|
|
THOUGHTS by Doyle Duke
In Search of the Christian God
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia there are nineteen major world religions which may be divided into two hundred and seventy smaller groups. Within one of those worldwide groups, Christianity, over thirty-four thousand groups have been counted. Unless we conclude that the Christian god sanctioned different divine doctrines it is evident that only one group has true communion with their master and is able to properly interpret their Bible. Otherwise, it must be admitted that communication with God is a very nebulous and questionable endeavor. If only one group is in God's will, that puts the odds of choosing the "right" group at over thirty-four thousand to one. Is there any wonder that there is confusion, animosities, and hostilities? So many denominations, so many doctrines, so much mystification—how can the average person understand? When we turn to the ministers of all this confusion the advice most often render is to just believe and trust to the guidance of the Holy Spirit or something to that extent. The inference being that by surrendering one's own reasoning ability and allowing the Spirit to lead the confused new convert will be guided into all of God's truth. The fallacy of this reasoning is evidenced by the multiplicity of different Christian groups. Obviously we have, not one, but thousands of Christian churches; from the extreme fundamentalist to the libertarians who welcome the belief in other gods, or those who profess no god at all; from the literalist to the allegorist; from the pacifist to the activist; from those who believe in a sprinkling baptism to those who insist upon total emersion; from those who teach one work of grace to those who teach two—or three, there are endless combinations. And still, there are those believers who will shrug their shoulders and say: "There are only personal differences, none of which contradict the core principles of God's Word." Why then, do we find fundamentalist groups who refuse to acknowledge Catholics, Mormons, and other denominations as Christians and declare them the servants of Satan? And why do the Catholics claim there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church? If any groups are denounced as false Christians, then such actions deny the unity of principles; which obviously makes one's denominational choice a soul threatening difference. Of course that lack of unity creates major problems. Imagine, perhaps a million ministers from those thirty-four thousand groups stepping into pulpits around the world on Sunday (or Saturday) morning. How would they define a major tenet of belief such as the prerequisites for personal salvation? What makes a Christian? The Catholic Church, the compiler of the New Testament and originator of most of the generally accepted doctrines, has obviously given the subject much consideration. From the Original Catholic Encyclopedia, under the title Salvation:
The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi).
It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man's free will.
Thus assisted the sinner is disposed for salvation from sin; he believes in the revelation and promises of God, he fears God's justice, hopes in his mercy, trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ's sake, begins to love God as the source of all justice, hates and detests his sins.
This disposition is followed by justification itself, which consists not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God's grace and gifts, whence a man becomes just instead of unjust, a friend instead of a foe and so an heir according to hope of eternal life. This change happens either by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance according to the condition of the respective subject laden with sin. The Council further indicates the causes of this change. By the merit of the Most Holy Passion through the Holy Spirit, the charity of God is shed abroad in the hearts of those who are justified.
