The Spiritual Duality of the Bible
That Fastidious One
Martin Luther: "To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason."
That wrathful one of the ancient Israelites is not God. Their ancient war-god of conquest and plunder is a fearsome deity that commands the Hebrews to butcher the people they conquer, including slaughtering defenseless women, children, and infants. It is a fastidious deity that concerns itself with petty things like the nip-picky details of how a man's beard is to be shorn, but does not concern itself with injustices such as slavery and the oppression of women. It is the endorser of these injustices, giving guidance to the proper etiquette of slave ownership and the oppression of women. It is a deity of circumstance and expediency that evolves from one generation to another. It is this butcher of babies that will evolve into Christianity's so-called "benevolent" one, its lover of bloody sacrifices, who still clings to its endorsement of slavery and the oppression of women. With a god like this, does one really need a devil to fear?
The ways of God are perfect, and being perfect in His ways they do not change from one generation to another. And likewise, what is righteous before God does not change from one generation to another. What was righteous before God yesterday is righteous today. And what was evil is evil. Is slaughtering defeated people righteous before God today? If not, then it never was. Is butchering women and children righteous before God today? If not, then it never was. Is slavery righteous before God today? If not, then it never was. Is the oppression of women righteous before God today? If not, then it never was.
It is an insult to the goodness of God to preach or believe that God commanded the Hebrews to be the butchers of defeated people, including the slaughtering of noncombatants: women, children and infants. It is an insult to the goodness of God to preach or believe that God permitted the Hebrews to enslave their captives, including their brethren as well. It is an insult to the goodness of God to preach or believe that God approved of the lowly status of women and their oppression. One only needs to look at the plight of women in the Islamic nations today to get a dose of reality of what comes from believing what men have claimed as God's view of women, which is a false teaching that runs throughout the Bible and is perfectly expressed in the Catholic Bible.
Sirach 42:14Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good: it is the woman who brings shame and disgrace.
Also see: The Hebrew Scriptures and Women
Protestant redactors evidently had enough sense to recognize that if they kept the Deuterocanonical writings in their Bible it could bring into question the veracity of the writings that they did keep. For the loonyness in the thinking of things like Tobit is simply too primitive to be overlooked.
I am a former Bible believing Christian Fundamentalist, whose faith was caused not to be in what men claim of God, but in God alone. I do not claim to speak for God, but believe God has inspired me to speak out in defense of His goodness. The essence of what I preach results from these spiritually spoken words:
"This is the house of bondage. This is the land of Egypt. Feed my sheep! Praise God! Trust God!"
My writings are primarily concerned with the faults of Christianity, an Abrahamic House of Bondage and the religion of my heritage. I preach against the inherent insanity in its theology, which are reliant upon self-loathing, passive ignorance, and an unrighteous fear of God. Many victims of its perverse teachings of God fill our mental wards. For a religion that does so pollute the minds of its believers into thinking "Amazing Grace" is an appropriate hymn for the funerals of children and infants is truly a house of bondage and spiritually is the Land of Egypt.
The intent of my writings are to cause an honest and truthful reexamination of what is falsely declared of God in the Bible, falsehoods that sow abominable images of God, which do not promote love of God, but an unrighteous fear of God. If one was taught as an adult, rather than when they are a child before the age of reason to accept without question what the Bible claims of God, surely some would have enough common sense to question some of what it claims of God. For in the end, it is not a belief in God that really matters, for what matters is what is believed of God, for if evil is believed of God, evil will be done in God's name.
Faith that is pleasing to God is not born of coercion, upheld by fear of doubt, to believe or else be damned, but is born of liberty of thought and upheld with truthful agreement with what is believed. Knowing that there are absurdities and contradictions in the Bible neither hinders, nor shakes a faith in God that is right minded; for that faith does not rest upon the claims of men, but is in God alone, as it should be. A right-minded faith does not require one to cast common sense aside to believe what they would not otherwise believe, nor to think that God would have one use common sense in all matters, except when it comes to religious beliefs.
The light of examination troubles neither God nor truth, whereas what is not truthfully said has to demand an unquestioning faith to protect its self -- a sure path to spiritual bondage. It is this crooked path that the Abrahamic religions rely upon, that an unquestioning faith in their doctrines please God, rather than deeds of righteousness done towards others, a dogma that serves neither God nor man, but serves the self-interest of priests and their religions.
