Unmasking Doctrine

Unmasking Doctrine #5: Deity of Christ: Miracles

Good evening heathens and hell-bound friends and foes alike! Tonight marks another adventure into the world of Assemblies of God doctrine. For the last in this series, click here: Unmasking Doctrine #4: Deity of Christ: Sinless Life. Tonight will be a shorter article because it’s a pretty simplistic thing to grasp.

The Scriptures used by the Assembly to support this doctrine are as follows:

shrugged

So do the miracles of Jesus as written about in the Gospels prove that he was the son of god? No, simply because there is no real proof that any of these stories are true whatsoever. I find myself as a mythicist, believing that the stories about a wandering minister could come from a conglomeration of tales put together into the persona of a single man. I don’t trust that there ever was an actual person who fit all the characteristics of the gospels and I definitely don’t believe that he worked wonders and miracles as is taught in the gospels. I have no faith in any of these.

The reasoning for this is that the miracles come in the forms of either:

A.) Preposterous
B.) Illusions

Zombie_Pigman.png

In the preposterous category we have:

  1. Casting Demons into pigs
  2. The Loaves and Fishes
  3. Curing blindness with spit and mud

 

 

 

 

PennTeller_Side_by_side_11223_004.jpg

In the illusion category we have:

  1. Turning water into wine
  2. Fish with a coin in its mouth
  3. Causing a lame man to walk

The reason that I state these are either preposterous or Illusion is that the first category are things which are so far out that there would definitely be other corroborating evidence of these miracles outside the bible. A guy turns 5 loaves and 2 fish is something that is going to appear in every local village writing in the area. A cow is born with two heads today and the entire world knows before the next morning, there is no doubt in my mind that the authorities would have kept records of these supposed miracles.

The second category is illusions that a magician today could choose to do if they set their mind to it. Especially the last one that I mention. Every con man worth their weight in salt has had the ability to make a lame man walk…charlatans have traveled the globe committing this fraud. All you need is for a person to pretend to be lame, say some mumbo jumbo to them, and then have them go “walking and leaping and praising god..”

The real problem I have here is that if we are to accept that Jesus is the son of god because of the miracles written about him in the bible, then we would also have to accept any other tale including miracles occurring. Mohammad must have actually pt319.jpgtransported to Jerusalem or else it wouldn’t have been written in the Qu’ran. Krishna really did lift a mountain and balance it on his pinky because it’s written that he did. I really do have a foot-long penis because I just wrote that I have a foot-long penis.

The main basis against these claims is that they are simply claims with no evidence to actually support them. You can’t believe everything that is written on the internet and this has been true no matter what medium is being used to convey the message. People lie on the internet, they lie on tv, newspapers, radio, books, pamphlets, papyrus and even cuneiform were written with lies included. People tell tall tales and the longer they are told the bigger the tales get.

I’ll admit that it is slightly possible that there might have been a man named Yeshua, who ministered in the area, and had people claim that he performed many signs and wonders. I’ll admit that today there was a man named Osho, who ministered, and his followers claim many signs and wonders were performed by him. However I do not claim any faith in any of the wonders or miracles that either of these two people are claimed to have performed.

And if you don’t believe me…here is what President Lincoln had to say on the matter…

lincoln

 

Unmasking Doctrine

Unmasking Doctrine #4: Deity of Christ: Sinless Life

Good evening Heathens and Hell-Bound friends and foes alike! It’s been a great day so far and I am excited to get back into this series.  The last time we were here we discussed the virgin birth, you can find that article here, Unmasking Doctrine #3: The Deity of Christ: Virgin Birth. Tonight we will be talking about the next portion of this Fundamental “truth” the sinless life of Christ.

So the scriptures given are as follows…

jesus

Now, this may come as a shock to you, the gospels never once say that Jesus lived a sinless life. Not one single time. So how is it that this has come to be such a crucial Christian belief. This is pretty simple…

  1. If Jesus sinned then how could he be god, god doesn’t sin.
  2. We like our godhead sin free.

That’s it…that is the reasoning for Jesus supposedly living a sin free life. The only scriptures that truly support the idea of a sinfree Jesus come from the scriptures mentioned above, that’s it.

So let’s look at those two books.

Hebrews and 1 Peter by conservative accounts were written somewhere between 60-70AD. That’s 30-40 years after the life of Christ, if he ever existed. I say if he existed because I don’t see there being much evidence that an actual Jesus figure existed. It’s more likely to me that the Jesus archetype is a conglomerate of numerous spiritual leaders around that time. Tonight is not the night to go into this subject.

shrugged

Anyway 30-40 years after Jesus supposedly died we have two accounts that claim he lived a sinless life. This to me is at best simply an overblown myth or at worst a way to try to promote Christ as the figure in the godhead that most of Christianity believes him to be. Not only do I reject the idea that Christianity teaches of a sinless god, but that the idea of any human being living a sinless life is a complete and total impossibility.

Let me first explain how this might occur in the overblown fashion:

My great-grandmother has been dead for nearly 30 years. Here is what I know about her.

  • She was married at the age of 14.
  • She went to church her entire life.
  • She gave birth to my grandmother and her three sisters.
  • She lived in my hometown the majority of her life.
  • She really liked Andes mints.
  • She was a very sweet and gentle old lady.

That’s it…I can’t tell you much more about her. Am I capable of claiming that she lived a sinless life? Well, I never experienced anything from her that I could claim to be sinful and so sure, she lived a sinless life. I could claim that but I also know that she was human and there is no such thing as a human being that doesn’t have a bad day now and then.

elderly

I could have used my great-aunt as an example as well, she was perfect, sweet, loving, and just a plain good old lady. I remember she got very upset when I talked back to my mother once and made me apologize. Imagine a sweet elderly woman who gives you hard candy and pinches your cheeks, that was my great aunt.

Now imagine the shock when I found out that she was a prostitute for nearly 20 years of her life. My grandmother just mentioned it one day out of the blue and it completely warped my mind. My entire picture of this perfect and sweet old lady was dashed to pieces knowing that she blew guys for chicken and pork back in the day.  Oh, and that’s not some euphemism, she literally was a prostitute so that she could feed her family and was at times paid in chicken and pork.  I’m not bashing her, she did what she had to do, more power to her, but the image I had about her was completely wrong.

My idea of these two women are completely overblown, and if you were to ask me about them, I couldn’t honestly tell you about there lives in any truthful manner. I could only tell you what I had been told about these two women.

MythBusters_title_screen

Myth building

Now, like I said before, this could also be used as a means to promote Christ as a member of the godhead. God is all-good so god can’t sin. “Well, the gospels don’t mention that Christ lived a sinless life, and other books don’t mention this, so just to clear things up let’s make sure to get a reference in a couple of books to help cement Christ as also being god.”

I say that this could be the reason because the New Testament is filled with references to things being done so that some prophecy from the old testament could be fulfilled. This would be like me writing one book and then later writing another book and saying that the characters do something simply because the first book said they were going to do it. It’s called storytelling, and often times a sequel is made many years after the original and so the author or authors fit the new story to fit within the confines of the old story. Unless your name happens to be George Lucas, and if it is you just say, “Fuck it.”

So let’s talk about the books themselves.

We have no idea who wrote Hebrews, it’s been attributed to Paul even though there is almost no correlation or similarity to any of his other writings. Even the oldest sources that we have state that they have no clue who wrote the book. Origin, an early church father states;

“Whoever wrote the epistle, God only knows for sure.”

shrugged
Actual Picture of Origin

That basically means….”who the fuck knows. Somebody wrote it but really, who knows.”

1st Peter on the other hand is very clear that Peter the Apostle, first pope of Roman Catholicism, wrote the letter. Well, actually it’s not clear who wrote it, it’s in the exact same boat as Hebrews, no one really knows who wrote this book, they just know someone wrote it or it wouldn’t exist.  Church tradition has held that it was written by Peter, but that’s all there is to it, tradition. There is no historical backing to the claim that the Apostle Peter wrote this book.

So the sources for this claim, that Christ was sinless, are questionable in authorship. I’ve given conservative dates for when they were written, it’s possible they were actually written at a much later date. Things just don’t add up here, if it was important that Christ be sinless, why wouldn’t it have been mentioned in the gospels at all?

It’s Ridiculous

flair

I am an incredibly easy-going person. It takes a lot to get me upset. I can sit here and read posts from trolls all day long without my blood pressure raising even the slightest. However, I have bad days. I have days where I just say fuck it and go off on everyone that I come into contact with.

Now, you are trying to tell me that Jesus was a guy that never had an off day. He was always perfect, always good, never said anything hateful or disrespectful. He was a mayo sandwich wrapped in another mayo sandwich.

It makes no sense and even less sense when you think about the myth.

So Christ is supposed to be god in the form of man, who came to earth to live as one of us, go through all of our struggles, die for our sins, and grant us a means to salvation. Well, if he was perfect then it takes a whole lot away from this narrative. How does a perfect person know what it’s like to be me? How does a perfect person have any sense of struggle? The whole narrative of god becoming man to redeem us is destroyed if we are to believe that he was perfect. I mean, when he had a nail smashed through his hand we are to believe he didn’t say, “HOLY FUCK THAT REALLY FUCKING HURT YOU BASTARD!?!?!” Cause I smashed my hand on a pallet today and I sure as hell cussed up a fucking storm.

angry-jesus
Bad Day Jesus is soooo much cooler.

If god became man then he should have become man, he should have had all our faults, dealt with all of our sins, and got caught wanking off by his mother. If he lived the life of a normal human being and then still chose to go through the rest of it, maybe then he might be worthy of admiration of some sort….though human sacrifice to appease god is really fucking weird and gross. It would still at least be something…as it is we have nothing more than a bad fairy tale.

 

 

 

Unmasking Doctrine

Unmasking Doctrine #3: The Deity of Christ: Virgin Birth

Good evening Heathens and Hell-bound friends and foes alike! For the last article in this series, click here:Unmasking Doctrine #2: One True God. So this article was going to originally be a lot longer but I felt like I might split it up a bit. There is a ton to cover with this one. The Assemblies of God state that they have 16 fundamental truths but the third truth is actually 6 truths in one…

Anyway the 3rd Fundamental Truth states…

The Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God.”

It then goes on to state that scripture declares several things about Jesus, tonight we will be talking about the first one, the virgin birth.

The Scriptures given to support this are:

picard gif.gif

First off I want to give the AoG church some props…

Why?

Because they make no mention of Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah 7:14 is the verse most often quoted as proving that the virgin birth was necessary in order for Jesus to actually be the Messiah that people say he is. However we now know that the book of Isaiah was mistranslated and did not actually mean a virgin but simply a woman of marriageable age. Not only that but the prophecy that Isaiah is speaking of is actually fulfilled by the prophet Isaiah in the very next chapter. He makes love to a prophetess, and she conceives.  I have no idea how Christians have believed this verse to point to the birth of Jesus other than the New Testament says it points to Jesus.  Why would the birth of a child hundreds of years later be proof to a current ruler that god is truly in control?

trump

Prophet: Hey Trump!

Trump: Yeah?

Prophet: I’m going to prove to you that god is real!

Trump: How are you going to do that?

Prophet: Hundreds of years after you’re dead a child will be born to a young woman!

Trump: Obviously you are bigly a man of god!

Do you see how this might not exactly make sense? So good job to the Assemblies for seeing this and not even mentioning the scripture in their statement of faith. Bravo!

However, the scriptures given are just as nonsensical…

For one, Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:31 are contradictory. In Matthew it says they called him Emmanuel and in Luke 1:31 it states they called him Jesus. Now I suppose this could simply be an example as Joe, also known as, Emmanuel, but I really don’t think that’s the case here. I actually think it’s simply a matter of one writer knowing the Old Testament better than the other. So in one, the author specifically gives the name quoted in Isaiah, in the other it skips that and just say, he was named Jesus, the Roman version of Yeshua, or Joshua. The reason I say this is that it supposedly is talking about the same situation. I really don’t think an angel would say, you’re going to call him Immanuel, but also call him Jesus the roman version of Yeshua….

i-am-not-the-messiah-im-a-very-naughty-boy

Luke 1:35 states…

The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. (NIV)

So the holy spirit will come(oooooohhhhh!!!!) on you, and your going to have a kid. He’s going to be called the son of god. However there is a footnote included with this scripture that states (Or : So the child to be born will be called holy.) This opens up a couple of issues.

alan_cumming_640
Alan Cumming…..get it….cumming….oh hohoho I am hilarious!

I’ve already had my little joke about the Holy Spirit cumming, but did you know that several Christian sects are much more in line with that idea? Some believe that god actually had sex with Mary and she conceived in that fashion.

For starters the term “sons of god” is used in the bible to just speak in general about mankind or it could also be angels. Generally it is used in reference to someone who is holy but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are divine. David was a son of god, Moses was a son of god,  neither of which were divine according to Christianity.

god

Secondly, it’s that foot note, it could simply reference the idea that Jesus was going to be a holy man. Lot’s of people in the bible were considered holy men and they did not need to be born of a virgin. Samuel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Elisha and Elijah were all holy men who had no requirement of being born of a virgin to be considered holy and work the “will of god” on earth.

What really gets me is that two gospels completely skip the virgin birth altogether. Why are Mark and John absent in this respect? If it was something crucial to the faith then wouldn’t the writers of these two gospels want to get it into their books as well? I’ve heard it said that possibly these writers didn’t know about the virgin birth, which is pretty surprising if they are writing to tell us all about this great guy Jesus. I mean most biographers spend a pretty decent amount of time on the childhood of their subject, only a piss poor biographer would write a book without understanding as much as possible about their subjects life.

Also not knowing means that there had to be many Christians who had no understanding of this doctrinal belief, which means it must not have be seen as important originally, or maybe even added later?

shrugged

Others will say that John and Mark had other reasons for writing their books and since god’s divine hand was on the making of the bible, he knew that they need not mention the virgin birth again, I mean it would just get really boring if the gospels didn’t contradict one or two hundred times…

Yet these were the works that many churches based their entire beliefs upon for hundreds of years until the canon of the bible was put together. This means that you had not one, but many versions of Christianity from the very beginning and how on earth are you going to be able to come into the picture hundreds of years later and dictate which version is the correct one…and yet that is exactly what they did.

Truth is there is very little to support the belief in the virgin birth, far less than the life, death and resurrection of Christ. If it were important you would think it would be mentioned much more, yet I believe the reason is that it actually wasn’t important to the early church and was simply used as a means of proselytizing later on. We know that Christianity adopted holidays and practices of foreign religions in order to spread more easily, so why not adopt characteristics of foreign gods in the idea of their own god. It makes conversion far easier if folks don’t have to learn a completely new set of characteristics.

To conclude I will leave you with a list of other gods that are said to be born of virgin birth, they vary to some degree in the method but the message is clear, sex is icky and it makes you icky!

virgin birth

 

 

 

Unmasking Doctrine

Unmasking Doctrine #2: One True God

Good morning heathens and hell-bound friends and foes. It’s time for another edition of Unmasking Doctrine, where I take to task the “16 Fundamental Truths” of the Assemblies of God. If you’d like to read the first article in this series, click here: Unmasking Doctrine #1: The Inspired Scriptures. Today we will be dealing with the second “truth” which according to ag.org is as follows…

“The one true God has revealed Himself as the eternally self-existent “I AM,” the Creator of heaven and earth and the Redeemer of mankind. He has further revealed Himself as embodying the principles of relationship and association as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

2.) Only One God Dude

So after this we are given a handful of scriptures.

  1. Deuteronomy 6:4
  2. Isaiah 43:10,11
  3. Matthew 28:19
  4. Luke 3:22

We are then treated to a bunch of mumbo jumbo and scriptures that try to explain the Trinity and the godhead. I’m going to skip these since they do as good of a job at explaining the trinity as my following example.

So let’s say you are craving an ice cream cone, you go to a shop and order a waffle cone, with two scoops of vanilla and chocolate sprinkles. Well, God is the cone, Jesus is the vanilla, and the holy spirit is the chocolate sprinkles. Now that we have that out-of-the-way let’s move on to why this really makes no sense.

cream

So the claims of the Christian church is that there is one true god, the Christian one. Yet many Christians also believe that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are other forms of god which would seem to nullify the claim that Christianity is monotheistic. In order to justify their claims the Christian church came up with the doctrine of the trinity, something that when you try to think about it, just confuses things more.

Now I do want to point out that there are numerous denominations that reject the trinity altogether. So the belief in the triune god is not even agreed upon by all Christians. However we are dealing specifically with the AoG’s and they are decidedly trinitarian. I preached on the trinity many times during my time as a minister and even so the idea never did and never will make sense to me.

shrugged

So anyway, let’s look at a passage of the Bible that seems to speak out against the belief in a three in one god.

“3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;”
-Exodus 20:3-5

God is jealous….I mean he’s the only one and it would seem that jealously would run counter to perfection but we see here that it states god’s a jealous guy.  He’s driving past your place at night just to make sure there are no calves in your driveway and no incense smoke coming out your chimney.

Contrary to what trinitarians want you to believe, the old testament has absolutely no scriptures that specifically point towards a triune god. The AoG even mention this in their statement about the one true god…

“The terms “Trinity” and “persons” as related to the Godhead, while not found in the Scriptures,…”

it then makes the claim…

…”are words in harmony with Scripture, whereby we may convey to others our immediate understanding of the doctrine of Christ respecting the Being of God, as distinguished from “gods many and lords many.””

So basically we invented this concept so that we can distinguish our three-in-one god from those dirty polytheists that believe in many gods or many lords. You don’t want to be confused with Hindus or Islamics… So in order to easily convey the Bibles strange contradictions about having only one god and yet having three, we will talk about something that confuses the matter even more.

One of the things that I have found most hilarious about these beliefs is how adamant congregants and ministers in the assemblies will defend these beliefs against other faiths. I’ve heard people make fun of Islam, claiming that Islam has both God and Mohammad, while stating that there is only one true god. No this isn’t actually true with Islam but we’re not going into Islam but just think of how hypocritical those beliefs are. Two is ridiculous but three is completely rational. Makes total sense…

So let’s talk a little bit the members of the Trinity…

angry-god-6849

1.) God the Father

This is that wrathful, genocidal, manical god from the old testament. He’s the guy that can’t create anything without it eventually turning on him. I mean think about it, he created both the angels and man only to have them both revolt against his wishes…
This is the god that spends the entirety of the old testament killing anyone who even thinks about looking in the direction of another god.  This god not only wants to send you to the fiery pits of hell, he will put a cigarette out on his skin and orgasm while he does it.

jesus_smokes

2.) God the Son

So god takes a sabbatical, tries yoga, and starts smoking pot. He then realizes that a lot of the things that he once advocated for are kinda batshit crazy. This god never kills anyone and especially doesn’t light people on fire for touching a box. Sure…he invents hell but with all the stuff he negates from the old testament, supposedly, it’s almost impossible to end up there. He has only one real rule….stop paying attention to all the worship laws from the old testament and instead believe in him. It’s going to get better because in order to save us from his dad, who is also him, he has to be killed as a sacrifice to appease himself in order that we can be forgiven for the stuff that he came up with to condemn us for. I think maybe he might have smoked a bit too much weed.

snake handlers

3.) God the Holy Spirit

Now this is the cool god that makes people speak gibberish, raises people from the dead, heals the sick, and cleans your windows. In some faiths he even allows you to hold poisonous snakes…This god takes front and center in the AoG and we will be speaking a lot more about him in later articles. In the assemblies without the help of this god you will not be able to do anything in the ministry at all. As it is taught, this god is the one that does all the work on earth now that wrathful god has taken a break and weed smoking god is taking his sweet ass time in returning.

So why three….why not 4? Couldn’t god’s wrath be a separate figure in the godhead? How about the god that does the dirty work, such as swallowing whole families and sending plagues? Why not make the devil a 5th figure in the godhead? I mean he did come from god and is allowed to do what he does with god’s authority…if you disagree with that check out a little book called Job.

Truth is, the reason for the Trinity in these beliefs is that it is a bad attempt at explaining an awful belief.

The last thing I want to mention here is that the Assemblies specifically refers to the godhead as “THE ADORABLE GODHEAD.” Isn’t he cute…I mean sure he killed millions, allowed rape and slavery, but gosh darn it he is just so darn adorable while doing it.

adorable.jpg

To continue on to part 3: click here:Unmasking Doctrine: The Deity of Christ: Virgin Birth

Unmasking Doctrine

Unmasking Doctrine #1: The Inspired Scriptures

Welcome back to my blog heathens and hell-bound friends and foes alike. Tonight we are starting a series that’s going to be a bit different. Unmasking Doctrine will explore the “fundamental truths” that were taught in the Pentecostal church that I am most experienced with, The Assemblies of God. The Assemblies of God Church has 16 fundamental truths that all Assemblies of God Churches must adhere. Their statement of faith even says “these are non-negotiable” and so if you were born and raised in the Assembly of God church you will find these things to be almost second nature. To simplify things I will refer to the Assemblies of God as simply the AoG from here on out.

So a little background if you are unfamiliar with the AoG…

The AoG is the largest of Pentecostal denominations in the US, claiming to have over 3 million members in the U.S. and over 60 million members worldwide. Started in 1914, in Hot Springs, Arkansas, the assemblies thank much of their beliefs to the Azuza street revivals, a revival occuring in 1906 Los Angeles. The Pentecostal movement itself owes their existence to these revivals. Anyway with over 13,000 churches in the US the AoG is pretty damn big. If you’d like to know more about this click here. I’ve also included this documentary if you’d like to know more about the Azusa Street revivals.

 

With that out-of-the-way, let’s get started…

According to ag.org the first fundamental truth is…

1.)The Scriptures Inspired

“The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct.”

It then lists several scriptures from which we can find this fundamental truth:

  1. 2 Timothy 3:15-17
  2. 1 Thessalonians 2:13
  3. 2 Peter 1:21

So basically what the AoG is trying to say is that if it is in the Bible, it’s inspired by god and so can be useful in learning how to live a good life and teach us how to be the best people we are meant to be. What many in the Assemblies fail to do though is actually read their bibles. If they did they would see that much of the Old Testament is absolutely atrocious, has no real moral value, and if someone did actually live their life according to its tenets they would most likely be a psychopath.

Another thing that the AoG doesn’t tend to teach its congregants is that the scriptures used to justify this “fundamental truth” are not speaking about the New Testament at all. The new testament wouldn’t even exist until long after these scriptures were written and were not commonly accepted by all Christians for another couple hundred years. These scriptures are not referring to the Christian bible at all but are actually referring to the Old Testament, because Christianity is an off-branch of the Jewish faith.

Now what makes this even more interesting is that most Pentecostals reject the Jewish faith almost entirely believing that the church has taken the place of the Jews as god’s chosen people. Sure they will praise Israel and do anything to see that Israel succeed but this is for an entirely separate reason that we won’t be getting into tonight. Even funnier is that the Jewish faith rejects almost the entirety of what the AoG teaches.

truth

The Scriptures Are True?

So if these scriptures were referring to the old testament claiming that it is inspired, true, and good then we must accept a few things.

  1. The Earth is Young.
  2. Snakes used to walk and talk.
  3. The Earth is flat
  4. The stars are either angel eyes or lights glued to the firmament.
  5. The firmament exists…
  6. We owe all pain, suffering, hard work and death to eating a piece of god’s fruit.
  7. Millions of people took a two-week journey that lasted over 40 years.
  8. Millions of people traveled for over 40 years without leaving a trace of evidence.
  9. A donkey talked to its owner.
  10. The devil and god made a bet over just how bad they could make one mans life.

I could go on but for brevity I’ll just state that the Old Testament is absolutely chock full of bullshit, bullshit that owes much of itself to older faiths that existed centuries before the books of the Old Testament. Going through the Old Testament is a lot like reading a book of Mother Goose’s Fairy Tales with slightly more murder, rape, and other awfulness.

Probably the most damning evidence against the claims of divine inspiration is just how wrong much of the old testament was about the physical world that we live in. Either it wasn’t divinely inspired or god is incredibly stupid. He doesn’t understand how rain works, doesn’t understand that space exists, doesn’t understand how animals get stripes, doesn’t understand the wind, doesn’t understand the evolution of language, doesn’t understand chromosomes or genetics, germs, reproduction, or a plethora of other topics. If this being does exist you wouldn’t trust it to make ramen on your stovetop let alone worship it for how wise and awesome it is.

Scripture is Good?

prophet

The second of this “fundamental truth” is that the scriptures are all for our good. Maybe they aren’t all true but maybe the inspiration comes in the form of character building ideals. So lets look at the things you have to accept as good and inspiring.

  1. God takes no personal responsibility.
  2. Slavery is divinely ordained.
  3. Beating your slave as long as they don’t die is fine.
  4. Selling your daughter into slavery is economic.
  5. Murdering disobedient children is cool.
  6. Stoning homosexuals is great.
  7. Burning Witches builds character.
  8. Murdering folks in a neighboring town is amazing.
  9. Sacrificing your child is cool if god ordains it. (Before you say he didn’t let Abraham follow through with it, I’m not referring to Abraham or Isaac)
  10. Killing an entire city because someone touched a magic box is completely reasonable.

Once again I could go on but I think you can see by just these examples that not all scripture is good and it definitely won’t build our character. We have a place for people who adhere to these types of things, it’s called prison. If you knew anyone who actually followed any of these things you’d run the opposite direction, luckily enough this brings me to my last point.

cherry

The Bible is Divinely Inspired….except when it’s not

What makes this first “fundamental truth” so hilarious is just how much of the Bible the AoG actually doesn’t follow. Mixed cloth is fine even though prohibited, gluttony is practiced by almost every evangelist and yet it is also prohibited, tattoos and piercings are common among the youth and young adults even though these are abominations to god. Eating a rare steak is cool, eating pork is cool, shellfish is cool, rabbit is cool…if there is one thing that congregants in the Assemblies are good at, its cooking anything and everything that moves.

This isn’t really an issue with just the AoG, Cherry picking is rampant in the Christian tradition, it’s the only real way that you can continue saying that the scriptures are all true and all good. I also realize what the argument against me will be, they will claim that I am also cherry picking but here’s the difference. They are the ones claiming that it is all inspired and good, if I can find one example where it isn’t inspired or good then it nullifies their initial claim.

Think of it like this:

A man has 100 cows and he claims that all of the cows are black. If I can prove that even one of his cows is white he can no longer state that they are all black. He could still say that most of his cows were black but the claim that they were all black would be untrue. Well, the AoG is saying the opposite, that the entire bible is white and I’m saying, no…look at all of the shades of grey and all the truly dark scriptures that I have found. Your claim is untrue and this is why.

False information is harmful….but don’t take my word for it…

pope.jpg

To continue on to part 2: click here:Unmasking Doctrine #2: One True God