Christianity

Christians believe they are members of the religion of the Bible and that the founder of their religion was Jesus Christ. Today, there is not a single religion that calls itself Christian that teaches what the Bible teaches. Most teach what St. Augustine taught. Augustine was a pagan converted to Christianity who never entirely threw off his pagan beliefs but, instead, incorporated them into his “Christian” theology. Everything that goes by the name of Christianity today is some variety of Augustinian synchretism. If Christians would name their religion by its true founder they would call it Augustinianism.

In case there are some who believe this description is true only of Roman Catholicism, be assured, the theology of every major protestant religion (denomination) is steeped in Augustinianism, by way of Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Some Christian churches have tried to shake off this influence of Augustine, but none has. (Wesley is a good example.)

All of this will not matter to those who are not particularly religious, or Christian, but it is necessary because the critical statements below can easily be construed as against religion, in general, or the teaching of the Bible. The fact is, most people, today, are quite ignorant of what the Bible teaches. Even those who frequently read it remain ignorant of its teaching because they have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by their religious teachers.

This is an amazing thing. Whenever I have pointed out to a Christian some doctrine he sincerely holds, but which is not taught in his Bible, and in fact is contradicted by it, he will never make a more careful examination of the Scriptures to determine the truth in the case. Instead, he will go to some authority, his “pastor” or some Christian author, and then, not to discover how the questionable passages should be interpreted, but to have the view he is accustomed to reinforced, even if the questioned passage is never mentioned.

As bewildering as this attitude is among the religious, it is perfectly understandable. It is the result of the absurd Christian teaching about faith, which is not taught in the Bible at all. The meaning Christians give to the word faith is the equivalent of superstition, accepting without evidence, and even against evidence, an idea or teaching that is asserted on no other basis than, that is what is taught. This is exemplified in the Christian cliche, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it,” which would be fine if they heard God say it, or even found what God said recorded somewhere, but what they mean by, “God said it,” is, “my Minister, Paster, Priest, etc. says that is what God said,” and they feel no obligation to check for themselves to ensure God really did say it, which, in most cases, he didn’t.

(When asked by one indignant lady how I knew God hadn’t said such’n’such, I said, “because, if God said that, He would be mistaken, and I don’t believe God makes mistakes; but, to be sure, I looked at His book, and its not there. Have a look for yourself.”)

One other thing, before we bash the Christians. In general, every sincere Christian who takes his religion seriously will have the following characteristics: he is honest, hard working, and generally reasonable in his dealings with other men. You will find him courteous, considerate, and more patient than most other people. He is responsible, supporting his families by his own effort, and very concerned with raising his children to be well educated, decent citizens, and persons of character. Above all, he is honest and trustworthy, he pays his bills, and his employers will find they can depend on him to do his best.

Christians have made some serious mistakes, and there are serious faults within their ranks. Many who call themselves Christians are charlatans, taking advantage of the gullible; many use the name to do very wicked things. But there are always evil men who will take advantage of the week and pretend to be things they are not to deceive others. Much of the criticism which Christians receive today is the result of the behavior of fakers who have used them, but, some of the criticism is the result of positions and actions Christians have themselves taken, which are mistaken and very sad to see.

Much of the criticism of Christians, however, is not about their faults, but about their virtues, which are many, and quite genuine. In fact, most of the criticism of Christians today are based on the fact that Christians have principles and actually live by them. All those who criticize the Christians on this basis are confessing their own moral bankruptcy.

Christianity is the name given to all flavors of religion taught in those organized churches which claim the Bible as their authority, that is, the Bible as interpreted by those churches.

It is generally assumed that Christianity is the religion founded by Jesus Christ. A cursory reading of the New Testament will show anyone who is honest that Jesus not only never founded an organized religion, but was opposed to organized religion, and opposed by the organized religions of his day. It is clear from the teaching of Scripture that any leader of any organized religion that presumes any authority to tell people what they are to believe or what they are to do is usurping the authority of the God they pretend to worship.

“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” –1 John 2:27

“But I would have you know, that the _head of every man is Christ_….” 1 Corinthians 11:3

What? Not Augustine? Not Calvin, or Luther, or Wesley? Not the Priest? Not the Pastor? Not the Pope?

