|
|
The Amazing Deception - A Critical Analysis of Christianity
By Doyle E. Duke
Introduction to the Second Edition
A number of changes and additions have been made to The Amazing Deception for this second edition. One change you might already have noticed is the title. When I first began this work, my original intent was to present a more correct history of Christianity. The main purpose was historical enlightenment, not a critical assessment, but it is impossible to present unwanted evidence, or even conjectures, without drawing negative criticism. However, don't think me naive; I did know the book would be controversial, but I didn't realize just how controversial until a kind lady at a book signing suggested the more appropriate title—The Amazing Deception: A Critical Analysis of Christianity. In addition to a more definitive title, I have added citations in the form of notes, more accurate references, a larger bibliography, and better editing. Also, because the Apostle Paul was such an amazing person and his work is of paramount interest to the history of Christianity, I have expanded my study of Paul by two additional chapters. In all, the book has been lengthened by about a hundred pages. The first edition drew some criticism concerning the lack of notes and for some of my choices of bibliographical references. Foremost, of course, was the lack of notes. The greatest complaint with the bibliography section was the use of Internet references. Many feel that anything that can be changed overnight, or with the stroke of a few keys, cannot be reliable. Perhaps they are right, but I feel the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. During my reference studies I encountered several critical errors in hard copies (books). One of the most glaring examples concerned the death toll statistics and dates relating to the bubonic plagues that ravaged Europe, Asia, and North Africa in the 6th century AD. From three different sources I encountered dates ranging from 540 AD to 566 AD. In one instance, the number of fatalities was confused with statistics from the plagues of the fourteenth century. My contention is that once a book leaves the publisher, it is impossible to make changes without introducing another edition; errors on a website may be corrected in seconds. The final decision rests in whether one places his trust in hard copies, some published hundreds of years ago when information gathering was arduous of impossible, or in soft copies (web) that may be scrutinized, corrected, and updated daily. Another criticism concerned the 'garbage' scattered all over the Internet. This is where careful research is demanded. While it is tempting to accept information unquestioningly, a good researcher will seek a second or third source for confirmation—preferably against hard copy material. Personally, I've found that working both ways is advantageous; from Internet to hard copies, and vice versa. In all my references I have attempted to give my reader an 'exact address' where they can find the quoted material. One of the greatest advantages of the Internet is the readily available material. Imagine how hard it would be to find copies of Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Minucius Felix, or Hegesippus in the Arab, Alabama library, or how expensive they would be to buy. Another advantage is illustrated in my main source of material—the Original Catholic Encyclopedia. The first Catholic Encyclopedia was compiled and published by five editors who received a nihil obstat (nothing hinders) sanction from the official censor, Remy Lafort, in 1908, and an Imprimatur (let it be printed) from Cardinal John Farley, who was Archbishop of New York at the time. The last volume was published on April 19, 1913. From its inception, it was praised by both Catholics and Protestants, as one of the greatest sources of Church history every presented, but it did incite criticism as well as praise. The compilers had attempted to present an honest and truthful history of their Church, with the prevailing social and historical environments as they pertained to the Church. From the Catholic point of view, the endeavor was a great success, but because of sometimes hostile doctrinal difference, many Protestants took offense. In a period when the two dominant Christian denominations were still killing one another in Ireland and other less known countries around the world, anti-Catholic resentments flared anew. For example, Forgery in Christianity, written by Protestant judge and theologian, Joseph Wheless, was a condemnation of the Catholic Church, based on a point-by-point critique of the encyclopedia. In the following years, a number of updates were made to the encyclopedia, and much of the resentment slowly subsided. In 1967, a second edition was published. Of course, the New Edition, as it became known, included updates in relation to the secular world and the Catholic ecclesiastical world, following the Second Vatican Council, which introduced significant changes into Catholic practice. In 1996, a young man named Kelvin Knight was inspired to make the Catholic Encyclopedia readily and freely available to everyone via the Internet. He launched a Web site and solicited submissions from anyone who had a copy, or access to a copy, of the 1913 edition of the encyclopedia. As submissions came in, he proofed, corrected, and added each article to the Web. Of course, you're wondering: "Why the 1913 edition?" Its copyright limitation had expired, so he was freed from all liability and red tape. In 2006, Catholic