The Foundation of Man-Made Religions
As a reader one thing anyone can learn from reading from a wide range of sources, is that no matter what you say, there are always those who will differ. This is natural and what a dull world if every human being thought exactly alike. I have read on the websites of many who have the belief that "the Bible is infallible and inerrant" and is "totally inspired by God." The "Holy" books of all the religions of the world are in fact the primary source and foundation that have fueled a world of division, antagonism, elitism and a host of other human problems. I suppose if we had been born on Mars and it was inhabitable and we were brought up believing in a book called "The Writings", which was a collection of writings from "prophets" and "prophetesses" of other inhabitable planets and which found their way to Mars, then that is what the common people would accept as "truth." In that book of "The Writings", it may say "all these writings are given by inspiration of God" and that would seal it for many who would forever believe that indeed God was the author.
The world is full of theologians, "scholars" and believers in the Bible, who think the Bible itself "proves" that it is the word of God. If indeed God is not the author of confusion, you have to scratch your head and wonder how the world is so divided into so many different interpretations of the Bible and thus innumerable churches and major religious beliefs. The general excuse is "well those who don't believe as we do, just don't understand the Bible." Yeah sure! Some people have been highly offended when I told them that the church world is full of Bible worshipers, who think the Bible is God. They always have a retort to "God is not the Bible and the Bible is not God." God is not ink on paper, but not only do millions of churchians seem to think so, but so also do other religious groups who think their "Holy" books are God also. Religious minded people love to quote passages from their "sacred" writings, which is their source that supposedly validates what they believe.
As far as the Worldwide Church of God and its offspring are concerned, their view of the Bible is peculiar to the interpretation of Herbert and their leaders. This is of course true of all groups and no one is convinced that anything that differs with their views is acceptable. I have emailed several splinter groups or their representatives in the past and expressed a few views, and the general reply is silence, but also a time or two---hostility. People simply do not want their comfort zone rocked. I agree that it is unsettling to be told that the Saturday Sabbath has nothing to do with salvation or eternal life, or material blessings for observing it, if you have been indoctrinated that it is paramount.
Most people have had the idea of Bible infallibility so pounded into their thinking for so many years, that to even entertain that their "Holy" book is full of holes is unthinkable. To question or challenge the Bible is tantamount to questioning God Himself and so to them, it is off limits. In the Old Testament anyone who picked up sticks on the Sabbath was to be put to death, and no one who can reason would believe that this represents the God of love, portrayed by Jesus Christ. And yet millions say "the Bible is totally inspired by God." Surely something is intrinsically wrong with a book that is the foundational source that causes some people to believe that they have rights to your property by force, or that they can kill the men and women and children in conquest and save the virgins for themselves. Writings that purport to enslave people to rulers of men, must have been penned by aliens, but not by God. Giving a priest class of people "right" to your pocketbook, because they represent God on earth is far fetched. The clergy class of "professional" Bible-thumpers are naturally ecstatic, because they can pick out passages in "The Writings" that give them status and free money at your expense.
I wonder how many more thousands of years will pass before people the world over come to their senses about "The Writings?" We know instinctively the basics of right and wrong without having to read it in ink on paper, scrolls or on papyrus. Don't we all know that it is wrong to murder your next door neighbor? Do we need a "licensed" preacher to stand in a pulpit and tell us this? Who were all these dead men, who penned "The Writings" and attributed them to God? Were they LYING SCRIBES with an agenda to control the world and pocket a treasure chest full of coins, compliments of their sheep-like followers? How do "The Writings" identify the splinter groups of the WWCG as the "one and only true church of God" on earth? I guess some people believe in magic.
Van Robison
6 comments:
You're right Van! A lot of times when religious groups ask you, like the WCG and its offshoots, "What does the Bible say?" about any given topic, what they really mean is their version of the Bible i.e. "What does HWA say the Bible says?"