Against the heretical tenets of various times and sects we must hold · that the initial grace is truly gratuitous and supernatural; · that the human will remains free under the influence of this grace; · that man really cooperates in his personal salvation from sin; · that by justification man is really made just, and not merely declared or reputed so; · that justification and sanctification are only two aspects of the same thing, and not ontologically and chronologically distinct realities; · that justification excludes all mortal sin from the soul, so that the just man is no way liable to the sentence of death at God's judgment-seat. (http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Salvation)
As stated, the process is indeed described with "great minuteness”. On the other hand, many Christian denominations quote Jesus' instruction to Nicodemus in John 3:15: "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life”, and insist that salvation requires only a belief. Many fundamentalist contend that such a belief must be exhibited by a sinless life; while some Baptist cry, "Once saved, always save”. To the extreme, there are those who declare that all will be saved. If there is so much dissention in regard to the most basic tenet of belief, how can there be any less confusion about the lesser doctrines? The source of contention is evident—Christians simply don't understand their own Bible. I've actually heard Christians admit as much and thank God because they don't have to concern themselves. They defer to the ancient Church fathers and rest their hope in this life, and eternal life, upon the teachings of those unknown men. In contrast, many Christians will shutter at the idea of deferring to the opinion of the ancients. Then how did they come to the knowledge of Jesus' saving grace? Who wrote the books of their New Testament? Who selected those books? How do they know of Jesus—of God? In every case, they are depending upon the oft repeated words of some ancient unknown human. I've had Christians freely admit that they can't understand the Bible, but immediately assure me that they don't have to, because Reverend Roberts, or Brother Wilson, can really explain it. Here we have a double oxymoron. First: if they can't understand how do they know their revered teacher is delivering a proper explanation? Secondly: if the teacher does do such a great job why don't the listeners understand? This same thought may be applied to the Christian who defers to the wisdom of the Church's founding fathers; if he doesn't understand, how does he know he's receiving the truth? But such ignorance isn't limited to those who choose not to study the Bible; another type of ignorance infects many learned doctors of divinity, professors of religious philosophy and spirit filled evangelicals. It is an ignorance that found its roots in the suppressive rule of early Catholicism. It is the type of ignorance Jesus warned against in Luke:
He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great (Luke 6:48&49).
Although this passage alludes to a belief in Jesus Christ as a foundation for a personal salvation the same principle may be applied to Church doctrine, Church history, scripture, or an argument based on any of the aforementioned. A strong argument should be built upon facts, not assertions. The ignorance of the intellectual is in pursuing an argument based upon faith. By faith—God is. By faith—the worlds were formed. By faith—Jesus died for man. By faith—that same Jesus rose from the grave. But when we ask how one can even be sure God exists, Christians quickly point to the universe about us. They note the complexity of our own bodies, the infinity of space, or the impossibility of watches evolving—and declare God. But, since such evidence only indicates, at best, a creative force, how are we to know that force is God? Here our teachers turn to the Bible. We are told Paul declared that God "made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein”. And of course the full creation story is affirmed in the book of Genesis. Their reasoning isn't just illogical, it's confusing. First we're expected to believe in a god we can't see, hear or touch; a god incapable of communicating with man. Then we're told he does communicate. He communicates with man via the Holy Spirit! That he dwells within the heart of each believer and personally directs their life. And how is that working? I believe we have an explanation for the thirty-four thousand different Christian groups. Next, we're told He gave us the Bible—written by holy prophets. How do we know that? Perhaps those prophets simply made it all up. Wait a minute! Let me see if I get this; man can't prove his God exists, but he has a book written by God that proves his existence? Doesn't that strain your sense of credibility just a bit? If I told you this article is an exert from a book on Christian history I'd just written would that make it any more credible; no, of course not—neither can you use a humanly created story to prove the existence of a divine being. The New Testament tells us Jesus died for man's salvation and that Jesus was raised from the grave for man's justification. All this is sure and without doubt if you have faith in the Bible; but who has ever proved the Bible? Faith is the strongest basis possible for a Christian, or for a believer of any religion, but it is nothing more than hearsay evidence in a world of facts. To unravel all this confusion we must define and dissect two religious concepts as taught by Christianity; those concepts are faith and truth. Both faith and truth have what I term a standard and a religious definition. That standard definition for faith, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is: "…complete confidence in someone or something”. The religious interpretation has come to mean belief in God. The definition for truth is described similarly. Again from Merriam-Webster: "that which conforms to fact or reality”. And in defining the word truth in relation to God: "Christian Science: a synonym for God." The American Standard's definition is almost identical: "1. Conformity to fact or actuality. 2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true." Yet God has never been factually proven to actually exist. In both cases Christianity, and many other religions, have effectively invented their own definition of both words. Almost everyone over the age of majority knows that truth means the opposite of false or a lie. Even those simple little true and false tests administer in elementary schools prove that young children understand the basic meaning of the word. The discerning of truth is a science; it can be tested and proven. But religions have made a mockery of the word by creating their own definition, a term best described as religious truth or Christian Science. Where truth, in actuality, deals with facts, such as in a court of law in which evidence is presented to prove a statement or deed, religious fables cannot be proven beyond assertions based solely on faith. Today, theologians and fervent believers boldly declare "The Truth”, and are even insulted when it is questioned. Without a shred of evidence, and with straight faces, they tell stories of virgin births and resurrections from the dead, and demand that all believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven. But what is this "truth" that Christians view as the final authority? It isn't just the Bible, or the Word, it infers a much broader meaning that includes not only the written word, but the doctrines, precepts, and values that have come to identify Christianity. In effect the two have become synonymous, Christianity is truth; all contradictory religions, doctrines, or philosophies are false. Christianity has the truth— Christianity is truth. Since this supposition can't be proven, how then, can intelligent, educated, and often brilliant people believe so strongly in unfounded and unsupportable assertions? It is all a matter of using faith to define truth. The power of religions is not derived from an invisible, ever-present, supernatural being that hovers watchfully beyond the stars—it is derived from belief in such a deity. Such faith empowers believers to "move mountains" or "raise the dead”. The principle is best summed up in a seventies self-help guru's credo: "Whatever man can believe, man can achieve." Faith is one of the most powerful driving forces common to human beings. Look at the world man has built simply because he had faith! We enjoy all the bounties of our great country because Columbus had faith. We enjoy our democratic freedom because our founding fathers had faith in the idea of a government by the people. We have prospered through industrial and technological revolutions because someone had faith that machines could be built or scientific principles could be applied. For those who might respond that all these accomplishments were achieved because the United States has been blessed by God, I will suggest that they study the history of the Church during the Dark Ages, where they will discover the genuine results of an all-powerful theocracy in action. A prime example of faith in action may be found in the civil rights movement ignited by Martin Luther King. No doubt Reverend King's faith was in his god, but the movement succeeded because of faith in Reverend King's dream. The proof is the fact that today there is probably a Martin Luther King Jr. street in every major U.S. city; where it would be hard to find one named Jehovah Blvd. or God Almighty Avenue. Other evidence that faith is the power, not a divine being, may be found in the rhetoric of leaders such as Adolph Hitler and Mussolini, who united the masses of Europe in an effort to establish a Third Reich. In each case, the power was faith; Doctor King, Hitler, and Mussolini were only the figureheads. When that power is accredited to religious faith, then faith becomes the believers' god. There are a number of New Testament passages that show the power comes from the human psychic, not a divine being. For example, in Matthew 9:20-22, a woman believed she would be healed if she touched Jesus' garment. Notice, the belief was based upon touching his garment—not that he would heal her. Had her faith been solely in Jesus she would have only had to believe. Touching the garment was only the focal point; it was a labor she appointed herself, an act she could perform that would prove her faith. Jesus' reply was, "…thy faith hath made thee whole”. Another example is found in Matthew 14:22-31. The disciples were in a boat on a storm tossed sea and Jesus came to them walking upon the water. Peter, desiring to go to Jesus, began walking on the water also but became fearful and began to sink. After Jesus rescued him, he rebuked Peter by saying: "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" Indicating, once again, that the power is in the believer—not the god. In Matthew 17:14-20 we find Jesus' disciples were unable to cast out a devil because of their unbelief. Which were they unable to believe; their ability, or the power of Jesus? You might choose either answer; whether they doubted their ability or that of Jesus the failure was the lack of faith. But what of those impossible miracles mentioned in the Bible? If one believes them, are they possible? How about walking on water? If one truly believes he can walk upon water, is it possible? The point is not whether one can walk (unaided) upon water, but whether one can believe. Do you believe you can walk on water? Since you have probably tried it at least once in your lifetime, the answer is most likely: No. Another question to consider is the ministries of faith healers such as Oral Roberts, A. A. Allen, Ernest Angley, or Pat Robertson; why are such healers able to cure invisible, and therefore questionable ailments, such as arthritis, gall stones, or cancer—but never replace missing physical parts such as eyes or limbs? Why have we never seen an amputee grow a new arm or leg on national TV? And why have they never restored life to an embalmed corpse? Because there are simply some things that are scientifically impossible and no amount of faith can change scientific facts. Why do you suppose faith is the unquestionable, undeniable, prerequisite of all religions? Why do all gods demand it? Why are all gods invisible and unknowable? Why is it impossible to scientifically, or even logically, prove the existence of a god? And why do they disappear when faith vanishes? In Matthew 13:58 we find that Jesus was unable to perform miracles in his own country because the people knew him and had no faith in his claims. The power is within the believer, and the healer or miracle worker, only has to stoke that fire. Consider the Christian religion: when the proselyte accepts God, is his belief based upon the word of God or the disciple who conveyed the story? That is, who spoke to him—who told him the story? Obviously it wasn't God personally otherwise there would be no need for ministers. Ultimately then, the believer's faith is based upon man—not a god. The importance of that faith is made evident by the extreme measures taken by the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages when their theocratic government reigned supreme. To protect "the faith" they either enslaved the minds of men or destroyed their bodies, all for the glory of their god. Why? If the power was with their god why didn't he preserve his church? Why was it necessary that the Church revert to military conquests, human deprivations, torture, and murder to preserve "the faith”? As always, when faith fails, when prayers are unanswered, or the minister is unable to perform the blame is placed upon the believer to protect the god or divine messenger. Such failure automatically falls upon the believer because god is perfect, beyond fault; therefore the believer obviously lost faith. Such reasoning preserves the integrity of the god. And it is very convenient that gods demands belief by faith only. Why? Because to question or reason negates faith and without faith religions melt away like an early morning fog before the sun. Without faith, religious truths stand alone in the sunlight exposed for what they are, empty, baseless, fables. For Christianity to survive it has openly promoted a triune godhead; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Behind the scenes it has spawned upon its unsuspecting adherents a shadow godhead that has enslaved the minds of its followers. That trinity is the Church (God), Truth (the Word or Jesus), and Faith (the Spirit). The Church is the visible head of power. It claims authority to chose and interpret the words of its God, to force those words on all mankind, and punish dissenters. Truth is the Bible and doctrines, which the Church compiled and legislated to empower itself. Faith is the power it uses to enflame the emotions and cloud the reason of its adherents. Faith is the god of religions. When faith fails the god disappears because he can't even exist without the strength of his followers. What do you suppose would happen to Jesus Christ if all Christians stopped believing? Would he not join the ranks of the once powerful, but now debunked, deities of the past? Consider all the gods of the ancient Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans—mighty nations with powerful gods. What happened to Zeus, Isis, Mithras, and the pantheon of hundreds of gods when their followers lost faith? Where are they today? Do you suppose they are still roaming the deserts of North Africa? Or are they sitting on Mount Olympus, plotting the overthrow of Yahweh and Allah? Ah, but you say: "They were no gods at all; only the vain imaginings of man." To which I reply—precisely my point. There are no gods at all. Religions are evolutionary concepts. The first known god was, in actuality, not a god, but a goddess. The concept of a divine being was initially bestowed upon women because of their mysterious ability to give birth. They were revered and worshiped as the mother of life. Then, apparently men became aware of the role they played in procreation and soon the mother figure evolved into the powerful, jealous, avenging, male god; to wit, the blood-thirsty Yahweh of the Hebrews. But the cruel, vengeful, Hebrew god did not fit the Christians' merciful, self-sacrificing and forgiving Jesus; so, once again, man's concept of god underwent a metamorphosis. No doubt, sometime in the probably not too distant future, social knowledge will outgrow the ignorance and superstitions of the Jesus myths. The believers will transfer their faith to a new deity, a new religion with be born, and the name of Jesus will pass into the annals of mythology along with all the other ancient gods who have lost their followers.
|