Nope! None of them, or any other man, for that matter. Paul said, “… ye serve the Lord Christ,” ( Colossians 3:24), not Augustine, not Calvin, Luther, or Wesley; not a Priest, not a Pastor, and definitely not the Pope.

Christians believe the atonement is payment for sin and that the coin in which the payment was made is the suffering of their Savior. They do not say who it is that collects this payment or why he values suffering so much.

“Reformed theologians, following the teaching of Calvin, the most Augustinian of the Protestant theologians, do not believe in a limited atonement, and therefore, are not subject to this criticism. All of the others, including those that call themselves evangelical, fundamentalist, conservative, “born-again,” or charismatic, as well as the Roman Catholics believe and teach this absurdity.

If any of these Christians would spend five minutes reading their Bibles, they would discover that nothing like this, in fact, just the opposite is taught there. Suffering and death are clearly described as the reward or payment men receive for the evil they do, not a debt they must pay.

The significance of this error is what it makes of God. If the Christians are wrong about the nature of their God, then they are likely to be wrong about everything else. And they are very wrong about the nature of God.

The atheist, of course, will think it really doesn’t matter what you believe about God, if you believe in one at all, you are already wrong. In this, the atheist is mistaken. No one is infallible, we all, undoubtedly make some mistakes, even in those beliefs we are certainly have the soundest of rational foundations. But some errors are more dangerous than others. Some mistaken beliefs have little consequence, so long as they do not prevent us from remaining rational, and so long as we are willing to correct them the moment reality demonstrates the error. Some mistaken beliefs, however, or so fundamental, they affect everything else we believe and think, and have a great negative affect on every aspect of our lives.

There are some metaphysical questions the atheist cannot answer. In most cases, atheist’s ignore the questions, assuming they are unanswerable, which they are, if a certain metaphysical position is assumed. It is an assumption, however, and may not be a correct one. The theist refuses to accept there are no answers to the metaphysical questions. For most theists, the answer to the questions is God. It is not the only possible answer, but most theists are unaware of others, so their belief in God is as much an assumption as the atheist’s disbelief.

(An assumption is not necessarily false. In general, an assumption is made where there is a need for a decision or choice, in thought or action, but it is not possible to learn everything necessary to establish the truth with certainty. A good assumption considers all that is known and can be learned to come to the best possible conclusion without contradicting any known fact or principle. A working hypothesis is an assumption. Most of the fundamental assumptions made by most people, however, are false, because they have no rational basis. Such assumptions are really superstitions, and are based on tradition [this is what we’ve always believed], authority [this is what or leaders, teachers, and experts tell us], feelings [we know its right because we have this feeling], or consensus [everyone knows that].)

The assumption that there is a God is, for many, the most rational assumption they can make in light of what they know and understand. The nature of the God that Christians assume, however, is unfortunately, a logical absurdity and a blatant contradiction of truth. The Christian God is believed to be the author of all things, including, existence and truth. But God cannot be the author of existence unless He is the author of himself and did not exist until He authored Himself. If the contradiction is not apparent, ask yourself the question, “if God ever did not exist, when he did not exist, could he bring anything into existence?” If God always exists, than there was always existence and God is not the author of it.

Usually, Christians only mean that God was the creator of the world, by which they mean, the material universe, but then they go on to say He created it ex nihilo, that is, out of nothing. Now, it is certain their doctrine has been created ex nihilo, but there never was a time when there was nothing, so never a time when anything could have been created out of it. (I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist the play on words, but there is more truth in it than is apparent.)

This metaphysical mistake is not as important as the ethical mistake that is made about God. When a Christian says whatever God says is true, they do not mean it is true because God always tells the truth and never lies, although they mean that too, what they really mean is, whatever God says is the truth because He said it. It means that God could say anything, and, if He says it, it is the truth.

This divorces truth from existence. Truth is that which correctly describes reality or some aspect of reality. Reality includes all that exists, as it exists, and excludes all that does not exist. But, since truth, for the Christian, is whatever God says it is, He can say anything, including something that is totally wrong about some aspect of existence, and it is, nevertheless true, because God said it and it’s just too bad for existence if it won’t conform to God’s truth.

