Christianity Primer for Skeptics, Agnostics and Atheist

This essay is specifically directed to those who have consciously rejected the Christian religion (perhaps all religion), especially those who believe they have done so with 'full knowledge'-- that is, after having investigated the claims of Christianity. It is also intended for those who have dismissed Christianity on the basis of 'hearsay' or out of lack of interest or motivation to bother looking into the matter. Now, to the atheist I say 'Look, I'm not trying to change your mind-- what I'm saying is that if you are sincere in your beliefs-- and I know with certainty that many of you are sincere-- then you'll be willing to check into this article simply to see if, in fact, there might be something that you overlooked in establishing your position... which many atheists hold as firmly as any religionist!

Okay, to get right to the point, I'll disclose the core of my thesis: the 'Christianity' that has been presented to the world-- from shortly after the death of Christ until today-- is FALSE! That's right; we've all been reacting to a straw man, a chimera, a false religion. Don't hit that mouse button just yet! Stay with me a while longer, as we explore this assertion. After all, if I'm right, then you will have to re-examine your due-diligence and perhaps even arrive at a different conclusion.

What makes me, a lonely voice of dissent in a sea of religious leaders and followers, think I can support such outrageous claims? Well, I base my arguments on the only objective source available to us, the Bible. Virtually all Christian 'churches' (ie. denominations) and believers trace their faith, their dogma, to 'holy scriptures', almost always the Bible. (I will, for the moment, ignore the differences in versions and translations of the Bible, since I will deal with high level features that are beyond those mundane concerns.) Most people, believers and 'outsiders', apparently are under the impression that altho there are innumerable variations on the Christian theme, there is a core of beliefs that somehow define the Christian faith, and that are shared by the 'mainstream' churches (those whose membership numbers in the millions). In fact, I agree that there is indeed such a small set of foundational beliefs that are put forth as 'Christian' by virtually all the mainstream churches. And it is those very beliefs that I challenge as false; that is, as gross violations of scriptural truth. This is a very serious charge. If you purport to be Christian, then it would mean you are subscribing to a false doctrine. For a sincere atheist, you have probably rejected a false notion of Christianity, which means your position is, therefore, lacking integrity.

After two millennia of existence, what makes the core Christian message false? First, let's see what it is that the big churches proclaim as the heart of Christ's faith. If you ask any seasoned Christian or plow thru a typical book of apologetics, you are informed that the heart of Christianity is 'the gospel.' Okay; what is the gospel? It's a word meaning 'good news,' we are told. Well then, what is this 'good news?' What we are then told is something along these lines: Jesus, the son of God, came to live as a man, died for our sins so that we humans could be saved from eternal death. So far, it sounds pretty good, no? 'Is that all there is to it?,' we enquire cautiously. No, comes the reply. You have to believe in Jesus, have faith in his 'gift of salvation.' Okay-- it sounds easy enough... Is that all? Not quite, say the religionists, as if waiting to close the deal. And here's where it gets complicated... and gets off the rails of truth and into falsehood. After you accept Jesus as your 'Lord and Savior,' you have to live a Christian life. Oh; what does that mean? It means you have to obey the Ten Commandments, is the usual bottom line, if you press the point at all.

So, the 'gospel' proclaimed by mainstream churches can be capsulized something like this: Jesus took on our penalty for evil by dying in our place, and we can have eternal life if we (1) believe in him and his achievement, AND (2) live the rest of our lives in obedience to the Ten Commandments. That's essentially what they say, is it not? Of course, there are different ways of stating it, some differences in details, but in the main, I think that is a fair representation of what people understand about the Christian religion. BUT, is that really what the Bible teaches? To keep this essay brief, I challenge the reader to check into the scriptures for him/herself. Let me give just a few hints, since delving into that big book can be regrettably intimidating. First, if you're studying the Christian faith, go to the New Testament! If you start reading from Genesis, you'll get bogged down in thousands of years of ancient history. You may also get the wrong impression that Christianity is merely an off-shoot of Judaism, a common misconception. Pay special attention to the books of Romans, 2nd Corinthians 2, Galatians 3, and Hebrews. You can't just read these scriptures like stories. To study scripture means to follow cross-references (including to the Old Testament scriptures), to consider the words chosen to translate original concepts, and to seek guidance from 'the Higher Source' however you currently conceive of It.

The other important tack is that scripture itself tells us that the message will be corrupted and will deceive many. Jesus warned his listeners that 'wolves' would enter the 'flock' and lead many to perdition. He wasn't talking about 'outside attacks,' he clearly had in mind people who claim to be religious but are really satanically inspired. The 'gospel accounts' (written by the so-called evangelists) clearly reveal how the same thing had previously happened to the Jewish religion-- Jesus denounced the leaders of Judaism as liars and deceivers who misled the Jews and misused the temple. Paul and John (two scripture writers) warned in their letters that 'anti-Christs' would infiltrate the ranks of believers and present deception disguised as truth. They even stated that it was happening in their own time-- it was not some far-off, future event. (So this idea of one, so-called 'Anti-Christ' is itself not scriptural.) Finally, the terminal book of scripture, Revelation ('the Apocalypse') seems to portray a widespread false system of religion that deceives the masses and wreaks havoc by influencing governments. (Unlike so many pundits, I don't want to speak boldly from Revelation since that source is so obviously opaque, symbolic, and intended to make sense more in retrospect than prospect.)