J. A. Stanley: "There is no better tool with which to pound plowshares into swords than the bible."
I do not claim that there are no inspired truths in the Bible, but that it is composed of a Spiritual duality; a Spiritual duality composed of truth and lies, sowing good or evil according to the spiritual nature of the believer. To deny that the Bible has been used to justify evil is a denial of reality and history. The Crusades, The Inquisitions, Manifest Destiny and the Holocaust are but some of its more notable evil inspirations.
Throughout history few societies, if any, have not believed in a divinity; yet what they believed of their divinities encouraged them to wage wars against one another, and to enslave or persecute those who were not like minded. The Hebrews didn't do any differently with what they believed of their god. And when considering the foul deeds of the religions they have inspired, they have done worse. For when it has come to shedding the blood of others in the name of a god, or enslaving and persecuting those who were not like-minded, two religions of the Abrahamic House of Bondage: Christianity and Islam are by far the worst offenders.
To claim that Christianity no longer engages in such barbarities is hardly something of which to boast. For had God, rather than a murderous Roman Emperor been the establisher of Christianity, it would not have done such wicked things to begin with. Common sense alone should tell one that an omniscient, omnipotent God would not have used the point of a Roman sword to build His house on a perverse and bloody foundation. As for the little rebellious houses of bondage of Protestantism, they have nothing of which to boast either, for their founding maniacs, Luther and Calvin, were as mentally deranged as were any of the popes of Constantine.
Least one forgets, the crowning glory of the Church was when it possessed absolute power over the affairs of Christendom, an achievement that is referred to as "The Dark Ages." Surely one should know that it was not the Church that has civilized men, but that it was men who forced the Church to be civil. For that institution that claims to be God's representative on earth has always had to be dragged kicking and screaming away from its superstitious and primitive ways. As for the matter of good works, good works are not the invention of the Church or a religion, but is a matter of one's spiritual nature. If there were no Churches or religions at all, those that are spiritually predisposed to do good works would do them anyway.
The fruit of The Church
God and Truth
The truth of God is within the Spiritual heart of God's children, for God did write His laws upon their Spiritual heart. What is truthfully said of God shall not trouble them to believe it, for the Spirit of Truth affirms it within their Spiritual heart. Whereas, what is not truthfully said of God is troublesome for them to believe, for the Spirit of Truth does not affirm it within their Spiritual heart. This is the reason I use1 Samuel 15:2-3 to illustrate what is not truthfully said of God. For no child of God can truthfully say that 1 Samuel 15 and other similar Biblical claims about God has not troubled them to believe.
It is neither through a belief, nor by a religion that one becomes a child of God, for a child of God is born a child of God. And what is born of God, God does not lose, and what is not lost of God has no need of being redeemed. The evidence of being a child of God is the love of good and hatred of evil. Love of good and hatred of evil is self evident to a child of God. It is an inborn hatred of unjustness and whatsoever causes the suffering of others, such as lies, theft, and cruelties; and a love of whatsoever is kindness and mercy done towards others. Love of good and hatred of evil is not confined to a culture or a religion, but is universal; neither taught nor acquired, but is inborn, within the Spiritual heart; it is a matter of one's Spiritual nature. And although many may be made ignorant of being a child of God, if they love whatsoever is good and hate evil, in spite of their ignorance they are God's children.
There are many that do not believe there is a God, yet will feed the hungry, cloth the naked, and give water to them that thirst. And should they be praised for doing these things it amazes them. For they do theses things out of the goodness of their Spiritual heart, and it is inconceivable to them that one would not have compassion for those who suffer. They are not like the religious goats that do these things out of love of boasting of good works, desiring the praises of men and have an expectation of receiving a heavenly reward.
God's children are scattered among all the nations, within and without every religion. They are believers of God and non-believers of God as well. They are among the high and the low, among the outcasts, among those in prisons, among drunkards, prostitutes, and the homosexuals as well, for all have not chosen their ways, nor the path that was set before them. God's children are neither perfect, nor faultless; nevertheless, they are by their spiritual nature haters of evil and lovers of good, for God did make them thus. And although they do stumble, they despise their faults and take no pleasure in the harming of others, for only those that are not the children God hate what is good and prefer evil and take pleasure in the harming of others.
Belief in God does not make one righteous. Righteousness before God is in being righteous towards others. It would be better to worship stones in the name of Elvis and be righteous towards others, than to think it is what is believed, rather than being righteous towards others that pleases God. For one could dance naked in the moonlight, worshiping the moon with bells on their toes and a bone in their nose and not offend God, if they are righteous towards others.
