Home | What's New | Other Sites | Email | About CharisCorp
|
||
Word
Gems
Personal Statement #22 Things You Don't Wanna Know
return to Personal Statements home page
June 3, 2009
In Personal Statement #19 I discussed with you the issue of mistaken identity - that false sense of self masquerading as one's true person. Offering my own childhood experience as a reference, what I termed "the good little boy who kept the rules," I explored how people latch onto all sorts of external psychological support-systems and begin to assume the mental posture, "This is who I am!"
The Good Little Boy Revisited Have a look at that kid one more time:
How 1950s-ish is the old farmhouse living room! our very first tv, resting on a swivel-top, pointed toward the kitchen, allowing Dad to watch Gunsmoke during supper! and look at that hard-surface, reflective, linoleum flooring! Anyway, as Mom's caption denotes, it is Confirmation Day, June 3, 1960; of course, there would be photos today! See my tender and guileless 9 year-old self! I am beaming so, in the security of this well-ordered life, and my clearly-defined place in it! flanked, to the left, by cousin Father Leo Kuhn's imposing photo, center-positioned atop Mom's ancient, walnut hope-chest; and, on the right, high on the wall, by a humorless and severe religious icon, standing sentinel over all of us. My jacket is a size too small; my pants, a bit too baggy; but, no matter, I feel good with my brand-new, Sears-catalogue, Pat Boone "white bucks," adorning this festive occasion; Aunt Alice said she liked them a lot. And, most importantly, I am holding, in my young, farmboy, calloused hands, a gilt-edged, embossed certificate, a most auspicious document, festooned, top to bottom, with impressive-looking ecclesiastical symbols; even more, signed by such august personage as the Bishop, no less! who traveled all the way from Fargo just for this special day! the confluence of all such wonder indicating, especially to me, that I have done my duty, been good, kept the rules, and that now, by implication, I have been assured, God himself will officially love this sincere little boy somewhat more than he did only hours before! Is this the way the universe, the divine economy, works? There are untold millions who will tell you that it does!
As I access the emotional archives of that long-ago time, exactly 49 years ago, I sense that I believed that I had arrived... what further evidence did I need? All of this might be rather humorous if the consequences of such illusion were not so serious.
In case you haven't noticed, this is what The Lying Teacher (P.S. #21) tells us everyday, in his myriad ways, via methods, which are legion. When we accept that pandemic propaganda - The Big Lie that we are "not enough" - effectively, we say to ourselves, "I must do something, believe something, think something, agree to something, in order for me to get God's attention and to become whole on the inside; because, on my own, I will surely never measure up." And, in this pathological process, our very sense of identity - now distorted and altered - becomes linked to these psychological crutches!
And here's a major arena in which all of this takes place... Have you ever had a religious argument with someone? Is there anything in this troubled world that can make people more furious, spitting mad, more venomous, than disagreement about God? It's strange, isn't it? Why do people become so enraged about these things? Does The Almighty really need to be defended? How do you defend someone who goes by the title "Almighty"? Exactly what would you add to his defense, given his possession of "all might"? Is God, The One who knows all things, who inhabits space and time and all dimensions, so fragile, so delicate, so vulnerable, that he cannot bear to have one of us poor misguided schlepps, "down here," floundering in the darkness, disagree with his "truth"?
It's like this. Let's say that two people are debating the necessity to worship God on a particular day of the week. Such discussions, so often, devolve into words of hostility and anger. Why is that? Why should it matter so much? I mean, if you want to go to church on Saturday, as opposed to Sunday, or Wednesday, or just walk in the woods and silently pray, so what? Yet, we know, the sentiment expressed during such discussions is often not quite so egalitarian. Why should we care if someone disagrees with us? Why all the melodrama and histrionics? Why even debate it at all? Why not just calmly, unemotionally, detachedly say, "I think you should do what you think is right; and I'll do what I think is right; and it really doesn't matter to me." But that's not the way these "discussions" usually go - because the real issue has nothing to do with God, or a special day, or a doctrine, or anything like that.
And this sense of distorted identity, this egoic mind, as any life form, will struggle to survive, and it will fight for its life! Because if the debate is lost, one's whole sense of being might be thrown into disarray; and, in the wake of such defeat, the ensuing, painful, mental dissonance - the ego believes - would signal its own destruction and death!
And... this is why there are so many things that people don't wanna know!
The Infallible Book... and other ego supports Before I understood these things, I had wondered why so many people - as if their lives depended on it! - will cling to the notion that God, who is eternal Spirit, whose ways are past finding out, might be infallibly known in a material book! produced by fallible humans! a book, they say, without even one flaw, total and absolute perfection! That's quite a proposition, and quite a dream. It's had a long run. I can empathize with this view. It's what I believed for a long time; until I found better teachers who helped me to see the errors in my thinking. Funny, isn't it? Nowhere in life can anyone point to expressions of absolute truth; to irrefutable evidence, the kind that is self-evident, beyond debate, and obvious to all. Yet, when it comes to the Bible, somehow, in the opinion of hundreds of millions, we have in our collective possession a Document dropped from heaven! delivered by angels! with a return address as the very Throne of God! with every term, every phrase, every punctuation mark, golden! a Manuscript containing no errors! Infallible! Sounds impressive, intimidating. Problem is... it's not true.
Things You Don't Wanna Know I'm going to give you many reasons why the Bible was not dropped from heaven, why it is not infallible. Some will resist this information.
As Father Robert Benson (P.S. #66) has said, what would these ideologue-critics do without their great friend, the Devil! as they appeal to him whenever rational argument fails; which is quite often. They will find something to say because it's a matter of psychological survival for them.
To Be Replaced With What? People are afraid of iconoclasts like me. If I destroy long-cherished constructs of mind, where does one go then? New frontiers can be very threatening. Just now I am reminded of something the apostle Paul once said. He had made the decision to leave orthodox Judaism. He even left orthodox Christianity, the kind promoted by the Jerusalem apostles (see below), in favor of a grace-oriented life in the Spirit. It was not easy for him to make these changes. His life was turned upside-down:
Galatians 2: 18-19. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. In the context of his foregoing discussion
on justification in Galatians, Paul's somewhat cryptic
phrase, the things which I destroyed, more than
likely, refers to his previous life,
the time when he was focused on the Jewish law - but this
mind-set was abandoned when God's grace touched him (1:13-16). Like a man
dynamiting his own house, Paul destroyed and
trashed his own mental paradigms of God and life, ones carefully
constructed since boyhood - he had totally rejected
legalism. I through the law am dead to the law.
The word law is, in the Greek, without the article ["the"]
both times; "the law" would suggest that Paul is giving up only
the Mosaic law, whereas he is repudiating all kinds of
legalism.
Dying to law meant ceasing to regard obedience to law as
the means of securing acceptance with God. Paul shifts his view
from the Old Covenant law-system to all law-systems -
any system of activity designed to
earn God's approval. Let's put this in modern terminology,
the exposition of which will madden not a few: Paul is minimizing, even rejecting, religion! legalistic
religion! all rigid, doctrinaire, rule-book forms of religion,
be they Jewish or Gentile.
Let us not forget the background of
Paul. This is no religious liberal speaking, but
the great "Pharisee-of-the-Pharisees" who wrote the book on strict religion. Paul was
a highly respected "doctor of the law," a famous rabbi in his
day. So when Paul tells us that he "died to law" we must
understand that he plumbed depths of this subject in a way that most of
us will never know. When he, Mr. Law-Fanatic, crashed and burned
to law-systems, God, at the same time, granted him a unique
insight regarding the utter impossibility of any person earning
salvation via legalistic effort - this is why Paul speaks of "grace" so
often, much more than any other apostle!
