Tag: athanasius contra mundum

The End of a Bloody Religion: Burn Me at the Stake!

Roger Mitchell4 Comments

Previous civilizations often understood history as cyclical, unstable, and prone to sudden reversal. Empires rose and fell. Religious systems fragmented. Political orders disintegrated. Periods of stability often concealed exhaustion beneath the surface. Historical permanence was generally viewed with caution rather than with certainty. — https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-speed-of-historical-reversals

Religious systems fragmented. If mankind is able to make it through another two thousand years without destroying himself and his world, what will history say about Christianity? Will Christianity even exist in the form we know it today? I find that doubtful.

What I am writing here is controversial and many will immediately, emotionally, and instinctively recoil because I am seriously questioning the religious system which I was born into and have always been a part of. Well, that was then, this is now, and I cannot close my eyes to what is unfolding in front of me just because my parents taught any one certain doctrine or because it goes against the grain of accepted belief. 

"With what shall I come before the Lord,
And bow myself before the High God?
Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, 
With calves a year old?
Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
Ten thousand rivers of oil? 
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"

"He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly, 
To love mercy, 
And to walk humbly with your God?"

Micah 6:6-8

Tension. Decision time. One way or another. Either we try to buy our way out of jail or we simply follow the example set before us.

“However, truth will out in the long run,…” — from the next-to-last paragraph in Douglas Reed’s book, The Controversy of Zion, Chapter two.

I got through about three-quarters of Reed’s book, then put it down for some reason without finishing it, but am going to pick it up again and complete it. However, since I have forgotten most of what was previously read, I will have to start at the beginning, taking better notes this time. No doubt the second reading will reinforce the “heretical” thoughts which are roiling around in my mind, beginning with this one.

If, as Reed contends, the Judaic religion stems from the Levitical priesthood and the practice of blood sacrifice as compensation for sins and, since Christianity is based on that religion, doesn’t this make the belief that Jesus Christ, as the ultimate blood sacrifice, little more than an extension of the ancient Hebrew religion? Does this fact make it suspect and are we allowed to argue whether it is true or not? It is, after all, a belief which cannot be proven nor disproven.1 If God “desires mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings…”, then wouldn’t this negate the idea that sinful man still needs to go through a more-sanitized, more-spiritualized, more modern and genteel ritual in order to be “saved”? Why do I need to bow down to a bloody, religiously-formed doctrine as “payment” for my sins to a God Who also proclaimed through the Scriptures,

“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” — 1 John 4:7-82

It’s pretty hard to get past that statement that everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Well, isn’t it?

I admit to my God, to myself, and to one and all that I am flawed. I am not perfect. I have my failings. Yet, I recognize that my imperfections can be worked out and overcome IF I rely on the power of the Holy Spirit to enable me AND I follow the path shown by Jesus the Christ who surrendered His own will to that of the Father. Is it an absolute necessity that my sins be washed away in a torrent of warm, oxygen-rich blood for me to gain a ticket to heaven? Hasn’t this Levitical/Judahite/Pharisaical religion of law been superseded by a better way? Can I move beyond that and acknowledge that the true way to total communion with God, Who is love, is to love my neighbor as I love myself? Love my neighbor and my enemy at least as much as I love myself. (Galatians 5:14)

Heretical? You bet. There are many, some close to me, who would tell me emphatically that, if I do not abandon these thoughts and hew to the “party” line, then I am on my way to Hell without any chance of forgiveness. However, in that, all they can do is parrot the idea that a blood sacrifice MUST be presented on my behalf and that I MUST accept it as truth.

Who is right? As Reed mentioned, the truth will out in the long run. All I can do is pursue it wherever it leads. Or, to paraphrase Ecclesiastes 12:12, on the asking of questions, there is no end. Since we do not have all the answers, but are encouraged to know God, Who is omniscient and does have the answers, I sincerely doubt that God will destroy me for asking questions. Instead, I expect that He will be more than willing to help me overcome my ignorance.

“You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free.” — Jesus Christ, quoted in John 8:32

I began thinking about this some six or eight months ago. In my whole lifetime, even in my early years, I have never been comfortable with the religious doctrine that God requires the blood of an innocent (whether person or animal) be spilled as a vicarious payment for the condition I was born into without a choice. After 67 years of searching and learning, I am just about ready to drop it entirely. However, I am still working this over, trying to make sense of it reasonably. Where will it take me? I do not know and, in this, I am taking the tack that God will lead me to the truth on the path ahead, in spite of the murkiness and darkness. My faith in His goodness is not at question nor wavering, but is actually stronger than ever, and I have no doubt that He will guide me through to the end because His main attribute, from which everything else originates, is love. Pure, uncompromising love which I am slowly coming to grips with and it is that understanding which is setting me free. And, unlike the devil, I am learning gratitude, real and honest gratitude, that I have been kept relatively safe for long enough to learn what that love means.

“My best feelings, gratitude, for example, are formally forbidden solely because of my social position.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Am I to be condemned? Well, according to some people who may have never had an original thought in their life, absolutely! However, I am quite glad that my future and eternity rests, not on a religious acceptance of what MIGHT be a flawed doctrine, but entirely on the judgment and mercy of the real Supreme Court, to which I will eventually be haled in front of and ordered to present my case.

I am at peace.

  1. In this respect, all religions, including Christianity, are like science which is never completely settled, but is always questioning and pushing beyond the traditionally accepted boundaries. We saw this in the Era of Covid where the “science of true belief” was propagated and extolled over the reality of truth. In discussing the issue with one of my erstwhile friends who constantly pitched the “fact” that 97% of all scientists were in agreement, I made the comment that, “Correlation does not equal causation. Neither does consensus.” Just because everyone believes something does not make it true. See Galileo and the theory that the sun revolves around the earth, for example. Athanasius contra mundum, for another. And this–https://poorrogersalmanac.com/2021/06/21/the-science-of-true-belief/ ↩︎
  2. This brings up the question that has never been adequately answered, in my opinion. What about all those people who have been born and died, and are destined to Hell because they never heard about the sacrifice that Jesus made for them and have never been given the opportunity to accept it as payment for their sins? More on this later. ↩︎

Weekly Wrap-up: War, Peace, Church Tradition, and Pure Speculation

Roger Mitchell4 Comments

The ongoing war between US/Israel and Iran, with all the permutations and angles this possesses (Hezbollah, Strait of Hormuz closure, potential Bab el Mandeb closure, etc.) is set to resume on Monday after the temporary two-week “cease-fire” expires. I hope that it will not and that the belligerents involved will be able to talk through their differences, but I expect that they will pick up their guns and begin firing again, this time with all-out fervor until one of them knuckles under and cries, “Uncle!”.

Col. Douglas McGregor lays it out quite plainly in this 30 minute video. See here.

Tucker Carlson has a lengthy video out concerning Donald Trump and his blatant mockery of Jesus Christ, Christianity, and Islam. I watched the first fifteen minutes, then shut it off to work on this post, however, I am in complete agreement, at least, so far, with his argument. Like I said, I only watched fifteen minutes. See here. For good measure, read my recent post on the same subject.

For the last few days, I have been reading Immanuel Velikovsky’s book, “Worlds in Collision”, in which he posits that the planet we know today as Venus was once a comet which nearly collided with Earth and was then captured by the sun’s gravity. He claims this occurred near the same time as the Biblical story of the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt and the conquest of the “promised land” about 1500 years before Christ. It is fascinating reading and for serious scholars (unlike myself) is heavily footnoted. His argument is compelling and, even though I am only about a third of the way through, I intend to finish it. It explains a lot in a logical manner (sometimes it appears to be quite far-fetched) about past happenings which we tend to disregard as myths and pooh-pooh as ancient religious beliefs.

Traditional religion and modern science ridicule his hypothesis as bunk, delusional, and unscriptural, but the question remains. What if he is correct and everyone else is wrong? After all, the saying, “Athanasius contra mundum.”, originated because a leader in the early Christian Church stood virtually alone in his defense of the divinity of Jesus Christ against the doctrines and beliefs of the Arian teaching. Athanasius was eventually vindicated and his teaching accepted as truth.

Just because you’re the only one doesn’t mean you’re wrong.

If you’re interested, download a free .pdf copy here.

Just war? What exactly is just war? Is there such a thing as a “just” war? Apparently, according to the recently anointed Pope, Leo XIV, this is open for discussion. And some hate him for bringing up the subject.

“God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs. Military action will not create space for freedom or times of #Peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples.” — https://x.com/Pontifex/status/2042588417578668338

This does not sit well with some Catholics, however, who prefer tradition, interpretation, and doctrine over the actual teachings of Jesus, who spoke very plainly about the need to love our enemies and to do good to those who hate us. Instead, we prefer to “do unto others, but do it to them first”.

Notice that the author of the article linked to, Matthew McCusker, leans quite heavily on Old Testament scripture to reinforce his position, but when he shifts to a discussion of the topic according to the New Covenant, there is absolutely no New Testament scripture quoted. Instead, he resorts to a history of the Catholic Church calling for wars and blessing wars in the name of the Christ. For instance,

‘The Sacred Scriptures, which are divinely revealed and free from all error, make it clear that (i) God commands war, (ii) war can be justified by reference to God’s commands and revelation, and (iii) He listens to the prayers of those who wage war.

Indeed, the waging of war at God’s command, and with His blessing, is one of the major themes of the Old Testament. Throughout the history of Israel and Judah, from the time of Moses down to the Maccabean revolt of the second century BC, God blessed those who fought in His name and He answered their prayers.”

And, without any reference to New Testament approval or blessing,

“The Church has also shown that God approves of fighting and leading just wars by repeatedly canonizing soldiers and military commanders.”

God approves of wars and fighting because the Church has repeatedly canonized soldiers and military commanders. I mean, my goodness, if this is the way to life then, by all means, let’s kill them all and let God sort them out. The problem for McCusker is that we do not live under the Old Covenant and are not obligated to its demands, but a New Covenant which has different rules of living. There is no such thing as a “just” war. Wars always result in the deaths and sufferings of innocent individuals, many of them women and children, who have done nothing to deserve what they are getting. McCusker needs to come up with a better defense of war than church tradition and papal bulls.

I am not Catholic and never will be, but I have to say that I think the Pope is on the right track and, given that he is on Donald Trump’s “naughty” list, makes me even more convinced that he is worth supporting in this.

“Tradition, tradition!” “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth!” “That way, the whole world will be blind and toothless.” — from the musical, Fiddler on the Roof