Such is the power of consensus that people read the NT and completely miss the essential mission of Jesus-- which was to set humanity free from religion! That's right; he didn't come to set up a worldly and worldwide organization to proselytize and establish the domination of 'his religion'. He saw the abuses that became entrenched in the system given thru Moses to the Israelites. He deplored the virulent legalism that characterized the Pharisees of his day... and that persists to this day in most religions. Jesus told his hearers (paraphrasing) that God loves humanity as a father loves his children; that He is not out to condemn for every little infraction of the Law, but He extends forgiveness freely and expects us to behave in like manner with our fellow humans. Is that the message you get from the pulpits of the churches? Not very often! Instead you get uninspiring, anything-goes mush from those few who are reacting to the stifling legalism, or more often, 'fire and brimstone' tongue-lashings from defenders of 'traditional values' and 'Judeo-Christian' heritage. There are those who understand the existence of the Holy Spirit... but who assume that His role is limited to dispensing 'gifts' to true believers, mostly the gift of babbling in 'tongues.'

[I refer interested readers to essays I've written on the subject of Christianity and the Law, to be available on this website.]

Before closing this article, I should probably anticipate a question that may bother some readers-- namely, how did such a major 'error' get insinuated into the very heart of Christ's message, right from its early days, and persist right up to the present? It appears at face value as impossible, incredible. As you can infer from what I've stated, the correct information survives in the scriptures, thanks be to God (literally!)... it's the interpretation, the inference, that got messed up long ago, and stayed messed up. And the reasons that happened lie somewhere in the human psyche, as it functions under the masterful deceptive manipulation of the spirit of Evil (Satan, to Christian readers). Peering back thru the foggy mists of time, it appears that the 'pure gospel' was fully assimilated by the original 12 apostles, and even the original cadre of converts (the '120' mentioned in Acts, and later, the 'thousands' who first joined their ranks after the stirring speech by Peter). Yet, by the time the last apostle (John) died, alternative interpretations were already attracting followers. Some variations on Christ's message were sincere explorations; many were self-seeking and malicious. The defence of the fledgling 'church' against heresies was a preoccupation of the first several centuries AD; but the biggest one apparently just slipped in so innocuously that it was never recognized! That is the notion that Christians 'inherited' the Ten Commandments from the Jews, and are bound by its strictures. Indeed, many reading this will be baffled as to why I even question this idea. Yet, think about it for a brief moment. To whom were the Commandments given? Answer: to the children of Israel. When were the Commandments given? A: when the Israelites left Egypt and journeyed in the wilderness after 430 years of living under Egyptian law. What did Jesus say at 'the last supper?' A: 'This is the cup of my blood, the new covenant, which is poured out for (the) many.' What did Jesus mean? He meant that he was instituting a 'new covenant' that replaced the 'old (Sinai) covenant' of Moses. He also stated (3 times) that he was giving a 'new law,' namely, that 'you love one another.'

The point is that the Sinai Covenant was defined by the Ten Commandment Law, and was given solely and exclusively to the People of Israel... it was NEVER given to 'gentiles!' Moreover and more importantly, it was categorically REPLACED by Christ in his last act of ministry. In proclaiming a new covenant for 'the many', Jesus was saying this one was for everyone, not just Jews. Bottom line: those who buy in to the gospel of Christ have no obligations whatever to the Ten Commandments! Now, NOTE PLEASE: I am not saying that Christians are free to do whatever they want; they certainly are not. What I'm saying is that the 'Decalog' (Ten C's) are obviated as a measure of righteousness; the believer's righteousness is inherited or assumed from Christ, his personal savior. The Christian is called to emulate Christ, his model, in every aspect, but when he fails (as we all do) 'there is therefore no condemnation' (Rom 8:29) and the sinner can simply learn a worthwhile lesson and carry on in the certitude of God's abiding love. There is no neurotic self-flagellation for every stumble in the walk of life for 'those who walk according to the Spirit.'

[So, you diehard legalists who are enraged to read this, please don't rush to your keyboard to 'set me straight' from my heresy. This essay is not a proof of these assertions; I have biblical proof in other papers that you will have to read first before attacking with your unassailable logic.]

To the sincere skeptic who has stayed with me this far, I say 'bravo,' and I hope you 'see' that the common perception of Christianity is quite off-base with the biblical truth. My bet is that most atheists will see this reality more easily than ostensible Christian readers, because they will not have all the 'baggage' of believers, all the 'traditions of men' to defend. The agnostic may see how the Bible is 'purposefully' convoluted and arguable-- that is precisely how God has preserved the essential message from being expunged or perverted by malicious forces. There is so much redundancy and extraneous material in the scriptures that the dark forces didn't know what to tamper with, and couldn't have done so in a consistent manner thru-out all those verses. It's a brilliant strategy that could only have come from God! Let this new insight motivate all, skeptics and insiders alike, to look further into holy scripture, seeking with simple hearts to know 'the truth' that 'shall set you free.'

The Truth About Israel

The Bible and Israel

Christian spokespersons, especially among American Evangelicals, have been steadily ramping up the rhetoric in support of Israel, over the past decade or more. Their logic for this often outspoken advocacy is usually accepted with little analysis as ‘obviously’ based on the Bible. More than that, their logic for that support is highly curious. This essay takes a closer look at the reasoning of Evangelical enthusiasm for defending Israel against any and all criticism.

The first curious thing to strike the objective onlooker is that their cozy feelings for Israel are hardly reciprocated, to say the least. Instead of attempting to curry favor with their Christian acolytes, the Israeli government has continued its decades long, low-key antipathy towards the Christian world, in whatever guise it appears. For a couple of decades it has been illegal in Israel to ‘proselytize’-- a law that is essentially aimed at Christian missionary attempts to reach Jews. Even in the US, there is little affection for Christians among official Jewish figures. Far from appreciating Christian support, some Israeli lobbyists in the USA cynically view that collaboration as a political tool to be manipulated for the furtherance of Israeli objectives.

And incidentally, the reason behind Jewish antipathy towards the Christian faith is not highly obvious. Sure, there is a lot of suspicion for historical reasons, with sporadic persecution of Jews in Europe going back almost two millennia. One could point to American blacks who are still predominantly Christian, the faith of the original slave-owners. Or there are the aboriginals in the Americas who will still hear of Jesus, despite the genocide perpetrated against their populations by ostensible Christians. Yet the Jews seem to have hardened their hearts against any attempt to investigate the claims of Christianity... to the detriment of both faiths.

The next curious aspect of Christian enamoration with Israel arises from the supposed ‘Biblical’ basis for it. Many pop evangelists, preaching from their video pulpits, spout verses from the Bible-- almost invariably from the Old Testament scriptures-- as proof of the validity of their exhortations on behalf of Israel. But, what really do the scriptures state about the future of the region of the Middle East that we presently call ‘Israel’?

Before we get into the ofttimes obscure ground of Bible study, it is vital to summarize the history involved. The essentials originate with the figure of Abraham, who is correctly widely recognized as the progenitor of the three major religions struggling on today’s world stage, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. But, how many people actually know how this development came about? First, we have to understand that Abraham was not a Jew; he was from a tribe known as Hebrews (who were descendants of Noah’s son, Shem... hence, ‘Semites’). After relocating, at God’s behest, from ancient Chaldea to the land later called Palestine, Abraham had a son, Ishmael, by his concubine, Hagar, then another son, Isaac, by his wife, Sarah. Moslems trace their ancestry back through Arab lines to Ishmael. But, going back to Isaac, he had two sons by his wife Rebekah, Esau and Jacob, who were (very) non-identical twins. After various adventures, Jacob had a nighttime encounter with an angel (or God) and his name was changed to Israel, in acknowledgment of a change in his inner spirit. At that time, Jacob/Israel was married to two sisters, Leah and Rachel. Eventually, Jacob had 12 sons who went on to become the patriarchs of 12 tribes, each of which was named after one of them. One of the sons was named Judah, and his descendants, the children of Judah, were called ‘Jews’ for short. (The German name for them is ‘Juden’, which shows the linguistic link better than English.) Now you can see that the Jews descended from Abraham, but Abraham could not have been and was NEVER a Jew!

You can also see that Jacob, alias Israel, could not have been a Jew, either! However, the full collection of his offspring were known as ‘the Children of Israel,’ (that makes sense!), or the People of Israel, or quite simply abbreviated as ‘Israel.’ Well then, how did the Jews come to call their conquered territory ‘Israel?’ We have to provide some time markers at this point. Jacob had his large family sometime around 1500 BC, and due to a famine in that region, they all moved to Egypt when the 12 sons were of adult age. The offspring all stayed in Egypt for 430 years, becoming a virtual nation of Hebrews living among the Egyptians. Most people of ‘Western’ heritage know the story of Moses leading the ‘Chosen People’ out of Egypt and into the ‘Promised Land.’ (Note that Moses was NOT a Jew, but a Levite, a descendent of Levi.) To condense a story that spans centuries, the 12 tribes, by then large in numbers, settled in 12 districts in the present-day Middle East. Over time, they coalesced into two main groups: the ‘Southern Kingdom,’ called ‘Judah’ because it consisted of the tribes of Judah and the smaller, Benjamin; and the ‘Northern Kingdom,’ called (get this!) Israel, probably because it comprised the remaining ten tribes. When the famous David came along as king, he succeeded in re-uniting the two nations into one (called Israel) for a while. After his death, the two groups again separated.

What happened next is important. As detailed in the Bible, the two Abrahamic, or Israelite kingdoms had numerous episodes of idolatry and spiritual infidelity, and then, in the year 722 BC, the Assyrians under Chedorlaomer, defeated ‘Israel,’ the Northern Kingdom, and dispersed the inhabitants to Assyria, and apparently, later to all points of the compass. While theories abound, the fact is that the ten northern tribes disappeared from history as an identifiable entity. You could correctly state that it was the end of Israel. The southern kingdom of Judah continued right up to the time of Jesus... and slightly beyond. In fact, Jesus, in his ‘Olivet sermon,’ predicted the future destruction of Jerusalem and the great temple that had become an instrument of religious oppression in the hands of a self-serving clergy. Jesus’ words were fulfilled within the lifetime of many of his hearers; the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD, destroying the temple, and killing many Jews. The survivors dispersed to different lands, but they carried their religious traditions with them-- a religion that is called Judaism. But you can see that it could more accurately have been given a more general name, since the fundaments had been given through Moses in the desert to all 12 tribes. Also-- note this-- Abraham never observed a Jewish religion! The Ten Commandment covenant, the basis of Jewish faith, was handed down to the ‘people of Israel’ through Moses, more than four centuries after Abraham’s death.