Many of you reading this are serious about serving God; about coming to understand the mysteries of love, life, and death - how the universe truly works. To begin that process of discovery, you must, as the apostle Paul phrased it, become "dead to law" - that is, you must repudiate all forms of legalism; you must rid yourself of the idea that God and life can be reduced to a schweet little formula; you know:
This is the essence of spirit-deadening legalistic religion. You must, as Paul advised, be willing to leave all that behind - I mean, in your spirit - whether you, in fact, leave or stay with a particular church, is up to you.
And, in that repudiation of legalism, you will be required, as Paul himself experienced, to "destroy" certain things of the past - and that will include even concepts of self, personal identities, pathological ones based on fear - the belief that we, ourselves, are "not enough." I don't know if you've ever looked at it this way before, but... "grace" means that "you are enough"! that you, yourself, are worth something! that you, yourself, just by yourself, alone, are worth more than the entire universe; and all you have to do to claim your rightful status is simply to "wake up" and become who you really are! Though you sometimes were not aware of it, the sun was behind the clouds all the time!
Light... it's always there... above the clouds...
I will say more about this near the end of this writing. But, for now, I want to speak out about one of the great deceptions in the history of the world - the notion of infallible books - one of the supreme bastions of legalistic religion, in its efforts to enslave people! I present for your consideration 15 reasons why the Bible is not an infallible book. And, after I do that, I will also discuss its rightful place in Christianity.
In I Thessalonians 4:15 Paul includes himself in the group that would witness the return of Jesus: "we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord" - meaning, Paul believed that Jesus would return within his own lifetime. This expectation created a sense of urgency for Paul, later reflected in his advice to the church; e.g., in I Corinthians 7 he counsels not worrying too much about one's present socio-economic status (vss. 17f.) as this was to be endured due to the "present distress," a time of temporary suffering for Christians, soon to end with the Second Coming. But by II Timothy 4:6 Paul understands that things will work out differently. He will die a martyr's death, and we see him asking his assistants to help him put his affairs in final order (vs. 13).
#2 - the apostle Paul changed his mind about what immediately happens to us when we die Ten years ago I wrote an article on this subject, and I think you will want to read it. However, to offer a brief synopsis, in I Corinthians 15:50 ff. Paul says that those who die before Jesus returns will "sleep" in the grave and await the sound of the final trumpet. Yet, a year later, by II Corinthians 5:1-6, Paul has an entirely different point of view. Gone are the visions of Jesus coming in the clouds with a vast sea of humanity called forth from moldering graves! Instead, we hear Paul speaking of death in terms directly in line with the latest scientific evidence; words that might have been taken from a page of Victor Zammit's weekly report! (see P.S. #3) What happened during that year to change Paul's mind? Dr. F.F. Bruce, the famous conservative Scottish biblical scholar, wrote at length concerning these things. There's an old saying that there's nothing like the prospect of being hanged in the morning to sharpen one's thinking. And Dr. Bruce informs us that Paul, during the period between the two letters to the Corinthians, was thrown to lions at Ephesus - Paul really thought that his number was up. When he somehow survived, Paul, thoroughly shaken, quite likely thought more deeply about what it meant to be "in Christ," his favorite phrase, than he had ever done before. The paradigm of awakening at the last trumpet, and all that, was a carry-over doctrine from his old days of Pharisaism. And after the Ephesus experience, he realized that nothing could ever separate him from God, not even death; and that, should the next lion be more lucky, he would immediately be in the Spirit Realm, without any long separation-period of sleep in the grave! In all of this, we see Paul making his way through the very human process of stumbling in the dark toward the light - Paul is a hero for many reasons, not the least of which was his ability to modify his thinking upon deeper reflection.
How many of you know that Paul, publically, before the whole church, called Peter a racial bigot and a hypocrite? Check out Galatians 2:11 ff. - things they never taught you in Sunday school! So much for the infallible Peter! Very few people today, even those who read the Bible, understand that there was a doctrinal war going on between the apostles in Jerusalem and, what they called, the very liberal Paul out in the missionary field. You see, the Jerusalem crowd was still saying that it was necessary to become a Jew first in order to become a Christian; that one still needed to observe many of the old Jewish laws. Paul would have none of that and blasted these emissaries of James. He called them "spies"! In Galatians 2:12 we learn that "certain came from James" to investigate what Paul was doing in the outlying churches. James, a strict Old Testament legalist, who somehow found his way to the top of the Jerusalem hierarchy, was very fond of sending out "spies" (Galatians 2:4 ) to check up on this free-wheeling "Apostle to the Gentiles." In several of his letters, Paul harshly refers to these traveling Jewish bureaucrats from Jerusalem who would try to undo and undermine his work. They would publicly call Paul "second-class," a "johnny-come-lately" apostle!
Clearly, the boys in Jerusalem did not harbor sanctimonious
opinions of Paul as divinely inspired! Quite the contrary!
#4 - the apostle Paul himself regretted some of the things he wrote in his letters; he did not write with a sense that he was creating infallible scripture
Sometimes Paul had to play "the heavy" and settle certain problems; and, at times, he regretted certain things that he put into writing - how very human! But, in none of this do we see Paul acting as a local cult leader, so impressed with his own words! He certainly did not view himself as infallible! This is why he corrected and changed his views!
#5 - the gospel writers freely edited each other and did not see each other's writings as "gospel" Much of "Luke" and "Matthew" is merely a borrowing from "Mark." This is common knowledge. A long time ago, as a young theological student, I understood that the gospel writers - quite, often, actually - would differ in their various accounts of the activities of Jesus. Those who "harmonized" such discrepancies would say that the gospel writers were like news reporters, each writing of the same event, but each sometimes focusing on a particular aspect. For example, how many people spoke to Jesus on a certain occasion? was it two or three? the gospel writers might differ on such things, but, it was said, only because of a particular story emphasis - three people, it was asserted, spoke to Jesus, but one account of the story might mention only two. Fair enough. No big deal. And I thought that such explanation satisfied claims of biblical discrepancy. I continued in this view for many years... until I came across a book by Bishop John Shelby Spong: Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks The Meaning of Scripture. Dr. Spong points out that the gospel writers did not merely engage in harmless "was it two or was it three?" theology disparities. Far from it. These writers freely edited each other;
sometimes, in a major way - and not in a kind way! Often the
editing would produce a meaning in direct
conflict with that of the other gospel writer!
It is beyond the scope of the present paragraph to allow for
details, so you'll need to read Spong's book for yourself. But when
I saw that, it was the beginning of the end for me regarding
"biblical infallibility," because, as you will discover,
the gospel
writers did not consider each other to be divinely inspired! They were not so impressed with each
other!
#6 - other religions of the ancient world, long before Christianity, by many hundreds of years, employed the same themes, sometimes using the same words, as those found in the Bible Many of us have not heard the "rest of the story." We have not been given a full view of history. You will find it to be stranger than fiction! There have been many other religions, well before Christianity, that incorporated the following:
Those who have not studied these things will find all this to be quite shocking! There are many things, commonly believed, which are pure fantasy.
"...like da Bible always says, ya ain't gonna get a second chance."
#7 - the four gospels were written long after their reported events, by those for whom the story was hearsay evidence The gospel of Mark was written first. Scholars tell us that it was produced somewhere between 70 CE and the early second century. It is likely that most, possibly all, gospel accounts were written in the second century by non-eye-witnesses of the reported events; those who had no direct knowledge of the events of 30 CE.
#8 - there is ample evidence that the gospel writers had little first-hand knowledge of the Jerusalem culture or even the geography!
This is amazing. Some of you have not heard of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. But it is important that you understand the point being made here. What is this like? It would be something like an Iowan trying to impress a native Frenchman with his knowledge of Paris and French culture, gleaned from the back of a ketchup bottle. Is that the ace being played by Jesus, the Master Teacher, before the dark and narrowing eyes of the Doctors of the Hebrew Law? I'm sure the Pharisees were so impressed with a quote based on the Septuagint! If this scene had actually taken place, they would have laughed this theologian-quack out of the Temple, and not even have bothered to kill him! All of this does make eminent sense, however, if this incident were entirely made up - much later, maybe by 100 years after the fact - by those who had no idea of the original meaning of the Hebrew text; and, as such, put words into the mouth of Jesus which reflected their own ignorance! Allow me to put this in another context, especially for those who will insist upon "infallibility." If this is an accurate, literal account of what happened that day in Jerusalem, then: (1) Jesus is not very smart - as he doesn't even know what the Hebrew law says; worse, he quotes a disreputable knock-off version that the Pharisees would have hooted at; or, (2) Jesus is a lying politician - he knows that the Septuagint version mistranslates and misrepresents a particular section of the Old Testament, but uses it anyway, since it suits his agenda. Now, if you don't like those options, as I do not like them, then... (3) this is a fraudulent account of what Jesus said and did!
#9 - the gospel of Matthew was wrong when it claimed that Jesus would return in a few years
This verse clearly states that the apostles - those listening to the words as they were delivered - would be alive to see all of the drama preceding the return of Jesus. Churchmen, for nearly two thousand years, have attempted to make sense of this obvious inexactitude - sometimes to the point of buffoonery. It was once claimed that the apostle John, hundreds of years after the fact, was still alive, in hiding, and therefore the words of Jesus might still be true! Today, various churches are still bothered by these embarrassing words. Many wild claims are made to save face, an effort to maintain the "infallibility" of scripture. (See "The Jesus Mysteries" on the history of this verse and its tortured interpretations.)
#10 - when Matthew quotes the Old Testament, he mistakenly cites Jeremiah for Zechariah The writer of the gospel known as "Matthew" is ignorant of the literature concerning which he professes to be an expert. He doesn't know that he has botched one of his quotes... one of his "infallible" quotes:
But the "thirty pieces of silver" is mentioned in Zechariah, not Jeremiah!
A long time ago, in a paper submitted to the philosophy department head at California State University, I coined the term "pathological harmonizing" to refer to the disingenuous effort, on the part of some, to preserve the "infallibility" of scripture. The example above regarding the apostle John in hiding is a perfect gem of this, but there are many others just as adventurous. Some, with unmitigated audaciousness, posit that Matthew tells us that "Jeremiah ... says"; that is, Matthew is reporting something that Jeremiah spoke, verbally professed, but did not write down! We are asked to believe that Matthew knows what Jeremiah said, but did not write down, many hundreds of years before Matthew was born. This might be a bigger miracle than "infallibility." There's another reason why the "Jeremiah spoke" argument is bogus. The writer of "Matthew" is appealing to a certain audience - a Jewish audience with their particular Jewish sensibilities; as such, Matthew very often attempts to quote the Old Testament, a source that would be impressive and authoritative to the Jewish mind. Does it make sense, in the midst of all of that Old Testament name-dropping, all of that attempt to bolster his position by appealing to an authority greater than Matthew, that suddenly Matthew should try to convince his readers that he, personally, is an authority who knows what Jeremiah - of 600 BCE - "said"? Yes, very impressive, indeed. I'm sure his readers were all swayed by the force of that argument! But these are the slippery games that some play! I am playing the fool here - but why do many normally-rational people blithely swallow a "harmonizing" assertion like "Jeremiah spoke"! Well, it's that identity thing. It's amazing to see that no tall tale is too tall to tell, or too tall to accept, for the pathological harmonizers!
#11 - biblical documents were edited by church politicians to support a particular popular view, and a particular political agenda
#12 - many early Church Fathers taught that the biblical documents should be taken allegorically, not literally (not "infallibly")
#13 - the "god of the Old Testament" is mentally unbalanced, capricious, petulant, bloodthirsty - and even displays certain deviant characteristics of the sort managed by modern "offenders" lists! Will Durant in his The Story of Civilization says this:
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy:
Well... it appears that this biblical god has a thing for little girls. The troops are offered captured little girls as play-things! All the rest can be killed! These things are so repugnant to any reasonable sense of propriety that I should not even be joking about this. Yet, this is the kind of buffoonery-mess, and the de facto endorsement of it, one finds oneself agreeing to in support of biblical "infallibility"! I remember sermons in the distant past. The speaker, God's spin-meister, in solemn and grave tones, is desperately trying to justify all this bloody and sexual atrocity. The speaker's best shot is: "God is testing us with these things." Yes, indeed, quite a test, quite a stretch... such banal sophistry!
