora of modern “Happiness” studies arrive at the same conclusion – if we
love and are loved; if we forgive rather than letting enmities fester within us;
if we do good things unto others – then we will be happy.
HOW TO BEST LIVE – PHILOSOPHY’S HOLY GRAIL
Love, Forgive, Do – are then the answer to the question which is often
referred to as the holy grail of philosophy – “how to best live?” Whatever you
believe, or disbelieve, about
Even if
I believe he did, for reasons I have already laid out, but my belief
does not have to be proven true for these words to be the Truth. And if
THE TRUTH IN THE BIBLE FITS ON
A CREATURE OF ANOTHER SPACE
The orthodox Christian House of God is a creature of another place and
time – it was formed in the eastern Mediterranean 2000 years ago. To have a
relevance today, and a future, the House of God needs to move away from the
mind sets prevailing at that time in that place. Even further away are the mind
sets which created the Old Testament and its brutal god.
WOULD THE END OF THE HOUSE OF GOD BE A GOOD THING?
House of God attendees in the West have already declined, to the point
of being mainly a rump of Bible-believing evangelicals and fundamentalists. Church
buildings have been, and are being, converted to dwellings and other uses – it
cannot be too far from its end of days in the West? If
GOOD THINGS DONE BY THE HOUSE OF GOD –
But the House of God has done many good things over the years as well –
and surely a sound House of God has the potential for more? How do we preserve
these good things and valuable social roles, but get rid of the undoubted
miseries? A sound House of God would be good – “sound” because founded
on
A COMMON MEETING GROUND?
Such a House could be a common meeting ground to visit for some comfort,
and some fellowship with our fellow travellers in, an often difficult, life; somewhere
we can celebrate our rites of passage. Somewhere that rings with our
selves/souls/spirits – somewhere for an experience of the numinous in an often
depressingly mechanistic world which can be, typically for most, devoid of
special meaning and ultimate purpose. A place where we can find the spiritual
nourishment that we showed our selves to be so in need of, at the turn of the
millennium.
Somewhere where there is:
“a freer
approach to rituals and worship – retaining, for example, a community
celebration of births, marriages and deaths
… so that being a Christian might once more mean being like Christ
himself. And it would mean abandoning the idea that the hall-mark of a true
Christian is doctrinal orthodoxy, in favour of an expression of their faith
which might once more induce others to marvel at ‘how these Christians love
one another’ – the ideal we saw so
powerfully at work in the original Christian community.”
-
“The Rise and Decline of the
A genuine House of Jesus, rather than the home of incredible Judeo/Pauline
doctrines that we now have – a home for the nourishment of the spiritual factor
of the human equation. Credible nourishment, such that we don’t feel silly for
being there – having left our minds on a hook by the door.
A place of unity – unlike our present “H” Houses, which engender
separation. A place where all peoples could bring their Truths – their “pearls bought
at great price” – for our mutual enrichment. And all religions have Truths – and
remarkably similar on pivotal subjects – like forgiveness:
HINDUISM –
The noble-minded dedicate themselves to
the promotion of peace and the happiness of others – even those who injure
them.
ISLAM – Recompense evil, conquer it, with good.
CHRISTIANITY
– Turn the other cheek.
BUDDHISM –
Never is hate diminished by hatred. It is
only diminished by love – this is an eternal law.
JUDAISM – The most beautiful thing a man can do is to
forgive wrong.
Five religions speaking with one voice – now we must be nearing the
Truth – given that my definition of “T” Truth is something that is true for all
people, all the time? And you can find close similarities between them on other
pivotal subjects – like: love; the golden rule; spirituality; and the
responsibility for one’s actions.
You would wonder how the world’s religions manage to be so often at war
when they agree so closely on the subject of forgiveness? Obviously separation
is driven by the officers of religion, rather than religion itself – driven by
the need for personal status and/or power derived from winning the game for
numbers .
Maybe
WE HAVE MANAGED IT BEFORE
Am I dreaming that the world religions could unite their best for the
betterment (and survival) of humanity? No, we have done it in the past,
therefore we can do it again. There have been several times when certain places
encouraged different civilisations to come together in an air of toleration – where
each brought their best to a common table and allowed others to do the same. It
was during these times when humanity achieved its best – 12th
century Muslim, Jewish, Christian spiritual, scientific and philosophical communities
existed in al-Andalus (southern, Moorish Spain); the multi-cultural centre of
learning that was ancient Alexandria with its great library; the 12th
century Norman, Saracen, Greco/Latin Sicily of the Norman king Roger ll. It was
only when these civilisations were torn apart by political or religious ambition
that the music stopped. There presently exist some congregations where our unity
is recognised, but not enough, obviously. Maybe the Arab Spring could encourage
a
Belonging to groups are important to our personal esteem and happiness (we
will explore this further in Essay 3) but our membership of the human group could,
and should, serve the same purpose. “Should” because recognising that belonging
to a human group is our most important membership, is primary to our future survival.
We cannot survive far into the future as individuals, it can only be done as a
species. Let our membership in humanity, then, be the first we recognise – and
the highest we value – the most important source of our self-esteem.
Fine words, but how do we achieve it? Undeniable contact with an extra-terrestrial
civilisation should manage to bring our unity front and centre, but if we have
not found our unity before any such contact, we might not survive it? – the
Aztecs come to mind. Not such a silly idea – as we are discovering, there are
plenty of Earth-like worlds out there and it would be wise (and logical) to
presume that there is much life in our Galaxy – and wise (and logical) to unite
ourselves as a species better than we have managed so far.
OUR HOUSES FORCE SEPARATION
Our religious and secular
“H” Houses force separation upon us when there is actually none. There is a
Hindu saying: “Thou art That” – think about it.
On Earth,
LET HUMANITY GLORY IN LOVING
HUMANITY, NOT GOD
The idea of human unity was well expressed by
“That all nations should become one in faith
and all men as brothers; that the bonds of affection and unity between the sons
of men should be strengthened; that diversity of religion should cease, and
differences of race be annulled – what harm is there in this?… Do not you in
– Browne E.G., “A Traveller’s Narrative” (C.U.
Press, 1891)2:xxxix-xl
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every
man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main … any man’s death diminishes me, because I am
involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee.”
– (XVII. MEDITATION.)
Do not send to know for whom
the bell tolls – it is tolling for humanity. We need our faiths to evolve as
quickly as our technologies before we end our time prematurely. Civilisation is
at the parlous point where our technological evolution is way ahead of our
spiritual evolution – we have atomic weapons but primitive spirituality –
mainly because of our primitive Houses of God.
Amen.
Other essays: