What Went Wrong?
|
New in the Website |
A few years ago I was speaking (I still could speak back then) with an American atheist. Having studied at Yale and being deeply related to the GOP and Times, he managed to supply many surprising comments on religion. Invariably, these came from a fanatically humanist point of view. Knowing just a bit about theology was enough to find them hilarious. Sometimes, he could be proven wrong just by citing the texts contradicting what Yale taught him. Other cases were more complex. In this second category enters the “I’m an orderly scholar” syndrome. He said: “I began reading the Bible, but dropped it after reaching the Book of Joshua. It was too violent.” This phrasing hinted he lacked perseverance (the Book of Joshua appears quite at the beginning of the Bible), and also that he made a systematically reading. He confirmed that when asked. Moreover, without saying adding anything else, he had disclosed he never visited church. “What’s the Bible?” I asked him. Surprised, he said with an unexpectedly hesitant voice: “a book.” “Wrong!” I countered. “It’s a library. It contains many books divided mainly in two groups – rooms if you want – the Old and New Testaments.” In the same way you don’t enter your town’s library and read everything by order of apparition, you don’t do that with the Bible. You pick up your readings according to the topic you are interested in.” I added; now he listened intently, eyes wide open like a little child. These were news for him. “The Book of Joshua is good if you’re interested in learning about ancient military tactics, but clearly unsuitable for learning on Love and Faith in the Old Testament.” After this introduction I explained how to find cross references on a topic in a commented Bible and how to identify incorrect interpretations in translations of the original text. For example, in a relatively new translation into Spanish, in one occurrence the word “wine” was replaced by “beer,” due to the political views of the translators. Of course, there cannot be “beer” in the original Hebrew text, in the same way “rice,” “maize” and “potatoes” are absent; they don’t belong to the area. Don’t search also for tomatoes.
This trivial event shows how the Bible is easily misquoted and used for evil. Open the Book of Joshua and begin quoting it wildly without putting it into historical or moral context and you get a Mr Obama claiming being a Christian while using the code word Geronimo in his illegitimate assassinations (he signed for it, he is responsible for it). Most humanists would get stuck at the last two sentences. “Moral context?” What’s that? Obama fulfilled American Law! In humanist methodology the terms “good” and “evil” carry no weight. Obama did evil protected under the law’s umbrella. In an awkward defense, humanists would claim more often than not that “good” and “evil” are relative. With such a primitive worldview it is impossible to read the Bible as a coherent collection of books teaching on “good” and “evil.” Yet, that’s what the Bible is. There is no darkness without light; neither goodness without evilness. The greatest text ever on goodness, love, Faith, God and all that is noble and worthy must expose the opposites in order to explain and teach. It is systematic, showing first evil through most of the Old Testament and then the redemptive Goodness of God in the New Testament. Yet, many people – even Ivy League ones – treat it just as a book with bloody war stories. Making the relevant parameters (“good” and “evil”) inaccessible to the average reader is only one of the successful tactics used by humanist states to eradicate religion. An additional important one is the definition of new values - 1984-style. “Technical advance” is heavily promoted as such nowadays. In The Cross of Bethlehem The combination of these two weapons of mass deception (relative goodness and the creation of pseudo-values) transforms the Bible into almost inaccessible. Combine this with bad translations and high-language and you get Satan’s Paradise. “Doing good” means nothing; “last man standing” justifies everything. Justice from the Hip is applauded by the masses. In this reality the comment of the Yale-man on the Book of Joshua can be understood. The Western fascination with violence – see all Hollywood horrors and the omnipresent Western Wars – probably add interest for Westerners in the violent parts of the library. Yet, are values relative? One of the oldest books in the Bible - just one book apart from Joshua – is the Book of Ruth. The book is short; it can be easily enjoyed while sipping just one large coffee. It is so old that some of the cultural practices described there – marriage and contracts for example – seem awkward. Yet, this is of no importance, because despite all the time passed, nothing really changes. Love is Love. Justice is Godly Justice, despite human laws. Even without appreciating the subtle humor used for names – often impossible to translate without lengthy explanations - the book appears as a love story promoting clear and eternal values, with which we can identify with no further explanations, even if the silos of Boaz are not bombed by a Hollywood hero at the end. For the sake of younger readers let me emphasize these are not of the nuclear type. Love and Faith – then and now – are the central topic. Despite the long time nothing has changed except for the violence of evil against those bothering to read and exercise the Books. 1 Corinthians 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. + +
|
My articles on the web are my main income these
days; please recognize my efforts in writing them by visiting my donations page or buying a copy of The Cross of Bethlehem