Religious philosophers and theologians deal with this problem, even they are aware of, in two ways. The first is to take seriously what we just said, more-or-less tongue-in-cheek. When God’s truth and reality or existence seem to be in conflict, the problem is on the side of existence, which is just an illusion, the real reality being the truth of God. We presume that these thinker’s believe their God is real, and therefore exists, so on that score, at least, they are partly right, some existence is only an illusion.

The second “solution” to the problem is to assert that God, as the author of both existence and the truth, makes them always agree. God creates the world according to His truth. They do not say that God is required in any way to do this. Such a requirement would be a limitation of God, they believe. (This is their mistake, by the way.) But, if God is not required to make existence conform to truth, there seems no reason to be sure that He would or does, except for the theologian’s reassurances, and who can be sure God listen’s to them?

So what’s the problem? Once you have divorced truth from reality, once you have made truth, or existence, or both, subject to whim, anyone’s whim, even God’s, there can be no certainty of anything. No matter what you think you know, no matter what you depend on, it can change for no other reason than the one who determines it having changed his mind. How can one be sure that water will not suddenly become poison, that fire will not be cold, that gravity will not cease and we’ll all fall off the earth. Absurd? Well, that is exactly the meaning of existence if truth has an author and creation is ex nihilo.

The most serious part of this significant error is its moral consequences. If God is the author of truth, He is the author of moral truth. This, again, divorces truth and existence. Stealing is not wrong because it is a violation of the nature of man and the world he lives in, it is wrong because God said it is wrong. We assume, therefore, that stealing would not be wrong if God had not said so. But this is not moral, it is amoral and it makes amoral beings of both God and man.

Christians say their God is Holy, righteous, and good, but then say, the Holy, good, and righteous are whatever God says they are. Well, excuse me for what will seem a sacrilege by some, but who wouldn’t be Holy, righteous, and good on those terms? Morality assumes the capability of choice. Where there is no choice, there is no morality even if the reason there is no choice is because there is no wrong choice available. Morality involves choosing between good and evil, right and wrong, but where there is no good or evil, morality is not even in question.

This kind of being, even a god, is impossible. If anything a being does is good and right, for no other reason than it does it, there is no basis, no principle, for preferring one choice or action over another. What such a being does cannot be for any reason, moral or otherwise. Such a being just does what it does, and is more like an object of nature, like a river or flame than a rational being. This is the object to which Christians have reduced their God. Ironically, it reverses the very thing their God told them they were not to do. They were told not to worship inanimate objects of their own creation, because their God was a living God. They have turned their living God into an irrational object of their own making.

The Christian view of the atonement requires the belief in a God that is the author of moral truth. It is the only way such people could believe what they do. Nevertheless, you have to wonder about the psychology of people who worship a God that places such a high premium on suffering and death. Their God’s solution to mankind’s problem is the most hideous, terrible, bloody death possible. (You may not believe it was the most terrible death possible, but they do.)

But this was only the zenith of their God’s method of dealing with man. All the suffering and death of all mankind (and all other creatures as well) is the result of a single act of a single man and woman, an act which was the inevitable a result of a situation which God, himself arranged, knowing before hand, exactly what would happen. The suffering and death that resulted was not just a natural consequence, but the result of the direct act of God on the nature of man and the world, which they call the curse. But the insatiable desire of their God for death and suffering is such, he is not satisfied if men only experience it for a lifetime. He has doomed the majority of mankind to suffering and torment, even worse than that experienced on earth, for ever, which the Christians call eternal death. This is the God Christians call Holy, righteous, and good.

How, then, can Christians be good people. The short answer is they are logically inconsistent. While they say they believe whatever God says is true because He said it, and that God is the author of morality, if you ask them, they will tell you the reason Christ had to die is because God could not allow sin to go unpunished and that God himself had to bear the punishment in order to be justified in saving mankind. To forgive man without punishment would have been unjust, and God cannot be unjust. They will say this completely unaware that they are making God subject to moral principles, not the author of them.

In day to day dealings with them, you will find Christians good people. Nevertheless, in terms of long term consequences, some of the things Christians have taught and done have been disastrous. Many of the social problems we have today are a result of their clamoring for more government power, which they now see being turned against them. They seem surprised, but would not be if they were not so logically inconsistent.