Weigh and Measure
If the Bible were indeed the Word of God, there would be no confusion in its interpretation, for God is not the author of confusion. Yet, there is confusion in the House of Christianity concerning the Bible's interpretation. In this nation alone there are more than a thousand Christian denominations, each competing against the other with the claim that it is their interpretation of the Bible that is the correct interpretation. Their competition for gain is not the result of anything that God has inspired, but is due to interpreting words of men that are claimed to be the words of God.
What God inspires is perfect, having neither flaw nor fault. It is not ambiguous, needing to be rationalized by a gaggle of theologians trying to explain what it means, but is perfectly understood from the simplest of minds to the greatest. Yet the Bible is replete with ambiguities, faults, and flaws. Many of its words were translated from a language that can't be perfectly translated from one language to another. The original meaning of some of its words have either changed or become lost and are no longer understood. Some of its words have either multiple meanings or a contradictory meaning. According to Lawrence Schiffman, Professor in Hebrew and Judaic Studies, New York University, as much as 25% of the Hebrew words in the Old Testament have either disputed meanings or multiple meanings, or are not understood at all.
When considering the claim that the Bible is God's will communicated to mankind, are we to be so naive as to think God would choose a language that can not be perfectly translated from one language to another? Or that God would have used words whose meanings would become lost and no longer understood, or use words that have multiple and ambiguous meanings? Certainly not! It's illogical to think that God would be so inept in communicating His will to mankind. For does God not weigh and measure His words more carefully than men do theirs? Does He not know the effect of His words? Could He not protect what He communicated to mankind? Most certainly!
How is the claim of the Bible's inerrancy anymore valid than the claims of the inerrancy of the religious texts of others? After all, had those who are claiming the Bible is infallible been born a Moslem, a Buddhist, or a Hindu, would they not be singing the praises of those texts as well? It is a matter of record that words in the Bibles have been altered throughout the centuries. Even in this generation pandering redactors are brazenly altering certain words in the Bible to accommodate those who are offended by what is said. If redactors in this generation will so brazenly alter words in the Bible that can be proven to be altered, what would the redactors of another age have altered that can not be proven? For in an age when the Church alone possessed the writings in the New Testament, when only priest or prince could read or write, to cause one to tippy toe upon the water and place "I am Alpha and Omega" in their mouth would not have been a great feat.
Doctrines born of Convenience
Most apologist for the Bible recognize that a literal interpretation of many things in the Bible presents a problem for a well-informed society of today and will claim that these problematic things were not intended to be literal in meaning, but are understood as allegory. A good example of this hypocrisy can be seen in the gobbledygook offered by the Second Vatican Council concerning the importance of paying attention to "literary forms" in Scripture. Gee, you'd think that the "Holy Ghost" would have clued its popes in on this little matter sooner, like hundreds of years sooner!
Also See: Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
To try and imply that the Church did not teach generation after generation to believe that the Bible is literal in all that it claims is a denial of reality and history. Anyone who has read what the early Church fathers believed could hardly conclude that they were sophisticated thinkers or had any doubts in the literal meaning of anything that's in the Bible.
To see some examples of what was believed by the Apostolic Fathers see "Forgery in Christianity" by Joseph Wheless, which is on my site. See Chapter 4: The Saintly "Fathers" of The Faith, and the section The Apostolic Fathers.
I'm not saying there is no allegory in the Bible, but that its allegory is not only obvious, but is usually stated as being allegory. Whereas today when a Biblical claim is seen as absurd, an apologist will conveniently claim that it is not literal in meaning, but is an allegory. Or if a scripture is contradicting another scripture, they will conveniently claim it is a dual prophecy. And if it is an embarrassment to them, they will conveniently claim it was due to God's need to speak to the intellectual level of the people of those ancient days, which is a lot of malarkey. It is clearly evident in the writings of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans that it wasn't intelligence that they were lacking, but knowledge.
The New Testament is replete with examples of people being possessed by devils, demons, evil and unclean spirits. The Gospels of Mark and Luke claim that Mary Magdalene had 7 devils cast out of her. To get around this primitive mumbo jumbo the apologists will conveniently claim that in those days mental illness wasn't understood, and thus it was referred to as being possessed. Well then, what about those talking devils?