#14 - many biblical documents, added to the New Testament at a late date, were, among early Christians, widely regarded as forgeries and fakes and generally dismissed as propaganda from church politicians The research of British historians Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy is not easily set aside. Their books contain many hundreds - indeed, thousands - of references to ancient works, all of which paint a much different picture of ecclesiastical history than the one served up to you by modern church politicians! How many of us today know that several New Testament documents, among early Christians, were considered to be fakes and so much political clap-trap, attempts by ecclesiastical party-hacks to rewrite history! Here's just a comment or two from The Jesus Mysteries:
As one examines the broken pieces of the historical record, it begins to become clear what happened. Later ecclesiastical politicians inserted these fake documents into the canon as an attempt to put words in Paul's mouth to disavow the teachings of the earliest Christians! Paul in the Pastorals speaks against much of what he strongly asserted in his first letters! The later rogue church could not easily be rid of the famous Paul as a heretic-quack, as they attempted to do with Origen, given Paul's stature among Christians - so church politicians fabricated a story in which Paul, effectively, spoke out against himself! Today, 2000 years after the fact, fundamentalists are "sure, "certain," "confident," of the infallibility of holy writ; yet, those much closer to the great historical events were not nearly as impressed!
#15 - the apostle Paul liberally borrows words, phrases, concepts, from the spiritually wise of his day! and did not receive words dropped from heaven! Peter Gandy:
Matthew, a "nightmare for literalists"
I will stop here. There are many other examples, probably thousands, but I think you get the idea with 15 points. No claim of biblical infallibility, no matter how exalted the source, could ever prove this assertion; but a single example of discrepancy, even if small, will defeat this unspiritual, and nonsensical, position! And there are far more than one!
I would like to move on to the real issue at hand.
What is the psychology behind the rabid desire to view biblical documents as "infallible"? It has to do with defending one's own distorted personal identity that has linked itself to external psychological props.
Tolle has much to say about this issue of identity. Excellent! a must-read!
The Myth of Certainty A long time ago, I read a book, The Myth Of Certainty, by Dr. Daniel Taylor, professor of literature, Bethel College, St. Paul, MN. I see it on my bookshelf now, one of the teachers of my life. Dr. Taylor poses a question which, at least subliminally, bothers many Christians: "Thinking, as many have discovered, can be dangerous. It can get us into trouble - with others, but also with ourselves. And the suspicion lingers in religious circles that it can also, if we are not careful, get us into trouble with God." Looking under rocks has its disadvantages. You never know what you'll find down there. Yet, we want to know - there is a part of us that craves order and a sense of meaning regarding our lives. "We crave explanation because it contributes to perhaps the most basic of all nonphysical needs - the need for security... we are vulnerable. Destruction - physical, mental, emotional, spiritual - threatens us at all times. A fall from a curb, a lost job, a bitter word, a public humiliation - at every point we feel the hazards of life. The great bulk of human activity aims at lessening that vulnerability. Making money, seeking love or accomplishment, buying insurance, courting power, wearing the right shoes, writing books, having children... all these and countless other daily activities are ways of protecting ourselves from the myriad threats to our sense of personal safety and well-being." Taylor goes on to explain that the unreflective adopt belief-systems in an effort to buy security in a hostile world. The apostle Paul, in Galatians, says much the same thing, as he explains the dark motivations behind the acceptance of legalism. "We fend off competing world views because by threatening our present understanding of reality they threaten our essential security. An unbeliever presented with the claims of God, for instance, or a believer confronted with the view that God is mere wish-fulfillment are both being told that any meaning and security they have derived from their explanation of the world is spurious and illusory... When people defend their world view, they are not defending reason, or God, or an abstract system; they are defending their own fragile sense of security and self-respect. It is as instinctive as defending one's own body from attack."
It's that craving for security of which Taylor speaks. This desire for security is prompted by our fears - the fear of not being enough, the fear of loss; the fear of ultimate loss, which is death. And in this misguided search for security, many have attempted to reduce God to a formula; a math equation with an "equals sign" in the middle. If we can just perform our side of the bargain, then, we believe, God and universe will be required to deliver the other side, those things for which we crave and seek. How formulaic. This is the essence of legalism; all of those law-systems that the apostle Paul famously derided.
But here's what I've found... This article, for many, has introduced previously unknown information. Maybe the most shocking point was #6 regarding how ancient religions have virtually taught and said the same things as Christianity! Many of will wonder - and are worried - what is that all about? (I will address this in future articles.)
I have stated that, to my surprise and dismay, I have discovered that many of the major ideas offered to me in my youth have proven to be errors - utterly illusionary. It is very unsettling to sort through the inventory of one's mental constructs, only to find that most of it is rubbish! But here's what I've found... If you don't panic, if you stay with it, and search a little deeper, if you can live with the temporary mental dissonance, you will start to find some answers. God is Light (P.S. #20). This means that it is his nature to reveal himself; but only when we are ready. And this Light, like the sun above the clouds, is always there, even when we, in our confusion, can't see it. It is always there, ready to present itself to us... when we decide to put away our fears and fairy tales and move into a higher level of consciousness. The "Holy Spirit," of which the Bible speaks, is better understood by the term "Purified Consciousness" - a higher level of awareness! the lights will come on; suddenly, more and more, and we will begin to see!
So now, after the 15 points, why am I quoting the Bible... The Bible was written over approximately 1500 years. It contains about 70 separate documents; originally composed in 3 or 4 different languages; written by 40 or so different writers. The content material reflects the cultures of many different ancient peoples. The literary styles of the documents span poetry to prose; letters to pithy aphorism; history and allegory. This is no easy read. Some of its message, as explained above, is utter rubbish; mere political propaganda; the musings of dark minds, efforts to exercise power and control over the unthinking masses. Always keep in mind, that's what Dear Leader and The Lying Teacher (P.S. #21) do... it's their job. And if religious politicians can convince you that the Bible is "infallible," and that they - only - are the official interpreters of this mysterious book, well, then, they will derive power from this assertion... power over you! But, in the midst of all this darkness, we must acknowledge that some of the biblical documents do represent ancient and great wisdom - the best understanding of spiritual peoples concerning the nature of love, life, death, and the most important ideas of history.
Some of you might ask: Does this mean that some of the Bible is "infallible"? Allow me to say, never think in those terms again. The writers of the credible parts of the Bible, those parts written by spiritual people, were just people, people like you and me, people who were groping in the dark and searching for a better understanding of the truth. The apostle Paul, himself, in I Corinthians 13, admitted to a measure of darkness and claimed no omniscience! His letters reflect a progressive revelation of understanding; as such, his writings are valuable spiritual guides! He changed his mind as required! He was wrong about some things. Do not elevate him to special godhood. Do not imagine that God loves him more than any of us! To unwarrantedly ascribe such undue status trivializes his struggles and reduces the impact of his fine "human" example. We all, if we are searching, will be aided by that God Who Is Light, that God who, by nature, seeks to reveal himself. And progressive revelation, if we are ready to receive, will be the fruit of our searchings, as well.
The Wonder of You We live in a world that has marginalized our dignity, that of having been created in the image of God. Many of us, psychologically, like the denizens of H.G. Wells' Time Machine, are so beaten down, in terms of self-image, that we think it quite normal for others to prowl at night and to feed upon us! It can all begin to change; if we want it to change. There are many good teachers in this world. When you are ready to learn, you will find them suddenly provided to you, popping up everywhere... God is Light... but ya gotta wanna!
| ||
Home | What's New | Other Sites | Email | About CharisCorp
Please tell your friends about this web site. |