Christians believe that all their sins are paid for. Most believe that all the sins committed by anyone who ever has or ever will live have been paid for. If some people still go to hell, isn’t the payment being collected twice?

Those Christians of the reformed theology do not believe all the sins of all mankind are paid for, only the sins of the elect. How one adds up the sins of only some people in a wicked society and determines how much suffering is required to pay for it and then contrives to have exactly that much suffering extracted is not explained.

Most Christians really do believe all the sins of mankind have been paid for and see no reason why God should not require double payment for the same goods (or evils, I suppose, if we are to be technically correct). If God says it is just, then it is, but you better not try it.

You say your God is a God of love, that He loves the sinner, but hates his sin. Nevertheless, it is the sinner your God sends to hell, not his sin.

If Christians want to say God is a God of love and that tormenting people forever in flames for infractions that in this world, no Christian could stand to see punished, that is fine. One needs to be very cautious about people who equate tormenting people in fire with love, however. You might want to be sure you don’t leave your children alone with them.

The Protestant reformers criticized the Roman Catholic Church for its indulgences, which allowed the purchase of the forgiveness of specific sins for a specific price. Protestants today believe the atonement is the ultimate indulgence, payment in full for all the sins of everybody for all time. Salvation amounts to giving to anyone who asks for it permission to apply this indulgence to their own account.

The idea that sins can be paid for is morally repugnant to those who understand what sin really is. Sins are not things, or objects, or substances. Sins are wrong acts, that is, a sin is an act that is contrary to known truth, and sin is the general quality of acts that are contrary to truth. The idea of paying for sin implies that the payment somehow cancels or makes a sin OK. But no payment can make a wrong choice a right choice. No payment can undo a wrong that has been committed. The idea that sin can be paid for is evil, but it also contradicts another teaching of Christians.

Christians believe their sins have been forgiven. But, if their sins have been paid for, why do they need to be forgiven. If I pay off my loan at the Bank, I will be highly insulted if I subsequently receive a letter saying the bank has decided to forgive my debt. If the loan has been paid, I don’t have a debt. But Christians feel the atonement is not quite enough payment for their sin, evidently, because even after the payment has been applied to their account, they believe they still have a dept which must be forgiven.

Non-Christians believe God’s demands are unreasonable. Most Christians believe this too. They believe God demands a certain standard of behavior which it is impossible for them to achieve. They also believe that God forgives them, not because it is impossible to achieve what He demands, but because they confess their failure.

If God demands what most Christians teach God demands, no one can satisfy God’s demands. According to Christians, God demands what is flatly impossible for any man to achieve, even Christians, who have God’s special blessing.

Christians believe man’s problem is sin, but also teach it is impossible for man not to sin. They actually teach man has a nature that itself is sinful, and that it is impossible for that nature to do anything but sin. Most amazing of all is their belief that “conversion,” or “salvation,” or “the new birth,” (that is, becoming a Christian) is the cure for sin.

But it is a strange cure, because it doesn’t get rid of the disease at all. Christians have just as sinful a nature after they are saved as they do before they are saved, only now they also have a “new nature,” they call the “spiritual” nature. The new nature does not replace the old nature, it accompanies it. Christians believe they have two natures and these two natures are always in conflict and even if they intend and want to only yield to the new nature (which does not sin), they will and do, all the time, yield to the old nature (which does sin). This is the only cure I know of that leaves its patient just as sick as they were before they were cured.

If you believe God demands of you what it is impossible for you to achieve, whatever else you are, you are not a child of God. God never demands what is not best for His children. God never allows what is best to be impossible.

All the problems of the human race can be reduced to individual problems. If no individual had a problem, there would be no problems. The cause of every mans problems is the individual who has the problem. My problems are my fault. (The discovery of this truth is the beginning of personal liberty.)

All problems are the result of wrong choices, and there are two kinds of wrong choices, those made through error or ignorance and those made in defiance of truth. The latter are what Christians call sin or sins. There is nothing that any man ought to do that he cannot do. What is impossible for you to do, is not required. It is not possible to sin against your will. Neither God’s or nature’s demands are ever unreasonable. God does not require you to act on knowledge you do not have or to do what you cannot do. He does require that you learn all you can learn and do all that you can do.

Oh yes, by God, we mean reality.

What? God means more than this? Your God is not real?