After the end of the Second World War, Jews living in Europe organized an army that invaded Palestine, inhabited for centuries by Arabs, and with the complicity of the victorious ‘Allies,’ they occupied a piece of territory they designated as ‘Israel.’ They should more rightly have termed it Judah, but it is claimed that all 12 tribes are represented in the ranks of nominal Jews. In any case, by calling it Israel, they probably hoped to lend it an air of Biblical legitimacy, since they claimed to be re-possessing the land promised to their ancestor, Abraham. Some of us have a hard time understanding how you can come along after a lapse of 2000 years and declare ownership of a land supposedly promised to your ‘great-to-the-nth-power grandfather;’ but apparently, any excuse will do when you have the firepower on your side.

Alright; that pretext is sufficient for Jews, (although there are a few today who are questioning this dogma). But, why do ‘Christians’ accept this line of logic? Does the Bible really say that God ‘promised’ Palestine to the far-off descendants of Abraham? And if God did promise them the land, why do they need to wrest it by force of arms? Starting with Abe himself, and his famous tryst with his maidservant, Hagar, his descendants have been trying to ‘help’ God to keep his promises to them. That does not seem to evidence faith; but who am I to question? It’s time to open the Bible and see what it says concerning Israel.

A rational humanist may well inquire as to why we must consult scriptures that date back to some 12 centuries BCE, but such are the subtleties of religious logic. While today’s Jews insist that the Bible (or their Torah-- the Christians’ Old Testament) gives them eternal title to the land of Palestine, it’s valuable to study those writings for oneself to see what they really state. The book of Leviticus quotes the words of God as, in fact, stating exactly the opposite of the commonly held claims:

"The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants.” Leviticus 25:23 (NIV)

God is telling them bluntly that they don’t own the land-- he does. Okay, that wouldn’t deter the Jewish occupiers of Israel/Palestine; they will just reply that they have re-claimed their lease on the land and occupy it on his behalf according to ancient dictum. For some, that may be good enough, and they’ll just accept the assertion as ‘gospel.’ But-- we want to dig deeper and see if there’s more to the story... don’t we?

As it turns out, that lend-lease from God did NOT come ‘carte blanche;’ there were numerous conditions attached. If you read the next chapter of Leviticus-- or it’s recapitulation in Deuteronomy 28-- you will find that the whole land deal was predicated on strict conditions. God starts these clauses with a big IF... and then enumerates at length, first, the blessing they will enjoy in the land provided that they fulfill the demands handed down through Moses at Mount Sinai. Secondly, he describes the horrors that will fall upon the children of Israel if they should fail to live as God required and spelled out in ‘the Law’ handed down to them via Moses. Among those curses, they would be driven out of the land and scattered abroad, offering themselves as slaves to support themselves. It makes for scary reading... especially now, in retrospect, as we see that the curses were carried out as predicted, first to the northern ‘Israelites,’ and later, to the southern Jews.

So, you can read for yourself, that long ago, the Jews forfeited the land that God had lent them! If the people of Israel had modelled their society along the lines required by God, they would have enjoyed unparalleled prosperity and harmony, as well as protection from enemies. In failing to keep their end of the bargain (ie. the so-called Mosaic, or Sinai Covenant), they lost the rights to the promised land. The ‘promise’ came with conditions-- the Jews, and their Judeo-Christian acolytes, never mention those telling conditions. In light of the true Biblical perspective, then, one has to question why the modern, 20th century Jews tried to justify their invasion of Palestine on scriptural grounds. Evidently, they made the reasonable assumption that most people have never bothered to read the Bible, and therefore could be told anything about its contents.

Yet, there are plenty of so-called Christians who seem to be conversant with the Bible, and still they support the fiction that ‘God gave the land to the Jews.’ Why do they do this? One can either assume that they aren’t aware of the verses quoted here, or that they are being devious. Regrettably, the art of deconstucting Bible verses and reassembling them to justify almost any particular view is ages old. Scripture twisting was used in ages past to persecute Jews; later, to justify slavery. Today, they are used as pious rationale to destroy the Palestinians and enlarge the Jewish conquered territory.

Perhaps the right-wing, pseudo-Christian lobby that agitates for Jewish/Israeli hegemony is motivated by another warped understanding of scripture-- those that pertain to the ‘end times.’ In that aberrant optic, the adherents believe that the temple of Solomon must be rebuilt on the ‘temple mount,’ site of a present-day Mosque, a holy shrine of Islam. Surely if a Christian church had been built on the mount, these ‘Christian’ militants would be quite opposed to the notion of rebuilding the temple. But, in their faulty exegesis of ‘eschatological’ texts (ie. those pertaining to the ‘end of the age’) these opportunists seem to think they can advance God’s cosmic clock to the final bell... and thus hasten the return of Christ to rule-- with their ready assistance-- the whole earth, for a thousand years of peace, they believe.

For any thinking non-Christian, this line of reasoning must appear quite absurd on several points. For example, how can puny humans suppose that they can hasten Christ’s return by taking matters into their clumsy hands? And, do they honestly believe that Jesus is going to place these scheming manipulators into positions of authority? God forbid! But such is the arrogance of those drunk on dreams of religious dictatorship.

Those proud Republicans of the religious right, the moral majority, have been conned into buying this ‘Christian claptrap’ lock, stock and barrel by fast-talking ‘evangelists’ who have made fortunes on the side with a flood of pamphlets, fantastic novels (purporting to be ‘bible-based’) and more recently, videos giving graphic dramatizations of their bizarre theological theories of ‘apocalyptic times.’ Do the purveyors of these sensational scenarios honestly believe it? Maybe some do; the question hardly matters. The supertanker is moving briskly, and it’s not about to be turned around easily. The blind opportunists have been exercising increasing political clout in recent decades, especially since their first poster-boy Ronald Reagan was president and admitted his sympathy with the Evangelical views. Now they are egging the White House on to giving Israel an unlimited blank check to achieve a common goal-- expulsion of the Palestinians from their ancestral land, and approval to level the Mosque and rebuild the temple.

It’s insanity based on absurdity... yet it has a grip on the minds of a sizable number of Judeo-Christians in America today. If Christians bothered to investigate for themselves, instead of letting the snake-oil salesmen tell them what to believe, they would be astounded to read what Jesus, and Paul have to say on the subject of Israel. Many church-goers seem to regard Jesus’ parables as folksy tales with a spiritual message; rarely do they understand that these stories can also reflect important reality. In the parable of the vineyard owner who leases the land to tenants (Matt 21:33-44), he says the owner (God) sent servants (the prophets) to request his due from the tenants (the children of Israel). But what did they do? The renters mistreated the servants and refused to honor their lease terms. The owner then sent his son as his emissary. This time, the wicked tenants threw him outside the vineyard (symbolic of Jerusalem-- Calvary was outside the city), and killed the son (obviously, Jesus). Now, it’s interesting to read what follows (verse 45):

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them.

How about that! The Pharisees (Jewish religious leaders) knew he was referring to them. Yet today’s Christians don’t seem to ‘get’ the point of Jesus words. Even though, in the same chapter, he made it crystal clear. In verse 43, Matthew quotes Jesus as saying:

"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.”

There’s no doubt that the ‘you’ in this verse refers to his audience, the Jews. (As proof, see Jesus’ words when he ‘wept’ over Jerusalem; Matt 23:37). Even prior to this parable, Jesus had enacted a prophecy regarding the Jews and ‘fruit.’ In a single amazing verse (Matthew 21:19) is captured in enacted symbolism the veritable future of Israel:

Seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, "No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you." And at once the fig tree withered.

The tree represents the people planted by God (Israel) on the road of life. The leaves held out promise from afar; but alas, there was no ‘fruit,’ no manifestation of the presence of God in their lives. Jesus didn’t just ignore the tree in disappointment; he cursed it in disgust!

Yet the evangelical lackeys of modern Israel are anxious to ‘bless’ that impostor! Why? Again because of a complete lack of understanding of the scriptures. Most facile Christians believe that the Bible advises that you must bless the Jews in order to receive a blessing. Is that what it states? Let’s see how a Jewish contemporary of Jesus understood that idea.

Galatians 3:8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."

What Paul realizes here is that all nations were blessed through Abraham (not ‘Jews’) because Jesus’ earthly lineage was traced back to Abraham. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that blesses ALL nations... NOT attempting to mimic ancient Jewish traditions!

In order to make the whole lesson unavoidably plain, Jesus made another prediction that was astounding in the ears of his audience. While they were admiring the great Temple of Solomon (one of the ‘Wonders’ of the ancient world) Jesus assured his companions that it would soon be leveled to the ground (Matt 24:1-2). It is recorded in the gospels (Matt 27:51, etc.) that the heavy veil or curtain that separated the first compartment (called the Holy Place) in the temple from the second (the ‘Most Holy Place’) was torn in two, from top to bottom, at the moment of Jesus’ expiry on the cross. This supernatural act was a sign from God that the entire temple service, with its priests and rituals and sacrifices (called ‘holocausts’, incidentally) was henceforth obsolete, futile. In case some still did not comprehend, the Roman army came to ‘pacify’ Judea, as they called the region, and in 70 AD, they destroyed the temple, exactly as Jesus had predicted. This act was a graphic demonstration that the entire system represented by the temple was finished, terminated.

Obviously, in view of the unmistakable words and acts of God and Jesus, every thinking Christian has to ask ‘How do these spokesmen get their weird ideas that we must support Israel so they can rebuild the temple... and hasten Jesus’ return?’ It’s all pure fabrication! Actually, it’s worse than that. In striving to do exactly what God has undone, to act opposite to the judgements of Jesus, to ‘bless’ what Jesus has cursed, these pseudo-Christians are furthering the cause of the one who opposes Christ-- the so-called ‘Anti-Christ.’ By rejecting Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah who offers them peace, the Jews are (still) rejecting the God of Abraham. Jesus said, He who hates me hates my Father as well. (John 15: 23). Therefore, according to Jesus himself, there can be no such ‘abomination’ as ‘Judeo-Christianity!’

Am I saying that Christians should be antagonistic towards Jews and Israel? No! Don’t infer that notion. I’m saying that the political support advocated by some self-appointed Christian figures is quite misguided, non-Biblical, and ultimately anti-Christian. Every person on earth is of equal worth in the sight of God; there are no ‘chosen people’ who enjoy some

kind of special status before God. As Paul wrote to the believers in Galatia (ch. 3:6-7):

Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

It ought to be a fundamental article of Christian understanding that every human can be a ‘spiritual descendent’ of Abraham by the simple exercise of faith... not birth! Paul states this fact in many of his letters; why evangelicals are not teaching this fact is a blatant error and a shame. It’s time for Christians to stop thinking that they are somehow nothing more than an off-shoot of Judaism. That is completely wrong! The Christ-based faith goes back to Abraham himself. (Indeed, it could be traced to Eden, but let’s leave it at Abraham for this purpose.) It’s time to stop looking in the rear-view mirror, and to look toward the one who gave his life for mankind and whose name so many people pretend to worship. As Jesus told his skeptical audience:

“Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” John 8:56

If Abraham, by faith, looked forward to ‘the day of the Lord,’ why should we be content to look backwards to Moses? The Jews took a detour in the Sinai desert... and never got back on track, even when the Son of God came to enlighten them. Let’s not make the same mistake all over because we’re too listless to read scripture for ourselves, and too eager to listen to fantastic stories about coming wars and miracles in the Middle East.

Personality and Religion

What I refer to here is the effect of personality on one's religious outlook. Is there an effect? Well, we typically don't have a say in our choice of religion when we are born into a particular faith family. So my comments really apply to those who have managed to extricate themselves from the circumstances of their birth and upbringing (be it religious or non-religious) and have later made the decision to join a specific religious persuasion. Hence, they relate mostly to those of us who live in the Western, secular societies that recognize freedom of religion.

So then, what draws a person to 'join' a particular denomination, when there are so many to choose from? You might say it's just chance, dependent on who influenced them. Or for some, it's divine providence, which I think is legitimate to an extent. Yet for many, I think it's their personality. Those who are conservative by nature will be attracted to the traditional churches that avoid change and espouse established values. The more liberal seeker will gravitate towards newer, more exotic faiths that proclaim tolerant views and may not always use the title 'church.'

So what? you may scoff. What does it matter? Maybe not a lot, if you have no interest in such matters. For those of us who do, it indicates how subjective is the religious experience. We may think we joined a church for logical reasons-- but how logical is a religious peruasion? It would also help explain why, in a free society, there are so many flavors of so-called Christianity. And why they(practically) all think that they alone possess 'the true faith.'

And then there's the present reality, where huge numbers of people are born into either of the two main branches of Islam, which by all indications, is a very traditional, conservative faith. There is little apparent tolerance for deviant beliefs within the Islamic cultures-- so one may ask, 'What happens to those with a liberal personality, in such a society?' Good question. Could it be that they are drawn towards the fringe that populate the ranks of the 'jihadists' (the fighters)? I would answer no. In fact, I venture that it's the ultra-conservatives who are most doctrinaire and most amenable to the violent message of the extremists... just as in any religion. By contrast, the tolerant individuals are more likely drawn to education, business, medicine, science, and so on. They are Islamic but adopt a more tolerant interpretation of the faith. From the viewpoint of a western observer, the saddest aspect of an indoctrinated society is that there is no acceptance of dissent. Everyone is expected to conform, and if he or she doesn't, the consequences can be very severe. For it's almost a given that mono-religious societies are highly legalistic-- there's an explicit code of laws and rules, and they are strictly applied. It's this legalism that is the most caustic aspect of all conservative faiths.

In the USA, where one could expect that many believers found their faith by choice, the legalism of the ultra-conservative 'Christians' is a hallmark. They are the ones who would institute the death penalty for a menu of crimes; who would prosecute givers and receivers of abortion; who would like to incarcerate people for all manner of misdemeanors. They never seem to grasp that if you cast the net broadly enough, they themselves stand a likelihood of being caught. These caricatures of Christianity are ideal for the authoritarian personality that wants to impose 'law and order' with as much zeal as any Muslim. The liberal Christian element are not inclined towards worldly power, and are more in line with the 'love thy neighbor' ideal of original Christianity. Naturally, the conservative group condemn the liberal wing as worldly and profligate, and needing severe discipline.

The maddening thing about all this rumination is that the greatest casualty in this phenomenon is (no surprise) truth. I've had first hand experience in this regard. In my own case, I was very conservative in my youth (I know-- I got it all backwards!) and hence, inclined towards legalistic views. That's why it took me over four decades to fumble my way to enlightenment and freedom. I can look back and recall that I had the critical doubts that would have led me to escape... but my personality made me shrink back into familiar views. After finding freedom in the Christ-centered message, I not-unexpectedly tried to liberate my fellow believers. Predictably, those within the church I attended at the time were not interested. In fact, they were threatened and took steps to contain me and my errant views. Well, okay, that wasn't too surprising; so I went back to the friends who had been so important in helping me find freedom-- surely they'd be eager to embrace the next logical step in the process they inaugurated. But, No! Not a chance. They opposed me vigorously, absolutely unable to see the promised land I had entered. How could these scholars read the same texts as me... and come to entirely opposite conclusions?

That question haunted me for some time; until I realized the insidious effect of personality on their views. You see, intelligence has nothing to do with it; even knowledge is inadequate. When persons who are genuine followers of Christ reject new 'light,' it is baffling to the pioneers who forge ahead. Doesn't the Spirit of enlightenment treat all who seek truth equally? But, maybe that's it-- you have to be dedicated to seeking truth... regardless of where it leads. Too often, people are dedicated to a denomination, to a 'school of thought,' etc. They want to conserve their position; new ideas can be risky, they often entail breaks with church friends and family... the costs may be just too high to merit the pursuit of truth. Others become proud of some 'breakthrough' insight they have achieved, and are not willing to let it go, to move on, when new doors open.

In these situations the determining factor is not knowledge, not IQ, but personality. When someone greets a new idea with words like 'I can't buy that,' they are speaking, most often, from their personality. They are right: they can't accept the idea-- it doesn't 'fit' their mental map of reality, doesn't resonate with their emotional profile. At that point, they may never go beyond their self-imposed frontier to 'buy' the idea. Yet, if they are aware of their personal predispositions, it's possible for a person to look further into the idea, to give it a fair hearing, and eventually even come to accept it. In some cases, the unbeliever has no choice-- the truth, like old age, finally makes itself so evident, that the most skeptical person must admit its reality. But in many, perhaps most cases requiring belief, there is always a slight, gray area, that gives the inveterate skeptic the straw of doubt to cling to.

The question that has been pounding in the mind of you, the reader, is something like 'What makes you think your 'new ideas' are superior to the familiar, traditional views?' Fair question. It appears like a circular conundrum; am I not trapped in the same paradigm I describe? Perhaps, to a degree. In my defence, I offer these points. First, I'm aware of the personality pitfall-- therefore, much better able to consider its effect on my outlook. Second, when I find scriptures I can't fully understand, I admit it. I don't try to force an interpretation on some set of verses because that would complete some novel theory. How many lurid prophecies have you heard based on 'solid scripture' taken from that handy wellspring of phantasmagoria, the Book of Revelation? Some pundits recognize and admit that this book is written in symbolism; nevertheless, they expect to decide, themselves, which portions are symbolic, and which can arbitrarily be taken as literal. Or, the other common fallacious technique is to base prophecies on Old Testament 'promises' when, verily, anything in the Mosaic era must be taken as conditional. Third, I am not, repeat not, beholden to any denominational world-view. Consider this: if you take my views to your pastor and ask his evaluation, the first question he will ask is 'Where does this come from?' That is, what organization promotes it? What most pastors (and others) want to do is immediately categorize the idea in some ready-made 'box;' it makes thinking almost unnecessary. Fourth, anything I believe about the Christ-based faith can be backed up by legitimate, rational scriptural study. Sure, they all say that. But check out their 'exegesis,' the methodology used to reach their conclusions. Grabbing a verse here and there, taken out of context and slapped together from an unstated political agenda, is hardly legitimate Bible study. Yet some of the most widely promoted ideas in Christendom have been born this way. And now that they've attained a sufficient mass of adherents, they are simply accepted as stated-- hardly ever examined critically any more.

You see, the 'traditional churches' appeal not just to the conservative personality, but also to the lethargic. After all, the majority must be right... right? If that simplistic logic were true, there would never have been a Protestant Reformation. For those who want to be sure that they are 'saved,' the safest route, with the least strain on the brain, is to hitch your star to a popular wagon. 'There's too many choices out there-- they can't all be right;' so play it safe. Well, hey, maybe you can join several mainstream churches, and hedge your bets! Seekers know it doesn't work that way. Jesus stated plainly: 'broad and smooth is the way that leads to perdition, and many are those who travel it; straight and narrow is the way to eternal life, and few there are who tread it' (paraphrased). Sadly, the modern, Western churches are as populated by the listless as by the merely conservative. The apathy among Christians in striving for truth is as pathetic as it is virulent.

As the insecurity of the 21st century impells many towards religion, it's natural that these seekers will look for an institution that resonates with their inner being. The problem for society is to ensure that these institutions observe mutual respect, and that no personality type dominates. As long as the link between personality and religion remains hidden, we as individuals can be captivated by teachings that stray far from Biblical truth, and led, lemming-like, to dangerous conclusions. As long as that link is merely an interesting phenomenon, society can rest easy. But, it's clear that if a religious faction-- most likely, fundamentalist in nature-- should wrest control of government, we will all have reason to fear. That's why I believe it is important that people of faith, especially Christians, should pause to reflect on how their personality has influenced their choice of religious views. And the next step is to re-evaluate those views and ask if we are honestly seeking God's truths or drifting along in the dogma of our church. The third step for most is to pray for the wisdom and the courage to follow the Holy Spirit... wherever He may lead.

Survival Guide for Religious Refugees

This is a message for those brave or discontented souls who have come to the point in their spiritual journey where they know they have to 'walk.' That is, they have to walk out the door and leave whatever church they happen to be worshipping in presently. It's never an easy move; besides external pressures to just keep the status quo, there are a myriad of questions about the next step. My hope is that this essay will help you on the journey. I know whereof I write... I've been there.

Personal Background Note

For anyone wondering why I feel motivated or qualified to expound on this subject, here is a brief autobiographical sketch on my journey.

I was born and raised in a Roman Catholic home by parents who were similarly born and raised. At a later stage, they became quite serious about their faith, and I too, after a period of 'seeking,' returned to the RC fold in my mid-20s. After reading scripture for myself for the first time (in my thirties!) I had enough doubts about the RC Church that I led my wife and daughter into another, ostensibly 'Biblical' church. We went 'whole hog' in that cult for almost a decade, until again, my initial doubting points could not be supported a moment longer. We withdrew our membership and struck out into the wild blue yonder. For a while we fellowshipped at a local, congenial, evangelical church. But in a little while, even this felt quite hollow, and we now get together with a few, like-minded friends in our homes, and have very informal study, prayer and share sessions, as and when the Spirit moves us.

We have recognized a growing need for some kind of support for those believers in Christ who leave this or that denomination, and feel quite disoriented, and are looking for a beacon in the darkness.