Answers decided to take on the monumental task of publishing an authoritative online version to prevent and correct "(both accidental and purposeful), missing articles, and in the worse cases, changed meanings." The result was the online Original Catholic Encyclopedia; from which I have obtained most of my quoted material. So, what is the aim and the goal of The Amazing Deception: A Critical Analysis of Christianity? My purpose in this book is fourfold: (1) Trace the birth of Christianity and question the validity of the New Testament by using the Jews' dedication to the Law of Moses as the basis for measuring truth. For example, the Jews taught and practiced circumcision. After Jesus' death, his Apostles insisted upon circumcision and upheld the Law. Obviously, Jesus never taught them a different practice. Therefore, he did not teach a salvation apart from the Law. By using this method of deduction alone, many New Testament contradictions can be resolved. (2) Call attention to the confusion and contradictions throughout the New Testament, errors produced by early Church writers (and rewriters) attempting to validate favorite doctrines. For that purpose it has been necessary to make side trips to explain some statements and refute others. (3) Reveal the evolution of Christianity (the orthodox Church), from non-violent pacifists to a fanatical theocrasy that felt justified in eliminating all opposition to their perceived will of God. (4) I want to give warning of the latent dangers inherent within a religion that still perceives its goal as worldwide conversion. To wade through all the confusion and outright deception and present a simple understanding of Christianity's origin, history and teachings is not an easy task. It will not be without errors, because such a work is not possible. It is impossible to present an accurate story because the evidence and information simply isn't available. During the Jewish War (66-73 AD), and the following aftermath until about 130 AD, almost all Christian and Jewish records were destroyed. However, despite the lack of records, there are key truisms that help us deduce a clearer, if not totally accurate, understanding of the story of Jesus and the origination of Christianity. One of those truisms was the Jews dedication to the Law of Moses and their adherence to its teachings. Another is recorded in the New Testament; the obvious fact that Paul and the Apostles did not teach the same doctrines. By examining presently-accepted doctrines under the light of these and other facts, we are able to reveal a more logical and realistic story of Christianity. Today, one only has to acquire an unbiased interest in the origins of Christianity to realize that it is not the religion "given to our fathers". It worships the same God, venerates the same Scriptures, and even preaches the same message of salvation, so where do the differences lie? Foremost: Christianity has been stripped of absolute power and forced to submit to secular law. Secondly: Catholicism’s claim to absolute infallibility has been challenged and overturned by the general populace. Thirdly: knowledge and the ability to reason have been given, no—taken—back by the common man. When we look at Christianity today, we find people sharing basic beliefs, and working toward common values that are intended to benefit mankind. We find constructive and caring congregations teaching righteousness, helping those in need, and giving to their community. What can we make of this turn of events? Does this justify and give proof to the message of salvation imposed upon the world for two thousand years? Has Christianity finally come of age? Can we now say that Christ has returned to his Church? If you can believe in a God who would permit two thousand years of horrendous and brutal subjugation to be spread in His name, then you might say, “yes". And if you do, you might also ask yourself: “Could He possibly allow it to happen again?” Understand, the first Christians were pacifists and I’m sure none of them ever dreamed their order would evolve into one of mass murder. By the same token, if Christianity gained absolute power again, wouldn't they pursue their goal of 'carrying the doctrine of Christ to the ends of the earth?' “Paranoia!” you scoff. “Today, the only thing Christians want is the freedom to worship as they please.” While that may be true of the majority, we also have prominent Christians and political figureheads lobbying for biblical legislation under names such as “The Moral Majority,” "Christian Majority," "Christian Coalition," and the “Righteous Right". This makes it clear there is already a push to merge religion with government. Before you reject such a possibility, consider these quotes from some of our national and religious leaders:
"Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office." – Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women for America) (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/concerned-women-america)
"The long-term goal of Christians
in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those
who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting
to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy
communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel."
"When the Christian majority takes
over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free
distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After
the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and
evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil."