And it's all very much like magic to suppose that your group alone is the "TRUE church" or teach the "TRUE gospel" etc. For instance, the ritual of baptism HWA/WCG taught is very much like a "magic ritual" in that it supposes that if you are immersed in water by a Sabbatarian who lays hands on you and prays over you then you will receive the Holy Spirit unlike other denominations that may just immerse converts in water without laying of hands or whatever. And yet HWA was never baptized with laying of hands by a Sabbathkeeper, but by a Baptist preacher as he himself attests! But, unlike those who in the Bible received the Holy Spirit and then spoke in tongues and prophesied I don't recall this happening to anyone baptized via the ACOGs or any other denomination for that matter.
The whole idea that "God wrote the inerrant Bible" is so flawed as to be a ridiculous premise to begin with.
M.T.Pseudopigrapha
John said, "And yet HWA was never baptized with laying of hands by a Sabbathkeeper, but by a Baptist preacher as he himself attests".
MY COMMENT - This is a statement of fact which some Armstrong adherents know, but few have ever questioned. In WCG theology, how can HWA's baptism be valid if the laying on of hands in his baptism was from a "worldly", "non-true Church of God" minister?
Would Gerald Flurry, Rod Meredith, or Dave Packatolla please field an answer to this question?
It strikes me as inconsistent and punctures a HUGE hole in Armstrongism's "One True Church" and "successive church eras".
I once heard GTA say that even his father had to admit the Church of God, Seventh Day was "God's true Church" also. It had to be "God's true church" also because it was the Sardis era according to Armstrong.
And where did the Church of God, Seventh Day originate from? One of it's original names was: Church of God (Adventist). It was an offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists.
In Armstrong theology, Seventh Day Adventists are not recognized as "God's true Church" like the Church of God, Seventh Day. How can that be if the church was an offshoot of the SDA church?
I find HWA being baptized by a Baptist minister to be as inconsistent with "God's one true church" and "successive church eras" as HWA not recognizing the SDA church as a true church, but recognizing the Church of God, Seventh Day as one.
Richard
The fact is that the Bible, in its best passages, does correlate with the higher morality, ethics, and beliefs of the human species. It also speaks desparagingly of our baser tendencies.
Was this always true? I suspect that in certain eras of the distant and recent past it was not. We've had the Bible in some form as an educational tool for thousands of years now, and the fact that this has had cumulative effect is beyond argument. If you are playing "Family Feud", and are asked to cite written works which are known to have influenced humanity, the Bible will probably always be revealed as having been behind one of the top hidden panels. It remains an excellent written standard as do Greek democracy, the Magna Carta, and the founding documents of the USA, all of which, it could be argued, were influenced in some way by the Holy Bible.
The problem with the Bible is not so much the document itself, but what is done with it. You can either use it as a basic, loose training manual, or you can rigidify it, add to it, add extra penalties for infractions, and add the extra dimension of human manipulation and judgmentalism to it all. It's best when allowed to speak to the heart on an individual basis, not as a means of cracking the whip, collecting people, and then exploiting them.
We, of all people, have witnessed the abuse and misuse. As in the case of rape, one becomes blind to right and healthy enjoyment after suffering painful misuse.
BB
"The fact is that the Bible, in its best passages, does correlate with the higher morality, ethics, and beliefs of the human species."
Exactly, you have to cherry pick to find the good stuff. You christians then have to excise over half of the book just to soothe your conscience. Even then, what you leave behind is still riddled with insanity, so you blame people for "misusing" it. I have to laugh to keep from crying.
Jace, I tried to be explicit so there would be no confusion, but ended up with some anyway. The fact is that many passages of the Bible do not correlate either with man's highest ethics and drives, or for that matter, with God's. They are there to show us examples of and results from bad choices, which can be just as instructive as presenting the best choices.
So, it is not cherrypicking, it's a matter of discerning whether something is presented as a good example, or a bad one. Just like life.
But, I'm glad you get to laugh, even if it is at our expense. There is far too little humor to life, and being able to laugh often helps us through.
BB
Post a Comment