The Scenario

There can be any number of reasons to prompt a sincere Christian to consider leaving his/her church. This article assumes that the reason is not related to 'personality issues' or conflicts due to superficial matters; what we want to deal with is a genuine prompting of the Spirit that tells you to 'get out of her, my people.' This inner urge is recognized by the believer as a need to 'seek' greater spiritual growth, which is generally not possible within the context of the church situation. You know it's time to move on--the first question is: to where? Other questions will arise; for example, what do I really believe about... (insert the conundrum that the Holy Spirit used to trouble your heart).

First Things First

The first thing you must understand is that your experience is perfectly normal. Indeed, I would say it is necessary and expected of a true follower of Christ, at least in this present age. Why? The battle lines are being drawn between the false and the genuine, especially in the sphere of religion. There are so many false shepherds pretending to be Christian while promoting utterly un-Christian beliefs and practices. So many nominal Christian bench-warmers simply attend a church for merely social and cultural reasons. Perhaps you too were a 'routine Christian' going for your weekly spiritual fix without ever giving a lot of deep thought to what it's all about. But then, something triggered a 'cognitive dissonance' in the spiritual region of your mind. And now your once-peaceful world is in chaos. Dear God, I've got to actually think about what I believe... and I don't know where to begin! Get over it; you're not the first or only believer to face the problem. And I expect that there'll be hordes more in the next few years.

Quite likely, the matter that provoked you to start questioning this whole religion thing had (has) to do with a doctrinal issue. What does my church teach about 'whatever' (substitute your issue: abortion, homosexuality, church authority are some of the current 'hot topics). Your pastor quotes you all kinds of Bible verses, many of them dating back to 3500 years ago, and says 'See--God says so!' Other people, equally zealous, tell you there's another side of the story (maybe several sides) and they can provide all kinds of verses and logic to back their claims. Your 'spiritual gut' is telling you something is wrong here, and you may disagree with your church's official position. You may even come to a point where you start to doubt this whole 'Christianity' business.

My advice is this: don't make a commitment to any position until you've taken time to study and pray and seek God's guidance.

The Big Question

For most individuals in the situation I've described, the question they wrestle with is 'where do I go now?' In other words, to which of the gazillion 'Christian' churches should I now attach my allegiance?

The first advice I'd give is STOP, and start thinking about what you're asking. Why are you even thinking you have to 'go to a church?' We Christians have been so brain-washed for many centuries about the necessity of congregating with fellow worshippers in a building called a church, that we no longer think of it as a paradigm to question. Who says you have to 'go' to a building or attach yourself to an organization? Well, the clergy of your local, friendly, religion outlet, that's who. And who benefits if you do join a church? It's the franchise owners, the pastor of the local establishment (in terms of precious membership, the measure of his success), and the denomination, in terms of weekly revenue from collections.

When Jesus was alone at a well in Samaria one time, a woman came to him and asked a similar question. In an implied query, she said: Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.' So there-this woman presented the Master with the big question about where should we go. What did Jesus reply? He stated '(Yet) a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth.' (See John 4). You see; it's not about a place, it's about a direct relationship with the Father, who is a Spirit and must be approached in spirit.

So, am I saying stop going to church? Let's leave that thorny problem for a while. Meanwhile, notice that Jesus emphasized that true believers 'must worship God in spirit and in truth.' Isn't that what goes on in church? Well... I'll let you seekers answer that one. But I'll ask another impertinent question: How can you worship God in spirit and truth when you sit zombie-like in a church pew listening to someone else tell you what you should believe and what is truth? It can't happen until you get involved and 'seek and knock and ask'. I know from personal experience that the moment you take Jesus seriously and start to seek and ask, you are going to incur the displeasure of the pastors, disturb the slumber of your fellow members, and soon find yourself on the margins of church life. If you think it's just me, a grumbler, then I challenge you to try it for yourself. More likely, you readers who get this far are ones who've already taken the challenge and you know full well that this is what happens!

Perhaps you got emotionally hurt in the scenario I've outlined; but I'm telling you not to take it personally. You are not battling just flesh, but the powers of the air who pull the strings of the church clergy and members... and they don't like it one bit when a person starts to think about his faith. Don't walk out the door with hard feelings; this is just how a fallen world operates. Go joyfully, knowing the Spirit has propelled you in a new direction. Keep seeking, knocking, asking!

That's it--don't continue this journey under the unnecessary burden of belief that you must belong to a church, either to be saved or to live a Christian life. It may be that the Spirit will lead you to another church of some kind, for some period of time. Don't get too comfortable in that pew! Keep your spiritual ears open for that small, still voice that leads you forward, often into uncharted waters. What most pastors won't tell you is that the true church of Christ is an invisible, global, 'virtual church' as we'd call it today, made up of sincere believers who want to do more than sit and listen once a week.

Okay, you're prepared to forego the familiar church paradigm; now what? I think it's still important to fellowship with Christ-seeking believers, but keep an open mind about where to find them. It might be a 'prayer and share group' that meets every week or second week at someone's house. Today, you might well find them on the Internet; there are all kinds of on-line ministries that cater to various niche groups. My advice is to 'stay generic'--don't get roped into another denominational web. I can assure you UNEQUIVOCALLY that there is NO church in existence that is doctrinally 'pure' and has 'the truth.' Some churches have more truth than others. Some believers have less truth but live a Christ-centered, love-based life. I think I'd trade off doctrinal purity if I could find genuine, loving believers, wouldn't you? Oh--you're one of those sticklers for doctrine who wants to walk in the assurance that your church has all the answers? Well, you'll have to bang your head on church walls a long time before you finally get it, then.