"I don't know that atheists should
be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one
nation under God." (http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/quotes.htm)
"The Christian community has a golden opportunity to train an army of dedicated teachers who can invade the public school classrooms and use them to influence the nation for Christ." – James Kennedy (Center for Reclaiming America) (http://www.beliefnet.com/ boards/message_list.asp?boardID=12047&discussionID=446018)
"Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody's pseudo-right to worship an idol." – Joseph Morecraft (Chalcedom Presbyterian Church) (http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/quotes.htm)
"Our culture is superior. Our culture is superior because our religion is Christianity and that is the truth that makes men free." – Pat Buchanan (Presidential Candidate)
"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different...More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." – Pat Robertson (Christian Coalition) (http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2003/11/stupid-scary-and-ignorant-quotes.php)
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." – Randall Terry (Operation Rescue) (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/I_want_you_to_just_let_a_wave_of_intolerance_wash/ 339336. html)
"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers." –Jerry Falwell (http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/quotes.htm)
"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed." – Randall Terry (Operation Rescue) (http://www.sullivan county.com/news/mine/quotes.htm)
"Atheistic secular humanists should be removed from office and Christians should be elected...Government and true Christianity are inseparable." – Robert Simonds (Citizens for Excellence in Education) (http://www.loudoun.net/mainstream/quotes.htm)
"The 'wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." – William Rehnquist (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=15801&printer-friendly=y)
And recently, there was a statement in the national news that the Pope is considering excommunicating all Catholic politicians who support abortion. The existence of organized and active movements to Christianize, not only our government, but every facet of our lives, could only be denied by devout Christians, or by those whose lives are relegated to apathy. Notice that many of those who advocate a Christian theocracy are high ranking government officials—even presidents of the United States. Notice, also, that many of those advocates are well entrenched within our educational system, and are intent upon controlling the minds of our youth. They are voices crying for a return to the glory days of Catholicism in the Middle Ages. Don’t kid yourself that it could not occur—the type of religious hatred smoldering within these statements is supported by Christian Scriptures and history. However, one wonders, will this hoped for new “coalition” be composed of both Catholics and Protestants? What of the Jews, Muslims and atheists; are they to be the victims of mass genocide? And where do the Mormons, Scientologists and Unitarians fit into a Christian world? Perhaps it will be, as Pat Robertson depicts: “More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." But there is an even simpler reason for reform; it is called truth. People who are willing to make a lifetime commitment to a set of values are entitled to more than Bible Stories. Every point presented as Bible "truth" should be addressed. And every statement conveyed as truth by Christians should be either proven or withheld—beginning with the existence of God. We demand “proof” in advertising, marketing, and lending. We expect honesty from our friends and relatives. And we insist upon truthfulness from our investment institutions, politicians, and physicians. Why should we settle for any less from our religious organizations? And these values should be the goals of Christians, as well as non-believers. Under the present Church structure, there is no way to weed the charlatans from the honest and sincere Christians (and the concept of letting the tares grow with the wheat went out with the introduction of broad leaf insecticides). There is no established “truth,” and no guideline to expose silver-tongued con artists or sick fanatics, such as Charles Manson, Jim Jones, or Marshall Herff. Although each church or denomination has its by-laws or statement of beliefs, those rules are so flexible as to be ineffective when it comes to identifying a true Christian. In addition, such loosely defined regulations make it almost impossible for law enforcement agencies and government legislative bodies to protect the public from such criminals. The Amazing Deception's goal is not to abolish religions—it is a condemnation of superstitions and fables, and a cry for truth. Reference notes: To make a distinction between the general apostles of Jesus and his chosen twelve disciples, I have capitalized the word Apostles when referring to the twelve. To make a distinction between civil law, Jewish customs and the Old Testament Scriptures, the Tanakh, I have capitalized the word Law when making any inference to the Old Testament Scriptures, separately or in conjunction with other laws. Also, Scripture/Scriptures is capitalized when referring to the Old or New Testaments. The only exceptions are in quoted sources. Rather than attempting to differentiate between Israelites, Jews, Hebrews, and Judeans, and the various eras in which they were known by those names, I will use them interchangeably, with the understanding that I refer to the Israeli people or their ancestors.
Go to: Next Back Amazing Born Again... Thoughts Home Bibliography |
|
|
|
|
|