Matthew 8:28And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding. 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters. 33 And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils. (Also see Mark 5:11& Luke 8:32)
Acts 19:11And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: 12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them. 13 Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. 14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? 16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
I am persuaded that God foreknows the effect of what He inspires. And that in foreknowing the effects of what He inspires, God would not inspire men to say anything that could be used by men to justify evil. For God would weigh and measure His words more carefully than a man weighs and measures his words. Yet the Bible has been and can be used to justify evil; thus, it is not inspired of God, for God foreknows the effects of His words.
I am persuaded that a love of God is not sown through fearful teaching about God; that what is said truthfully of God sows love of God, rather than fear, for fear does not glorify God, but love does. That whatsoever is truthfully said of God is not contrary to common sense, that one does not need to cast common sense aside and crucify their mind to believe it. That what is truthfully said of God does not need coercive threats to be believed, for a belief of God that must be upheld with a threat is not believable to begin with. For the threat of hell has not prevented the wicked from doing evil, but only terrifies the meek in spirit and little ones.
I am persuaded that the Pentateuch is but the babble of superstitious primitive men. And that the Houses of Bondage spawned by the Pentateuch's babble: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are religions more suitable for the dishonest than the honest. For they do not teach love of God, nor encourage truthfulness before God, with self and with others; but promote an unrighteous fear of God, self-deception and intellectual dishonesty. That the visible rituals of these Houses of Bondage are but the inventions of priests, tools of judgment, and instruments of persecution, identifying for the like-minded whom to praise and whom to persecute. For how would a Jew, Christian, or Moslem recognize one from another were it not for the flaunty rituals of their religion?
I am persuaded that no man speaks for God, but rather they are inspired of God to speak out in defense of the goodness of God, that the truthfulness of whatever they might claim of God is to be determined within one's Spiritual heart. For the children of God are their own priests before God in all things. They do not need another to instruct them as to what is or what is not righteous before God. Inherently they know to hate lies, cruelties, and whatsoever is unjust, for the laws of God are written upon their Spiritual heart. One is not accountable to the claims of a so-called Apostle or Prophet, but are accountable to God alone; for submitting one's faith unto the approval of another leads one into bondage to the beliefs of another. For one is not to submit their faith unto the approval of others, but unto God alone.
I am persuaded that the true believer of a religion is its fundamentalist. And that it is the fundamentalists of a proselytizing religion who pose the greatest threat to the personal liberty and free speech of others, for proselytizing religions are dependent upon imposing their beliefs upon others. Today it is the fundamentalist of Islam who pose the greatest threat to the ideals of Western democracies. The West had better wake up, and soon. Not only is Islam incompatible with democracy's ideals of personal liberty and free speech, it is a grave threat to them. Only a left wing loony or a pandering politician would claim that Mohammed preached a religion of love and peace. For the suicide bombers of Islam are not blowing themselves up along with the innocent simply because a scraggly bearded imam asked them to, but are doing it because the Koran approves of killing anyone who is declared to be an enemy of the teachings of Mohammed. For if the Koran could not be interpreted thusly, scraggly bearded Mullahs would be hard pressed in finding an idiot willing to do such an insane thing.
I am persuaded that the pillars upholding Christianity is not a love of God, love of Jesus, nor love of truth, but the bribe of Heaven to those who believe its claims and the threat of hell to those that do not. Were it not for its bribes and threats, this House of Bondage would have collapsed long ago.
I am persuaded that an alliance has always existed between earthly dominions and religious authorities to mutually support and assist one another in the suppression of whatever information would threaten their lofty and privileged positions. But with the advent of the Internet, this unholy alliance will be broken and they will no longer have the ability to suppress information that will prevent the truth from being known by the masses.
I am persuaded that an eternal spiritual existence with God is the predestinated destiny of every child of God. Yet I am not persuaded that all are the children of God. It is absurd to think that preaching to those that love evil and hate good will turn them from their ways, for those who love evil and hate good are lovers of their own ways. Nevertheless, only God can rightfully judge one's Spiritual heart, for only God knows who was caused to be as they are and who has chosen to be as they are.
Examples of contradictions and absurdities from the Bible
Old Testament: The Land of Spiritual Egypt
The Gospels:Abrahamic House of Bondage
Return to the writings of Wayne Lamar Harrington
Return to:HARRINGTON SITES
Revealing the Spiritual duality of the Bible. For it serves neither God nor truth to try and rationalize irrational things the Bible has said of God.